Author Topic: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application  (Read 688654 times)

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1180 on: 02/28/2011 02:13 AM »

Thirdly, it seems to me the most plausible answer to the Fermi question is that we are alone (at least in the Milky Way).

The Kepler results actually suggest this. Although it has found many planets, even the Earth-sized ones found are much less dense than rocky planets. The preliminary data suggests that even small planets tend to be miniature gas or ice planets rather than rocky planets. If rocky planets are rare, complex life is rare as well.


There is a very controversial theory first proposed by retired NASA chemist Professor Oliver Manual that attempts to explain this by suggesting that the Sun and the planets are the end products of a supernova star explosion rather than a normal evolution star. So the theory goes the Sun is a Neutron Star core surrounded by a molten core of Iron topped up with a plasma of Hydrogen and Helium, make of that what you will !! ;)

http://www.thesunisiron.com/
http://www.omatumr.com/
http://www.omatumr.com/papers.html
http://www.omatumr.com/PapersArxiv.html


Manuel's theory is bunk. He's been drummed out of every serious scientific forum I've ever seen him appear on. He and some of his lackey's tried to spam up the Wattsupwiththat.com blog til he got told to take a hike for trying to hijack every thread with his bunk.
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 aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1181 on: 02/28/2011 02:31 AM »
Dyson Spheres and other megastructures were made under the limitless growth paradigm where it looked like industrial economies were just going to keep on growing indefinitely - due to population growth. Europe and Japan show that that's not going to happen as a given. Our own civilisation will cap growth at 12 billion.

Advanced civilisations will do who knows what. They may just virtualise themselves and live in a small lump of computronium.

Limitations on population growth do not imply a concurrent limitation on demand for computational resources. In fact, the more expensive it becomes to build and operate meat-ware computers (people) versus non-meatware, the faster the demand for computational resources will grow. Dyson spheres, matrioshka brains, etc are not about human overpopulation, they are about maximizing the capture of solar power from one's home star, with which to power computation.

Population growth on Earth is limited only because resources on Earth are limited: space, water, food, energy, etc. When you open the resource system, limitations on population growth are eliminated. That's the whole point of space colonization, or had you not gotten that point?


not really. Population growth diminishes REGARDLESS of resources availability, because of a miriad of causes, mostly associated with increased productivity, women independence, etc. You could in fact say the countries most starved of resources are the ones with largest growth rates.


Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1182 on: 02/28/2011 04:02 AM »
I have a question about FTL as it pertains to Woodward's theory:

If the wormhole term can generate truly exotic matter to create warp bubbles & wormholes...it still doesn't get around the issue of causality. The physicist motto for FTL is "Causality, Relativity, FTL: choose two." So even if we can generate wormholes, how are we supposed to walk through them without violating causality?

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1645
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 121
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1183 on: 02/28/2011 06:53 AM »
Dyson Spheres and other megastructures were made under the limitless growth paradigm where it looked like industrial economies were just going to keep on growing indefinitely - due to population growth. Europe and Japan show that that's not going to happen as a given. Our own civilisation will cap growth at 12 billion.

Advanced civilisations will do who knows what. They may just virtualise themselves and live in a small lump of computronium.

Limitations on population growth do not imply a concurrent limitation on demand for computational resources. In fact, the more expensive it becomes to build and operate meat-ware computers (people) versus non-meatware, the faster the demand for computational resources will grow. Dyson spheres, matrioshka brains, etc are not about human overpopulation, they are about maximizing the capture of solar power from one's home star, with which to power computation.

Population growth on Earth is limited only because resources on Earth are limited: space, water, food, energy, etc. When you open the resource system, limitations on population growth are eliminated. That's the whole point of space colonization, or had you not gotten that point?

I thought the whole point of space colonisation is to preserve the human species? Cornucopians argue that extraction technology will always improve, efficiency will always improve and that substitutes will be developed once the resource is completely exhausted. This also assumes that our current economic model continues. Efficiency could improve to the point where we all live in a lump of computronium powered by a few square kilometres of solar cells. When reality starts to fracture like that, time itself becomes a commodity and more "resources" are bought off in the cheapest way possible - processor time, because our perception of time has slowed.

If time and processor lag as an absolute remains a priority, then the computronium civilisation might just seek further and further breakthroughs and perhaps drop out of the universe as we know it.

Processor lag is an absolute, and to break through this barrier, an advanced civilisation might use wormhole technology, foaming spacetime bubbles within spacetime bubbles and drawing off G/I energy or some other energy source we can't postulate yet. This processor-civ need not even exist in normal space anymore. It might leverage future processor cycles. Why emit energy into space when you have total control of energy? Even create your own mini-universes to run off of?

The only thing certain about these "futures" is that they're going to be wrong. Futurists a hundred years ago never predicted the internet, yet they had early computational devices. The silence of the stars simply means that we still have much to learn in science and technology, and possibly as a culture.
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1645
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 121
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1184 on: 02/28/2011 06:59 AM »
Dyson Spheres and other megastructures were made under the limitless growth paradigm where it looked like industrial economies were just going to keep on growing indefinitely - due to population growth. Europe and Japan show that that's not going to happen as a given. Our own civilisation will cap growth at 12 billion.

Advanced civilisations will do who knows what. They may just virtualise themselves and live in a small lump of computronium.

Limitations on population growth do not imply a concurrent limitation on demand for computational resources. In fact, the more expensive it becomes to build and operate meat-ware computers (people) versus non-meatware, the faster the demand for computational resources will grow. Dyson spheres, matrioshka brains, etc are not about human overpopulation, they are about maximizing the capture of solar power from one's home star, with which to power computation.

Population growth on Earth is limited only because resources on Earth are limited: space, water, food, energy, etc. When you open the resource system, limitations on population growth are eliminated. That's the whole point of space colonization, or had you not gotten that point?


not really. Population growth diminishes REGARDLESS of resources availability, because of a miriad of causes, mostly associated with increased productivity, women independence, etc. You could in fact say the countries most starved of resources are the ones with largest growth rates.



He does however have a point. *We* might stop reproducing, but what about a hive species? A robot species? There might be some species too dumb or greedy to understand efficiency and prefer continual resource growth, eventually tearing apart the peaceful planets over which immortal* computronium monoliths sit watch.

I think those species might get an early visit from a relativistic bomb.

*Here's something else: we have no idea what an immortal human will do, let alone an immortal alien computronium society...
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1645
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 121
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1185 on: 02/28/2011 07:01 AM »
...
I thought SETI was actually assuming that already and was looking for non-stray transmissions, instead. Surely a tight beam aimed at nearby stars wouldn't get drowned out so quickly?

Well the example used in the calculator required some pretty big & powerful equipment to both send and detect a tight beam at 20 LY.

If the criteria now includes the alien civilization has to be making a massive effort to communicate, and is within say 100 LY, and has targeted our system, then there could be thousands in our galaxy, and we still wouldn't know.

Normal communications radio signals are rather broad beam and do die out after a dozen or two dozen light years. But there are narrow beam transmissions that sweep across a large area of the sky but focus all their power on a small patch at regular intervals, such as radars. The early warning radars used by NORAD, for instance.

Another thing to consider is electromagnetic and gravitational lensing. Jupiter's electromagnetic field should lense Earth's transmissions, and possibly amplify them by inductance as well. The Sun might do a similar thing.

So with even more transit surveys we might have an idea of which planets to look for? Still, that puts the odds of catching a civilisation like that at 1 in 200 but at least it gives a better idea than "point radio telescope at patch of sky and hope."

Anyway, (back on topic!!!) this thread has shown us that G/I opens up all sorts of possibilities. Why communicate with radio when a little wormhole will do the trick?
« Last Edit: 02/28/2011 07:10 AM by Lampyridae »
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1186 on: 02/28/2011 11:31 AM »
...
I thought SETI was actually assuming that already and was looking for non-stray transmissions, instead. Surely a tight beam aimed at nearby stars wouldn't get drowned out so quickly?

Well the example used in the calculator required some pretty big & powerful equipment to both send and detect a tight beam at 20 LY.

If the criteria now includes the alien civilization has to be making a massive effort to communicate, and is within say 100 LY, and has targeted our system, then there could be thousands in our galaxy, and we still wouldn't know.

Normal communications radio signals are rather broad beam and do die out after a dozen or two dozen light years. But there are narrow beam transmissions that sweep across a large area of the sky but focus all their power on a small patch at regular intervals, such as radars. The early warning radars used by NORAD, for instance.

Another thing to consider is electromagnetic and gravitational lensing. Jupiter's electromagnetic field should lense Earth's transmissions, and possibly amplify them by inductance as well. The Sun might do a similar thing.

So with even more transit surveys we might have an idea of which planets to look for? Still, that puts the odds of catching a civilisation like that at 1 in 200 but at least it gives a better idea than "point radio telescope at patch of sky and hope."

Anyway, (back on topic!!!) this thread has shown us that G/I opens up all sorts of possibilities. Why communicate with radio when a little wormhole will do the trick?

Quite right. The amount of energy to really punch a radio signal at interstellar distances other than for very narrow beams, like coherent light (another area that SETI needs to look at more) is far greater than what will be needed to operate a wormhole comm node, if Woodwards math is correct, and a much shorter latency, much MUCH shorter latency.
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 mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1187 on: 02/28/2011 11:35 AM »
Dyson Spheres and other megastructures were made under the limitless growth paradigm where it looked like industrial economies were just going to keep on growing indefinitely - due to population growth. Europe and Japan show that that's not going to happen as a given. Our own civilisation will cap growth at 12 billion.

Advanced civilisations will do who knows what. They may just virtualise themselves and live in a small lump of computronium.

Limitations on population growth do not imply a concurrent limitation on demand for computational resources. In fact, the more expensive it becomes to build and operate meat-ware computers (people) versus non-meatware, the faster the demand for computational resources will grow. Dyson spheres, matrioshka brains, etc are not about human overpopulation, they are about maximizing the capture of solar power from one's home star, with which to power computation.

Population growth on Earth is limited only because resources on Earth are limited: space, water, food, energy, etc. When you open the resource system, limitations on population growth are eliminated. That's the whole point of space colonization, or had you not gotten that point?


not really. Population growth diminishes REGARDLESS of resources availability, because of a miriad of causes, mostly associated with increased productivity, women independence, etc. You could in fact say the countries most starved of resources are the ones with largest growth rates.



Not quite. In Western nations, we have artificial scarcity of resources that is created by statute: moratoriums on offshore drilling, public land put out of reach of miners and drillers, etc, zoning laws that create artificial scarcity in real estate use classes, building codes that create high cost barriers to entry for housing, etc etc etc. These regulatory created scarcities are reflected in the higher costs of living in these countries, the way in which families are unable to support themselves off one income, etc etc.
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 mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1188 on: 02/28/2011 11:44 AM »
I have a question about FTL as it pertains to Woodward's theory:

If the wormhole term can generate truly exotic matter to create warp bubbles & wormholes...it still doesn't get around the issue of causality. The physicist motto for FTL is "Causality, Relativity, FTL: choose two." So even if we can generate wormholes, how are we supposed to walk through them without violating causality?


Theare are a number of discussions involved in this, including various theories of causality violation suppression. For instance, the energy required to make a wormhole linkage to a point in the past may rise rather asymptotically the closer the other end of the wormhole is to your starting point. So, for instance, if you want to make a wormhole that goes 1 year into the past, the closest the other end can be without consuming impossibly massive amounts of energy may be 1 light year, which, it turns out is the point in time when light emitted at that point reaches your point of origin.

A stargate or warp system may require a period of charging proportionate to the distance you are going to travel.

But FTL doesnt actually mean time travel per se. Claims that it does constitute a fundamental misunderstanding of relativity.
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 kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2508
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1189 on: 02/28/2011 12:30 PM »
Not quite. In Western nations, we have artificial scarcity of resources that is created by statute: moratoriums on offshore drilling, public land put out of reach of miners and drillers, etc, zoning laws that create artificial scarcity in real estate use classes, building codes that create high cost barriers to entry for housing, etc etc etc. These regulatory created scarcities are reflected in the higher costs of living in these countries, the way in which families are unable to support themselves off one income, etc etc.

I live in a 'western' nation that has an advanced economy, the second highest HDI (Human Develoment Index) in the world and consistently ranks in the top 5 for quality of life. Mining is booming, and houses are not that expensive, just the land in the big cities.

You can buy a decent house in a country town and easily support a family on one income. Yet most people still choose to live in big cities. And if not for immigration, population would be static or falling. The government actually pays families to have children, currently just over $5,000.

Even in developing countries, studies have shown that with the economic freedom of being able to work or run businesses, women tend to have much smaller families. It's mostly about security in old age. Whether you feel the need to have lots of children so that some will survive to support you, or can trust in society and personal savings to provide.
« Last Edit: 02/28/2011 12:33 PM by kkattula »

Offline mrmandias

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 507
  • US
  • Liked: 29
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1190 on: 02/28/2011 04:45 PM »
not really. Population growth diminishes REGARDLESS of resources availability, because of a myriad of causes, mostly associated with increased productivity, women independence, etc. You could in fact say the countries most starved of resources are the ones with largest growth rates.



Absolutely true . . . for now. 

But the human race has never been in a prolonged period of wealth and therefore of voluntary low birth-rates before, because the low-birth rates groups got swamped.  Now the whole world is rich (relative to human history) and is getting richer. 


So what will happen?  Evolution will happen.  The grim tautology that only those who reproduce reproduce will happen, and the human race will become more philoprogenitive.

I could be wrong, of course, but we're in demographically unprecedented territory.


Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1191 on: 03/01/2011 12:06 AM »
I would say that population growth will start again as humans live longer and longer. If very few people die, even a small birth rate can cause enourmous growth rate. In that case, yes, we will need a galactic empire because the population will skyrocket fast.

of course, on the other hand, we are not considering that its simpler to NOT reproduce, maybe turning off genes responsible for making humans WANT to have babies.

ANYWAY, we are again straying quite offtopic... this entire page has been about population growth and about SETI!!!

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1192 on: 03/01/2011 12:10 AM »

But FTL doesnt actually mean time travel per se. Claims that it does constitute a fundamental misunderstanding of relativity.

such as???

I would love to know, because I already lost more than one argument to physics smartasses that told me FTL means time travel to the past. I said "yes, but not if its FTL that are not really faster than light like a hypothetical tachyon, but ftl like "taking shortcuts" or "moving spacetime itself" (warp), etc.

he showed me an graph to prove I was wrong. Well, my knowledge was not deep enough to contradict him.

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Liked: 292
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1193 on: 03/01/2011 04:22 AM »
Have you read Paul Birch's paper on the subject?  My GRT is pretty weak, but it sounded plausible last time I read it (which was a while back)...

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1194 on: 03/03/2011 09:03 PM »
so... Next Big Future had an article on EM Drive (Tom Shawyer) and mr Goatguy, who never bothered coming here to discuss, again posted stuff against ME thrust,


Quote from: GoatGuy
Could we just hang on a moment?

At the bottom of this article, it says that YBCO type high-temperature materials aren't presently useful due to physics, and structural issues. Meanwhile, at the top of the clipping there's talk about [Q = 6.8E6] from a tin can full of stuff where the active material is (drumroll...) YBCO. Now what gives?

Further, looking carefully at the table of thrusts-versus-Qs ... what do I see?
              Q  THRUST UNITS ľN/(KW*Q)
--------------- ------- ----- ---------
         50,000   0.315 N/kW       6.30
      6,800,000     222 N/kW      32.65
  5,000,000,000  31,500 N/kW       6.30
100,000,000,000 630,000 N/kW       6.30
In other words, from Q = 50K to 100G they're all 6.3 micronewtons per kilowatt per Q. Except the 6.8e6 new unit, which is substantially (about 5×) higher.

Well, OK - experimental results trump projections, I guess. Seems though that there is the same problem with this kind of device as those that I brought forth for the Woodward ME thruster (at least before it was admitted that it may well be more of a creeper than a thruster)

Curiously - and for not one reason that I can get my claws around - there are deratings for thrust based on the net motion of the device! Well, doesn't that just take cajunas!

See, here's the deal - if the device actually has a thrust that is (somehow!) dependent on velocity, then it should have thrust that varies per the diurnal cycle (since the "velocity" of it must be absolutely independent of the earth), and moreover, should demonstrate anisotropy of force output by direction that it is pointing. If there is anisotropy in thrust relative to pointing direction, time of day, day of year - then we have here the very first experimental device that breaks the chief tenant of general relativity, which is to say, the detection of velocity in space that is absolute, and not relative.

OR, if its "directionality" is indeed isotropic (not varying with direction or relative velocity, unlike the implications of the table) and frame invariant, then ... like the heated and extended discussion of the Mach Effect thruster, this device becomes a perpetual-motion device, or a greater-than-"unity" generator.

Indeed, assuming a device (like the one in the picture) that can generate something reasonable like 0.222N for 1 watt of input, then placing it at the perimeter of a 1 meter diameter wheel delivers
CASE 1 CASE 2 CASE 3 CASE 4 UNITS       COMMENT +EXTRA
------ ------ ------ ------ ------- ----------- ------
   0.5    1.0    1.5      2 m          diameter   
   0.3    0.5    0.8    1.0 m            radius   
  1.57   3.14   4.71   6.28 m / rev    radial V   
 0.222  0.222  0.222  0.222 N        real force   
   1.0    1.0    1.0    1.0 W       input power   
------ ------ ------ ------ -------         RPS  RPM
   0.3    0.5    0.8    1.0 J/s (W)        0.72   43
   0.3    0.7    1.0    1.4 J/s (W)        1.00   60
   0.5    1.0    1.5    2.0 J/s (W)        1.43   86
   0.7    1.4    2.1    2.8 J/s (W)        2.00  120
   1.0    2.0    3.0    4.0 J/s (W)        2.87  172
   1.7    3.5    5.2    7.0 J/s (W)        5.00  300
   3.5    7.0   10.5   13.9 J/s (W)       10.00  600
   5.2   10.5   15.7   20.9 J/s (W)       15.00  900
   7.0   13.9   20.9   27.9 J/s (W)       20.00 1,200
Which is to say, that a 1 meter diameter wheel above 1.43 RPS (86 RPM) the device will be producing a F × ω above the 1 watt input, which makes it a perpetual motion device. By 1200 RPM, it is producing some 14× the input energy.

We should therefore make it the centerpiece of all future energy production, as if these posted values are confirmed, it would represent the greatest discovery since the invention of the wheel. Perhaps since the taming of fire.

That last bit was a bit, but not really spoofing the issue.

It is this simple, straight physics that dooms the device to bald-assed fabrication and fiction, or demands a very, very concise explanation as to how it could possibly avoid either outrageous issues. (1) directional anisotropic thrust, or (2) trivial above unity energy generation.

Well, enough for now. It will be interesting to see how this shapes up.

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1195 on: 03/06/2011 04:09 AM »
I was reading an article written by John Cramer, and he mentioned the interesting implication of the Mach Effect that I hadn't considered before:

"Woodward's effect, as implemented in his measurements, produces a mass change of a few milligrams in a object that must have a mass on the order of a few grams. Therefore the fractional change in weight is 0.1% or less.

The question of burning interest to SF readers and writers is whether the weight reduction effect can be made large enough to produce actual lift against gravity. The answer appears to be yes. The weight reduction magnitude depends on the product of the mass variation and the acceleration applied to the varying mass by the piezoelectric motion device. The size of the mass variation depends on the amount of electric power flowing to the capacitor and on the frequency f of its charging current. The magnitude of the applied acceleration depends on the distance "stroke" of the piezoelectric motion device and on the square of the frequency (f2) at which it is operated. This means that the overall size of the weight reduction should grow as the third power of the driving frequency (f3).

Woodward's measurements at a frequency of about 10 kHz (a rather modest audio frequency) observed a weight change of about 1 part in 1000. Increasing the frequency by a factor of 20 to 200 kHz while holding the other variables fixed (if that is possible) should make the weight reduction considerably larger than the weight itself, therefore achieving lift. In other words, Woodward's effect, if it is real, should be usable as an antigravity device or a space drive, in the sense that these terms are normally used in science fiction."

This is actually the first time I've heard the mach effect being referenced  as anti-gravity as opposed to a thruster. If transient mass fluctuations exist and can be scaled up to several orders of magnitude, then I suppose it could generate an anti-gravity effect.
« Last Edit: 03/06/2011 04:15 AM by GeeGee »

Offline MP99

Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1196 on: 03/06/2011 10:00 AM »
Curiously - and for not one reason that I can get my claws around - there are deratings for thrust based on the net motion of the device!

I'm sure I'd understood that EM drive produces less thrust under acceleration, not just motion.


Which is to say, that a 1 meter diameter wheel above 1.43 RPS (86 RPM) the device will be producing a F × ω above the 1 watt input, which makes it a perpetual motion device. By 1200 RPM, it is producing some 14× the input energy.

Not sure if the acceleration thing applies to circular motion, but if so it would suggest that you can't just keep thrusting as RPM's increase.

cheers, Martin

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1197 on: 03/07/2011 03:27 AM »
Not quite. In Western nations, we have artificial scarcity of resources that is created by statute: moratoriums on offshore drilling, public land put out of reach of miners and drillers, etc, zoning laws that create artificial scarcity in real estate use classes, building codes that create high cost barriers to entry for housing, etc etc etc. These regulatory created scarcities are reflected in the higher costs of living in these countries, the way in which families are unable to support themselves off one income, etc etc.

I live in a 'western' nation that has an advanced economy, the second highest HDI (Human Develoment Index) in the world and consistently ranks in the top 5 for quality of life. Mining is booming, and houses are not that expensive, just the land in the big cities.

You can buy a decent house in a country town and easily support a family on one income. Yet most people still choose to live in big cities. And if not for immigration, population would be static or falling. The government actually pays families to have children, currently just over $5,000.

Even in developing countries, studies have shown that with the economic freedom of being able to work or run businesses, women tend to have much smaller families. It's mostly about security in old age. Whether you feel the need to have lots of children so that some will survive to support you, or can trust in society and personal savings to provide.

This attitude that population growth always goes down is a shibboleth of the euro-internationalist/feminist left. It has, in fact, been found to be a faulty assumption in hispanic and islamic cultures. One reason that US population growth remains positive is that hispanics in the US are defying these sociologist assumptions.

Its been an assumption behind pushing for education of women in islamic countries, but has been found to be faulty there as well.
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 mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1198 on: 03/07/2011 03:34 AM »

But FTL doesnt actually mean time travel per se. Claims that it does constitute a fundamental misunderstanding of relativity.

such as???

I would love to know, because I already lost more than one argument to physics smartasses that told me FTL means time travel to the past. I said "yes, but not if its FTL that are not really faster than light like a hypothetical tachyon, but ftl like "taking shortcuts" or "moving spacetime itself" (warp), etc.

he showed me an graph to prove I was wrong. Well, my knowledge was not deep enough to contradict him.

This is a common problem with people who think they understand relativity but dont.

The assumptions made are that since it takes 1 year per light year distance for light to travel from destination B to departure point A, that if you go to B from A instantly then you are going to emit photons there that wont be observed at A until x years from now, and therefore are in the past of point A, such that if you travelled back to A from B instantly immediately after travelling from A to B, that you would wind up x many years in the past of A.

This is false. The photons that are observed at A in the future of you arriving at B are in the past OF THAT FUTURE "A" TIMELINE BUT NOT THE PRESENT POINT IN TIME AT "A". This is easy to confuse and its basically a game of physics three card monte that some know-it-alls try to play to "prove" the impossibility of FTL. Once you see where they palmed the card, it becomes much clearer.

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 #1199 on: 03/15/2011 04:02 PM »
Two papers being presented today at SPESIF at the University of Maryland on the Mach Effect

http://ias-spes.org/SPESIF2011/AGENDA/2011_Agenda.pdf

2:15PM Possible Mach Effects in Bodies Accelerated by Non-Uniform Magnetic Fields - Nembo Buldrini

2:45PM  Mach Effects: Recent Experimental Results - James F. Woodward

Tags: