Author Topic: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application  (Read 354516 times)

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1110 on: 02/18/2011 05:56 AM »


I've seen this sort of criticism before, typically it is because they are using bad equations that form a false conjecture, a straw man, with which to debunk the idea, rather than using the actual equations that Woodward has published and which are actual physics compliant with general relativity.

However the most simple explanation for why, even if this guys equations were accurate, it doesnt result in a perpetual motion machine of a type that violates conservation laws: because the Mach Effect treats the universe as the system, not just some localized device.

There is no net conservation violation, therefore, no perpetuum mobile.

Yeah, I don't understand why people keep perpetuating the idea that Woodward's concept violates conservation of momentum when it clearly relies on it (albeit not in an obvious way).

I hope Paul responds to this criticism.

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2720
  • Liked: 102
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1111 on: 02/18/2011 07:02 AM »
If we had wormhole technology and wanted to send one end of the worm hole to another star we could use the wormhole to provide fuel for the spaceship. That way we wouldn't have to carry any fuel and that mass wouldn't work against us.

True.  But this sort of presupposes that we've developed wormhole technology without going through field propulsion first.

If Mach-effect is how wormholes work, it would be a much, much better idea under almost any circumstances to simply use M-E thrusters rather than wasting some hapless planet's atmosphere...

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 572
  • Liked: 1
  • TX/USA
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1112 on: 02/18/2011 04:53 PM »
Sith:

You might be interested in reading Woodward's latest paper when it's published in Foundations of Physics later this year.  It's about how the M-E can be applied to the Warp Drive and Stargate problem discussed in this video.  It's 26 pages long and it covers some new and interesting ground on how to make warp drives and stargates using the M-E's wormhole and higher terms to generate the required amount of exotic or negative G/I mass needed to create same.  And no, Jupiter sized exotic G/I masses will not be required for that estimate is a worst case.  It turns out it could be much, much less...

Speaking of warp drives,

In the latest paper by Marc Millis (attached below), it is indicated that warp drives are far less energy efficient than wormholes. For example, 10^46 joules of negative energy would be required to open a wormhole of a 100m diameter. If that same amount is applied to the formation of a warp bubble of the same diameter, it would result in a speed of only 1% the speed of light. What I find most interesting about warp drive is the ultimate speed limit as defined by Richard Obousy's approach of the manipulation of extra dimensions: an astounding max velocity of c*10^32. According to Obousy, at this velocity you could cross the known universe in 10^-15 seconds!

However, if the efficiency calculations are correct, then I guess wormholes are the way to go; if it's possible that is. Personally, I've always loved the idea of warp drive. It's sad to see it go.

P.S.

Paul,

Do you know how Dr. Harold White's QVF/MHD conjecture experiments are coming along? I'm having difficulty finding any publications on his idea. So far I've only been able to find material from the STAIF 2007 conference.

GeeGee:

The last known paper on Harold (Sonny) White's QVF/MHD conjecture was published in the AIP sponsored STAIF-2007 Conference.  The Abstract and url to same is below:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AIPC..880..987W

""Inertial Mass Dependency on Local Vacuum Fluctuation Mean Free Path"
White, H. G.

SPACE TECHNOLOGY AND APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL FORUM-STAIF 2007: 11th Conf Thermophys.Applic.in Micrograv.; 24th Symp Space Nucl.Pwr.Propulsion; 5th Conf Hum/Robotic Techn & Vision Space Explor.; 5th Symp Space Coloniz.; 4th Symp New Frontrs & Future Con. AIP Conference Proceedings, Volume 880, pp. 987-994 (2007).

The intent of this narrative is to propose a relationship between the vacuum energy density, light-radius of the universe, and the plank force. The equation is proposed to infer a connection between inertial mass and an observer's light horizon. This horizon is conjectured to be the mean free path for vacuum fluctuations as seen by an observer in deep space. This fundamental relationship will then be derived from a gravitational wave equation. Once this has been derived, the results will be extended to derive an equation to calculate the effect local matter has on the mean free path of a vacuum fluctuation, and hence the local vacuum energy density (vacuum fluctuation pileup). The paper will conclude by applying the theoretical framework to calculate expected thrust signals in an externally applied ExB application meant to induce plasma drift in the vacuum fluctuations. Current experimental results from domestic and international labs will be addressed.

Keywords: Mathematical and relativistic aspects of cosmology, Quantum cosmology"

An experimental test on this QVF/MHD conjecture was pursued after this paper was published by Sonny White and me, but alas we ran into vacuum plasma glow discharge issues that we could not resolve with the funding at hand.  So the experiment had to terminated with no results published, for we never got the resonant cavity's ac voltage high enough to see any of the predicted effects.

PS:  I wouldn't put too much stock in the Millis paper's warp dirve energy magnitude conclusions, for the rule set governing this pure GRT based wormhole and warpdrive energy calculation is anything but complete at this stage of the game.  We have to wait for the arrival of a vetted Quantum Gravity theory that also includes Woodward's work to perform such calculations with any degree of confidence, or just try to build a stargate and see what happens.  However, I'd rather do that experiment on the Moon, or better yet Mars in case something really bad happens...
 
Best,

Paul M.
« Last Edit: 02/18/2011 05:02 PM by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 606
  • Liked: 48
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1113 on: 02/18/2011 06:01 PM »
Reader GoatGuy at Nextbigfuture has this to say on the main ME conjecture:

Quote
FINALLY, the Mach Effect itself poses serious violations-of-physics problems, which most likely obviate its existence. Imagine for the moment that two equations of MachEffect vehicles are true:

A = ΔV = KME PELECTRIC / M
V = KME PELECTRIC T / M

EKINETIC = MV
EKINETIC = M ( KME PELECTRIC T / M )
EKINETIC = KPT/M

Which is to say the kinetic energy rises per the square of time ... since the K and E and M are constants. But, the energy put into the system is linear over time. Now - connect the dots - and you'll realize that when T = (2M)/(KP) ... the amount of electric energy input to the Mach device equals the amount of kinetic energy of the craft itself. After that, the craft's energy exceeds the electrical energy input...
FACTOR                      VALUE   UNITS       NOTES
-------------  ------------------------  ------------  -----------------------------------------------------------------
Mass                       10,000.00   kg             10 ton craft
K                                        0.01   N/W           low, but real conversion factor
P                        9,800,000.00    W              power needed for "1 G"
2M/KP                           20.41    sec            sec, from dead stop, to kinetic energy exceeding electrical imput
A                                         9.80   m/s          Acceleration of craft
V                                    200.00   m/s           velocity at cut-over where kinetic exceeds electrical
E                          200,000,000   J                Kinetic energy (== electrical input) at that point

It doesn't matter one whit whether the ME force (K) is really weak, or really strong - the equation works out to some time T where the kinetic energy of the moving vessel exceeds the energy actually put into it. After that point, it is a perpetual-motion machine (conceptually).

Because it's beyond me, I'm copying it here in case this wasn't already covered earlier in this thread.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/02/making-stargates-science-of-absurdly.html#comment-150634322

I've seen this sort of criticism before, typically it is because they are using bad equations that form a false conjecture, a straw man, with which to debunk the idea, rather than using the actual equations that Woodward has published and which are actual physics compliant with general relativity.

However the most simple explanation for why, even if this guys equations were accurate, it doesnt result in a perpetual motion machine of a type that violates conservation laws: because the Mach Effect treats the universe as the system, not just some localized device.

There is no net conservation violation, therefore, no perpetuum mobile.

The equations are not accurate, it is a simple restatement of the argument that was already covered in this thread 6 months ago.

The equations are incorrect because they are falsely constrained solutions to the ME equations Woodward derives. If you constrain mass to be constant, then yes, you get this result for these equations--but if you falsely constrain mass to be constant, than inertial fluctuations are obviously precluded as well.

So it's a variation of disproving the means(ME) by arbitrarily precluding the stated required conditions(variability of inertial mass) and working backwards to make it look scientific.

Dishonest line of argument. You can't disprove the statement "a+b=c" by starting from the assumption that "b" doesn't exist.

That's called "asking a different question.."
« Last Edit: 02/18/2011 06:06 PM by cuddihy »

Offline kurt9

  • Member
  • Posts: 31
  • Liked: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1114 on: 02/18/2011 08:45 PM »
I think the Millis wormhole vs. warp drive energy calculations come from Puthoff, Davis, and Haisch. At least this is where I saw it for the first time.



Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 572
  • Liked: 1
  • TX/USA
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1115 on: 02/18/2011 08:48 PM »
Folks:

Goatguy apparently doesn't like his mass to fluctuate, I guess because Newton's three laws didn't mention this possibility.  However, when you take Newtons third law and apply Einsteins GRT and Sciama's inertial induction ideas to it, mass fluctuations fall out naturally whenever the required conditions for same are met per Dr. Woodward's Mach-Effect (M-E) derivation.  And those conditions for generating mass fluctuaions are that an energy storing media like a capacitor dielectric has to be bulk accelerated relative to the distant stars, while concurrently undergoing a large power flux through this energy storing media.  That in a nutshell is what the M-E is all about.  And so far the M-E derivation has met all comers and has not been found wanting...

Best,
Paul M.

PS: Some one at Next Big Future requested Woodward's Mach-Effect Derivation paper so it is appeded to this note.
« Last Edit: 02/21/2011 02:55 PM by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

Offline BarryKirk

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 252
  • Liked: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1116 on: 02/21/2011 05:35 PM »
Wow, just finished reading the report... This is excellent news....

Cart before horse, but here's hoping for Star Trek style impulse engines someday... maybe soon...

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 206
  • Liked: 23
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1117 on: 02/21/2011 06:32 PM »
since GoatGuy didnt came here, and PaulMarch didnt went there, I am bridgeing the two topics by copying and pasteing the arguments in the two threads.

I invited GoatGuy to this thread, since it would be better than all this copy/paste


Quote from: GoatGuy
I'm not sure I should thank you for 'cutting and pasting', but your intentions are pure, no doubt.

Got something for you - the mass fluctuations absolutely do not matter external to the Mach Effect system. It would be one thing if the mass of the ME components was diminishing, and remaining smaller/diminished after the driver is turned off. Then - all would be well. Mass, converted to energy. If the mass of the components return to their original mass, then ... what happens to all the conserved kinetic energy that was imparted to them? Do they suddenly decelerate, again conserving the energy invested in the device? If yes ... then again "we're good", and I'll stop debating the issue.

If not - if the device retains its velocity (which is at the very core of the purported and imagined uses for the drive, should it ever become practical), and moreover, if the host apparatus ("space ship", or "flywheel", or "lab bench pendulum" or whatever) retains the kinetic energy imparted to it at constant acceleration for constant ME device input power, then after exactly 2M/(kP) seconds, the whole thing - space ship, flywheel, maglev train, you name it - the whole thing has more kinetic energy than was invested in the ME propulsion device itself.

Thereafter, one can tap the whole for real, useable power, and we can get rid of virtually all nuclear, thermodynamic, hydroelectric and climactic (wind, sun) power sources. Really.

NOTE - to those who continue to cite that "Goatguy doesn't like..." this is not the case at all. I'm merely taking an exception to one huge - absolutely titanically huge - problem. Constant acceleration, regardless of velocity, for constant power invested in the Mach Effect propulsion device. I don't care if it has gerbils, spheres of unobtanium, plates of basalt, or extra-dark roast Sumatra coffee beans inside, and whether they change mass, turn colors, sing Dixie or have dark sexual liasons inside. Viewed as a "black box", the box violates the underlying principle of conservation (and equivalence) of energy - electrical and kinetic.

OR SOMEONE will just up and admit that the device has a special property that makes it seem like it is violating the energy/kinetic dynamic ... but really it is (as someone else said) "catching the gravinertial force that pervades the whole universe, like a sail on a sailboat catches the wind". Very eloquent and expressive! If this is so, then is the "wind" directional? It should be! Indeed, it should be easily measurable to have diurnal and seasonal, and latitudinal and longitudinal variation.

So again, instead of continually citing that GoatGuy is bringing up long-disproven (or simply battered-to-death) arguments, just take it on one more time, from the ground-floor up, so that all our good readers can see the debate, instead of the results of some other debate. The results won't be the same.

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1118 on: 02/21/2011 08:01 PM »
Interesting debate. I'd like to see what Woodward himself has to say about GoatGuy's and Sebtel's argument.

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 206
  • Liked: 23
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1119 on: 02/21/2011 08:04 PM »
I guess the arguments are simple enough that StarDrive can give a good reply.

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 606
  • Liked: 48
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1120 on: 02/22/2011 12:41 AM »
since GoatGuy didnt came here, and PaulMarch didnt went there, I am bridgeing the two topics by copying and pasteing the arguments in the two threads.

I invited GoatGuy to this thread, since it would be better than all this copy/paste


Quote from: GoatGuy
I'm not sure I should thank you for 'cutting and pasting', but your intentions are pure, no doubt.

Got something for you - the mass fluctuations absolutely do not matter external to the Mach Effect system. It would be one thing if the mass of the ME components was diminishing, and remaining smaller/diminished after the driver is turned off. Then - all would be well. Mass, converted to energy. If the mass of the components return to their original mass, then ... what happens to all the conserved kinetic energy that was imparted to them? Do they suddenly decelerate, again conserving the energy invested in the device? If yes ... then again "we're good", and I'll stop debating the issue.

If not - if the device retains its velocity (which is at the very core of the purported and imagined uses for the drive, should it ever become practical), and moreover, if the host apparatus ("space ship", or "flywheel", or "lab bench pendulum" or whatever) retains the kinetic energy imparted to it at constant acceleration for constant ME device input power, then after exactly 2M/(kP) seconds, the whole thing - space ship, flywheel, maglev train, you name it - the whole thing has more kinetic energy than was invested in the ME propulsion device itself.

Thereafter, one can tap the whole for real, useable power, and we can get rid of virtually all nuclear, thermodynamic, hydroelectric and climactic (wind, sun) power sources. Really.



Most would not consider that as a 'drawback', but reality always has a few wrinkles-- after all, the theoretical physics tells us that all our energy needs should be easily met by nuclear fission alone, yet we choose less efficient methods for most needs all the same-- no one really knows what engineering difficulties might present themselves with trying to use ME to generate power.

It's not by itself an argument that it doesn't work though.

Quote

NOTE - to those who continue to cite that "Goatguy doesn't like..." this is not the case at all. I'm merely taking an exception to one huge - absolutely titanically huge - problem. Constant acceleration, regardless of velocity, for constant power invested in the Mach Effect propulsion device. I don't care if it has gerbils, spheres of unobtanium, plates of basalt, or extra-dark roast Sumatra coffee beans inside, and whether they change mass, turn colors, sing Dixie or have dark sexual liasons inside. Viewed as a "black box", the box violates the underlying principle of conservation (and equivalence) of energy - electrical and kinetic.

OR SOMEONE will just up and admit that the device has a special property that makes it seem like it is violating the energy/kinetic dynamic ... but really it is (as someone else said) "catching the gravinertial force that pervades the whole universe, like a sail on a sailboat catches the wind". Very eloquent and expressive! If this is so, then is the "wind" directional? It should be! Indeed, it should be easily measurable to have diurnal and seasonal, and latitudinal and longitudinal variation.

So again, instead of continually citing that GoatGuy is bringing up long-disproven (or simply battered-to-death) arguments, just take it on one more time, from the ground-floor up, so that all our good readers can see the debate, instead of the results of some other debate. The results won't be the same.

It's much simpler than that goatguy--the statement of Mach effect is that it is getting energy from the background gravinertial field of the observeable universe. That is the description, period. There is no way to describe it in smaller boundaries. So refusing to allow that it is changing the gravinertial potential of the rest of the universe ( as Woodward says of the Far Off Active Matter) is the point of disagreement. If you want to draw the system box smaller than the physics says you ought, then fine, but you're doing opinion, not science.

If you can tell me how to derive the equations you assume are valid without pulling m out of the integral, I'll take a second look. Till then, you're pontificating without evidence.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 572
  • Liked: 1
  • TX/USA
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1121 on: 02/22/2011 04:24 AM »
Folks:

You need to cut some slack for GoatGuy since he was just pointing out in his strawman example that the energy books don't balance as shown, which is true.  Why, because that example did not inlcude the always present Back-EMF reaction in any electric motor, be it a linear maglev electric motor or an M-E impulse driven electric motor.  In other words, when operating an M-E motor in impulse term mode only, i.e, when it is producing only symmetrical +/- mass fluctuatons during each driven cycle, all the energy required for accelerating and decelerating the vehicle has to come from the local onboard the vehicle power supply.  No free lunch, but we still get to use the space vacuum as a maglev like reaction rail that doesn't need the expenditure of rocket propellant to produce thrust.

Now it is only when the M-E wormhole term's asymmetrical negative going mass fluctuations become dominate that the M-E device can start to harvest the gravinertial (G/I) field energy of the causally connected uninverse by using the leverage supplied by the 1/2 cycle to 1/2 cycle asymmetry in these negative going mass fluctuations that the M-E wormhole term supplies.  There is still a lot of debate as to where this M-E wormhole term derived energy comes from, but it appears to be wrapped up in the structure of the subatomic particles that make up the accelerated dielectric in the M-E engine and their interactions with the G/I field.  However we are effectively talking about transient amounts of 100% conversion of mass into energy (E= m*c^2) during the peak of each negative going mass excursion...
Star-Drive

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1122 on: 02/22/2011 04:50 AM »
Paul,

This is unrelated to the discussion at hand but what does Woodward have to say about zero-point energy & the apparent magnitude of it?

Bernard Haisch & Garret Moddel released a patent in 2008 for "extracting energy from the vacuum" which has yielded some rather interesting experimental results (although still quite inconclusive.) If they do somehow manage to extract this energy (I highly doubt it), how would this be explained by Woodward's theory?

Offline scienceguy

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 531
  • Liked: 8
  • Lethbridge, Alberta
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1123 on: 02/22/2011 05:13 AM »
Folks:

{snip}

Now it is only when the M-E wormhole term's asymmetrical negative going mass fluctuations become dominate that the M-E device can start to harvest the gravinertial (G/I) field energy of the causally connected uninverse by using the leverage supplied by the 1/2 cycle to 1/2 cycle asymmetry in these negative going mass fluctuations that the M-E wormhole term supplies.  There is still a lot of debate as to where this M-E wormhole term derived energy comes from, but it appears to be wrapped up in the structure of the subatomic particles that make up the accelerated dielectric in the M-E engine and their interactions with the G/I field.  However we are effectively talking about transient amounts of 100% conversion of mass into energy (E= m*c^2) during the peak of each negative going mass excursion...


So let me see if I understand this correctly: you're saying that every mass turns into a tiny bit of negative mass every once in a while? This is the "negative going mass excursion"?
e^(pi)i = -1

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2720
  • Liked: 102
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1124 on: 02/22/2011 08:50 AM »
There seems to be a lot of unnecessary handwaving going on here, and I suspect it may be damaging the reputation of the M-E effort.  I'm sorry, but...

Star-Drive, either you're wrong or I've utterly misunderstood how M-E thrusters are supposed to behave in a practical sense.  Please read carefully:

It doesn't matter at all what regime the thruster is operating in.  It doesn't matter how the thruster works, so long as it does.  If it can thrust indefinitely without expending propellant or experiencing significant thrust decay, then eventually, the kinetic energy of the vehicle will exceed the total energy input to the thruster, because the former is proportional to v^2 and the latter is proportional to v.

This can happen because the drive is reacting off the rest of the universe, and that is what GoatGuy is missing.  That is how the drive must work in order to conserve momentum, and if it does work this way, then it can be shown that (a) momentum is conserved universally, (b) energy can be conserved universally depending on how exactly the device is supposed to work (if it does work, I rather suspect it will be in such a way as to conserve energy...), and (c) the thruster can, in principle, be used to harvest energy from the rest of the universe, appearing locally to be an over-unity device.

The example could just as easily be cast as a flywheel with a set of M-E thrusters on the edge, rotating it.  At some steady-state angular velocity, the power required to run the thrusters could be completely supplied by a generator hooked up to the flywheel.  Past that speed, you get net power.  It doesn't matter what the thrust efficiency of the thrusters is; as long as it's above zero it is possible, in principle, to specify sufficiently large values of radius and angular velocity for the flywheel such that hooking it to a generator would yield more power than the thrusters consume.


The key question, I think, is this:  what is the thruster pushing on?  What is the relative velocity of the Far-Off Active Mass?  On Earth, if you drive a car you're pushing on the ground to go faster, and it's very efficient, but it's not over-unity because the ground is at a set reference velocity and doesn't move to help you along.  But if an M-E thruster is pushing on distant matter, there's no substantial difference between 0 km/s and 1 km/s, because the matter in the universe is flying all over the place.  And it seems to me that in order to achieve a measurable thrust efficiency, an M-E thruster would have to preferentially interact with matter near its own velocity.  Any way you slice it, the conditions seen by the thruster do not change markedly as the vehicle accelerates.  In other words, the ground moves with the car.

It's much simpler than that goatguy--the statement of Mach effect is that it is getting energy from the background gravinertial field of the observeable universe. That is the description, period. There is no way to describe it in smaller boundaries. So refusing to allow that it is changing the gravinertial potential of the rest of the universe ( as Woodward says of the Far Off Active Matter) is the point of disagreement. If you want to draw the system box smaller than the physics says you ought, then fine, but you're doing opinion, not science.

Yeah, basically.

Quote
If you can tell me how to derive the equations you assume are valid without pulling m out of the integral, I'll take a second look. Till then, you're pontificating without evidence.

The equations he assumes are valid are valid.  It's simple Newtonian mechanics, applied not to the dielectric but to the entire spacecraft.  In fact, the thruster can be assumed to be off at both endpoints of his analysis, so it literally can't affect the equations at all.  All this talk about back-EMF and mass fluctuations has nothing whatsoever to do with the question.
« Last Edit: 02/22/2011 10:20 AM by 93143 »

Tags: