Author Topic: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application  (Read 688806 times)

Online cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 800
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 148
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/(k≤P) 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: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 876
  • Likes Given: 9
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
  • Likes Given: 0
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: 735
  • Lethbridge, Alberta
  • Liked: 62
  • Likes Given: 106
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: 3039
  • Liked: 292
  • Likes Given: 1
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 »

Online cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 800
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 148
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1125 on: 02/22/2011 01:28 PM »

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.

Ok, I see where I went wrong on the assumption that these were meant to describe energy in the dielectric. Still, they are not valid--the equations he's using, as you point out using standard Newtonian mechanics, describe a CLOSED system (the spacecraft), in which electrical energy is put into a "black box"(an OPEN system) which is contained in the system. That is where he gets the thought experiment to the point where "kinetic energy of the craft is greater than the electrical energy put into it," in reality this is not possible.

It's nonsense, either it is a closed system or not. If it is closed, then the energy put into the device has to be accounted for on the other side of the equation some how (that would be in changes to the gravinertial potential of the rest of the universe), and it is not accounted for in this instance. If it is open, then clearly you cannot draw any conclusions about violation of conservation or energy.

« Last Edit: 02/22/2011 01:29 PM by cuddihy »

Online cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 800
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 148
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1126 on: 02/22/2011 01:40 PM »

 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...


Paul, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is entirely your own speculation as to the mechanism that would actually transfer momenergy from the dieletric to the rest of the universe. I don't believe Woodward has ever said one way or the other what mechanism he thinks exists for basic "less than 100%" mass fluctuations OR for the wormhole term. Correct?

Also, thanks for posting that paper. It really puts a bow on a lot of the criticisms. It's exactly the "from the basics" exploration of mass fluctuations and what an experiment would actually present that I had been looking for.

I never thought before about the problems of a speed-of-light mass fluctuation propagation vs. the speed-of-sound propagation of an oscillating acceleration like a PZT stack, but it makes perfect sense.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 876
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1127 on: 02/22/2011 05:07 PM »

 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...


Paul, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is entirely your own speculation as to the mechanism that would actually transfer momenergy from the dieletric to the rest of the universe. I don't believe Woodward has ever said one way or the other what mechanism he thinks exists for basic "less than 100%" mass fluctuations OR for the wormhole term. Correct?

Also, thanks for posting that paper. It really puts a bow on a lot of the criticisms. It's exactly the "from the basics" exploration of mass fluctuations and what an experiment would actually present that I had been looking for.

I never thought before about the problems of a speed-of-light mass fluctuation propagation vs. the speed-of-sound propagation of an oscillating acceleration like a PZT stack, but it makes perfect sense.


Cuddihy:

"Paul, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is entirely your own speculation as to the mechanism that would actually transfer momenergy from the dieletric to the rest of the universe."

You are correct, my statements in my last post at this forum are my own speculations, but speculations based on Woodward's already published "Twists of Fate" paper, see attached, and Woodwardís yet to be published Stargate paper that was written for the SPESIF-2011 Conference, (http://ias-spes.org/SPESIF.html), then withdrawn at the last minute after Woodward and the SPESIF editor (Tony Robertson) got into a tiff over author's rights.  Both of these papers examine the possibility of using the 1960 ADM (Arnowitt, Deser, and Misner) model of subatomic particles that model all subatomic particles as being composed of a very large, but finite negative G/I exotic mass dressed by the ambient G/I field into the small positive G/I mass observed in the labs.  Woodward uses the ADM subatomic model for his current explanation of how the M-E wormhole term may operate and be expressed and controlled in the real world.
Star-Drive

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Liked: 292
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1128 on: 02/22/2011 05:12 PM »
@cuddihy:  I didn't say the equations described a closed system; I said they were valid.  And they ARE valid, for the portion of the system he's describing.

Where he's gone wrong - the ONLY place he's gone wrong - is in assuming that he's describing a closed system.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 876
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1129 on: 02/22/2011 05:37 PM »
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.

93143:

"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."

Wow!  Thatís a brilliant observation that I had never thought of before.  The Far Off Active Mass (FOAM) particles of the causally connected universe will have a Gaussian distribution spread in its kinetic energy magnitudes as a total population ranging from the very slow to just under light speed relative to the velocity vector of the accelerated vehicle in question.  However the kinetic energy distribution maximum should peak like a black body radiator and since the background temperature of the universe is ~2.7K, there isnít going to be a lot of fast moving ions to play with.  However as you've speculated here, any M-E device operating at frequency X may resonantly couple with the cosmological Gaussian kinetic energy spectrum closest to itself.  It just wonít be able to interact with all of it. The proof of this idea will of course have to come experimentally but itís still good catch.

As to GoatGuy's constant power/constant acceleration model, yes, itís just a Newtonian closed system analysis that has to yield conservation of energy breaking results if all the developed kinetic energy of the local system is not supplied by the local power supply in the vehicle.  However by pointing out that the electric or M-E motor's back-EMF or its equivalent in the M-E developed by its accelerated frame of reference thatís what balances the energy books in this closed system, GoatGuy provided a service to all of us, IMO.  However, he is still not willing to accept the possibility that through the use of the M-E wormhole term that we may have finally found a way to extract energy directly from the cosmological G/I field and its source, which is his privilege and right.  Itís still up to Woodward and his followers to experimentally prove that the M-E is what it claims to be, and is the open-ended energy extraction system interested folks like to think about its many uses, if doable. 

Update:  Added FOAM M-E Interaction Chart
« Last Edit: 02/23/2011 04:58 AM by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

Offline D_Dom

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 458
  • Liked: 157
  • Likes Given: 106
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1130 on: 02/22/2011 08:27 PM »
Thanks for that, I always find more to think about here than I comprehend. Now to find an inductive counter-top stove power supply. Can I count on you for some design assistance Paul? Having recently finished my EET degree I now have time for some hands-on experimentation. Nothing clarifies my stream of consciousness like building it from the materials at hand and seeing if I can make it work as predicted.
Space is not merely a matter of life or death, it is considerably more important than that!

Offline MP99

Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1131 on: 02/22/2011 10:11 PM »
If the thruster is interacting with "Far Off Active Mass", what is the impact on that mass?

Cosmologists postulate a "dark energy" that began accelerating expansion of the universe about 5 billion years ago (IIRC). Could that be evidence that some advanced civilisation began exploiting M-E to such an extent that it affected the universe at a cosmological level?

cheers, Martin

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1132 on: 02/22/2011 10:30 PM »
If the thruster is interacting with "Far Off Active Mass", what is the impact on that mass?

Cosmologists postulate a "dark energy" that began accelerating expansion of the universe about 5 billion years ago (IIRC). Could that be evidence that some advanced civilisation began exploiting M-E to such an extent that it affected the universe at a cosmological level?

cheers, Martin

This is just as speculative, but Paul mentioned in one of his presentations that this G/I field could be used for instantaneous communications which are not electromagnetic in nature. If this is true, then it could explain Fermi's paradox (The great silence).

Online cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 800
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 148
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1133 on: 02/23/2011 01:37 AM »

This is just as speculative, but Paul mentioned in one of his presentations that this G/I field could be used for instantaneous communications which are not electromagnetic in nature. If this is true, then it could explain Fermi's paradox (The great silence).

Ok, I'll bite: how? Gravity and mass fluctuations propagate at light speed. The 'faster than light' observed effect of inertial reaction is caused by the fluctuations propagating fwd& bkwds through time along the lightcone, an effect that only works because the initial mass and the inertial reaction are symmetrical. And by that I mean they originate in the same mass at the same location in space-time. So how does this in any way allow FTL communication that is not symmetrical?
« Last Edit: 02/23/2011 02:06 AM by cuddihy »

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1134 on: 02/23/2011 01:41 AM »
if it can explain Fermiīs Paradox (the great silence) it doesnt explain the Fermi Paradox on the question of why they havent contacted us, because its probable there would be hundreds if not thousands of civilizations on the Milky Way alone using ME Drives. In fact, we may have arrived too late to claim any other planet to us.

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1135 on: 02/23/2011 01:44 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/(k≤P) 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.

lol, it seems you wrote it directly to GoatGuy, expecting me to copy your answer and post there. Gee, you could cut me the trouble and post directly there, haha.


Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1136 on: 02/23/2011 01:48 AM »
its just too bad GoatGuy didnt had the trouble to come to this thread to discuss.

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1137 on: 02/23/2011 02:18 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"?

The mass fluctuations are due to two things, as I understand it:

a) changes in the relativistic velocity of particles in the system. When electrons move through a circuit, they move at differing velocities depending on the resistance of the material they are moving through, as well as the gradient of the charge and field potentials. These velocities are typically a significant fraction of the speed of light, and as a result, the mass of the electron will vary as its speed varies (faster = heavier, slower = lighter).

b) exposure of the bare rest mass of the electron. According to the theoretical work Woodward describes in his papers, if you have actually read them, he says that the atomic mass we commonly ascribe to the electron (as I recall 0.0001 Atomic Units) isn't actually its bare mass, but a sort of average mass we measure from outside the electron's quantum cloud that is actually a balance between the negative bare rest mass of the actual electron and the gravinertial mass of the FOAM. Thus an electron in actuality is the exotic matter that is sought for in the physics that describe Alcubierre type warp drives and wormhole theories of Kip Thorne, the trick is to get the electron to expose this negative mass. This is, as I understand it, where the wormhole term in the equation comes in.

Now, note that according to relativity, the electron is heavier the faster it travels, and lighter the slower it is. Simplistically speaking, one can say that the 0.0001 atomic units that is commonly ascribed to the atomic mass of the electron may just be an average mass based on the average speed at which electrons have had their mass measured. It would be interesting to see what the mass of electrons are if you could bring them to absolute zero in some sort of electron-only bose-einstein condensate. I suspect that this is where you will easily see its negative mass.
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1138 on: 02/23/2011 02:22 AM »


Ok, I'll bite: how? Gravity and mass fluctuations propagate at light speed. The 'faster than light' observed effect of inertial reaction is caused by the fluctuations propagating fwd& bkwds through time along the lightcone, an effect that only works because the initial mass and the inertial reaction are symmetrical. And by that I mean they originate in the same mass at the same location in space-time. So how does this in any way allow FTL communication that is not symmetrical?

I don't know exactly. I'm just repeating what I've read in one of Paul's presentations. It seems I can't attach a ppt file, so I've posted the link at the bottom of my post.

Relevant part:

"If the Momenergy transmitted and received from the FOAM is truly instantaneous, then a means is at hand to implement an instantaneous communications link to any-where and any-when in this universe.

Since this G/I communication link is via non-E&M means, and since normal metals and dielectrics do not shield G/I disturbances, these G/I communication links could be received underwater or on the other side of the world"

If this is true, doesn't it have implications for Fermi's paradox?

http://www.cphonx.net/weffect/Stair-Steps-to-Stars-5-6.ppt

Online cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 800
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 148
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1139 on: 02/23/2011 02:30 AM »


lol, it seems you wrote it directly to GoatGuy, expecting me to copy your answer and post there. Gee, you could cut me the trouble and post directly there, haha.



Sorry aceshigh, NextBigFuture does bad things to my IE. I try to stay away.

Tags: