HMXHMX : has you forwarded Gargoyle's criticism to Woodward, particularly post #570?

This must be done because the only invariant velocity is Zero at the start of each integration interval

The ... mistake is to assume that you can set the integral of the FOM equation over some arbitrarily long time equal to the integral of the work equation for the same time.

Quote from: aceshigh on 11/21/2015 01:38 AMHMXHMX : has you forwarded Gargoyle's criticism to Woodward, particularly post #570?I did forward earlier comments. Professor Woodward feels he's addressed the matter sufficiently in both the book and the white paper, so I doubt he's going to add to those writings, preferring to concentrate his attention on experiments currently underway. But he did add a comment to me and a few others yesterday in a private email that I doubt he'd mind me sharing:"I spelled out both how and why a correct calculation is to be done in the last paragraph of the paper. The ... mistake is to assume that you can set the integral of the FOM equation over some arbitrarily long time equal to the integral of the work equation for the same time. You have to set the integrals so that the integration time is short enough that the kinetic energy generated is less that the input energy to the thruster. Then you repeat this calculation for all subsequent intervals of the same length until you reach whatever time of operation you are interested in. This guarantees that the kinetic energy sum never exceeds the input energy sum in the two sums. This must be done because the only invariant velocity is Zero at the start of each integration interval and you know for a fact that simple mechanical systems do NOT violate energy conservation. There is nothing magical about METs."That's all he's going to say, I'm certain, so I'm gong to respect his position and leave matters there.

The net momentum flux is accompanied by a net energy flux, so although our impulse engine, considered locally, appears to violate energy conservation, that need not necessarily be the case. The extraction of useful work from matter that may be completely thermalized raises interesting questions. Boosting, rather than borrowing, from the future, however, seems to be the nature of the process involved.

Quote from: HMXHMX on 11/21/2015 03:35 AMQuote from: aceshigh on 11/21/2015 01:38 AMHMXHMX : has you forwarded Gargoyle's criticism to Woodward, particularly post #570?I did forward earlier comments. ......Since his whole point stems from this, could you please ask Woodward about an example of an existing classical system with a constant figure of merit? I can't think of any, since they violate CoE....

Quote from: aceshigh on 11/21/2015 01:38 AMHMXHMX : has you forwarded Gargoyle's criticism to Woodward, particularly post #570?I did forward earlier comments. ...

Quote from: Povel on 11/21/2015 12:12 PMQuote from: HMXHMX on 11/21/2015 03:35 AMQuote from: aceshigh on 11/21/2015 01:38 AMHMXHMX : has you forwarded Gargoyle's criticism to Woodward, particularly post #570?I did forward earlier comments. ......Since his whole point stems from this, could you please ask Woodward about an example of an existing classical system with a constant figure of merit? I can't think of any, since they violate CoE....I am assuming your talking about systems that don't use reaction mass to speed up. One system that comes to mind is a swing. Also I remember this same subject came up in the EM drive section and I pointed out a device that may qualify as a classical system of this type. The video is on YouTube here: . I don't think it is over unity but it certainly doesn't appear to use reaction mass to speed up. How it works is like a swing. When the mass wants to swing out to the largest radius you just twist the weights against the force of the mass. When the mass is coming in to the center you can reverse the twist and assist against the force pulling it out and the energy transfers to the system as a whole. Basically F(x).dx=E . This is angular velocity rather than linear but the argument is that there is this break even speed where the energy you put in becomes more than you put in. My argument is if this is true then you might be able to argue the same for this device. Explaining this systems conservation of energy may be instructive in similar systems, though in this case it is mechanical instead of electro-magnetic.

... If it didn't it would be over unity and could power the world.

Quote from: ppnl on 11/30/2015 08:53 PM... If it didn't it would be over unity and could power the world.I don't think anyone here is claiming this device is overunity.

My understanding has always been that the Mach Effect Thruster is not generating energy. Instead, it is tapping into the energy of the rest of the universe

similar to a sailing ship tapping into the wind to generate forward motion.

it is this extraction of energy from the mass of the rest of the Universe that makes the Mach Effect Thruster increase the entropy in the rest of the universe each time that it is used.

the electrical energy going into the device is not what produces its acceleration.

"Failing to account for this flux, is much the same as failing to account for the wind on a sail."

My understanding has always been that the Mach Effect Thruster is not generating energy. Instead, it is tapping into the energy of the rest of the universe, similar to a sailing ship tapping into the wind to generate forward motion.

The controversial part here is the mechanism by which this transfer takes place instantaneously with the mass of the distant universe. But Woodward has covered that with the Wheeler-Feynman Absorber theory, as far as I understand. I have not yet seen that theoretically debunked.

And according to my understanding, it is this extraction of energy from the mass of the rest of the Universe that makes the Mach Effect Thruster increase the entropy in the rest of the universe each time that it is used.

Going even further, the argument that I have seen put forward by some who understand the theory better than I do, is that the extensive use of Mach Effect Thrusters elsewhere in space and time could be one potential explanation for the accelerating expansion of the Universe. And ultimately, could be accelerating the heat death of the Universe.

So far from generating more energy than is put into it, the Mach Effect Thruster is simply extracting energy from elsewhere and tapping into it locally. With the entire Universe as the system, there is no net energy being created. It is simply being channeled from one place to the next.That is how I read the theory, anyway.

This is because the FORCE = MASS of the box X VELOCITY of the box.

The big difference is that while modifying a box’s mass is complex, modifying its velocity is a simple matter, all we need is an air brake or parachute if you will (did I mention that the cylinder is pressurized).

People are making claims that inevitably lead to an over unity result. That is not only true of some people here but is true of both Shawyer and Woodward.

Quote from: ppnl on 12/12/2015 07:30 PMPeople are making claims that inevitably lead to an over unity result. That is not only true of some people here but is true of both Shawyer and Woodward.I always was under the impression that Woodward required increasing energy input for a constant acceleration, but I might have misunderstood something.

I gotta ask. Does anyone have a reference for where Woodward claims AND shows that his METs offer constant acceleration for constant power? I know thats always been interpreted. But I dont recall any of the papers arguing that interpretation.

We know that, starting from t= 0, if we let the integration interval t get very large, the work equation integral will first equal and then exceed the energy calculated by the figure of merit equation.

So we require that t be sufficiently small that this obvious violation of energy conservation does not happen.

That is, we note what should be obvious physics for this situation: the energies added to the two sums in every differential time interval are always in the same ratio as they are in the very first interval because the only invariant velocity that exists in this case is the one of instantaneous rest at the outset of each interval.If this prescription - the only one that makes physical sense in the circumstances – is followed, no energy conservation violation follows from the calculation. And elementary mechanics is not threatened by an obviouslywrong calculation.

Quote from: birchoff on 12/24/2015 04:03 AMI gotta ask. Does anyone have a reference for where Woodward claims AND shows that his METs offer constant acceleration for constant power? I know thats always been interpreted. But I dont recall any of the papers arguing that interpretation.Dude this has been done to death. A Woodward link is here:http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdfgargoyle99 did a breakdown on it just a few messages up from this one. But one more time...Woodward starts with this:QuoteWe know that, starting from t= 0, if we let the integration interval t get very large, the work equation integral will first equal and then exceed the energy calculated by the figure of merit equation.Here he acknowledges that constant power for constant acceleration will eventually violate conservation of energy. His solution?QuoteSo we require that t be sufficiently small that this obvious violation of energy conservation does not happen.Simple. You don't run the engine long enough to violate conservation of energy. So how do you get velocities larger than you can get in time t?Quote That is, we note what should be obvious physics for this situation: the energies added to the two sums in every differential time interval are always in the same ratio as they are in the very first interval because the only invariant velocity that exists in this case is the one of instantaneous rest at the outset of each interval.If this prescription - the only one that makes physical sense in the circumstances – is followed, no energy conservation violation follows from the calculation. And elementary mechanics is not threatened by an obviouslywrong calculation.See under relativity all inertial frames are equally valid. If I am in a rocket traveling through space at 10 miles per second compared to you I am entitled to say that my speed is zero and it is you who is moving. Speed is relative. So Woodward is claiming that he can turn his drive on for an interval t that is short enough it does not violate conservation of energy. Then turning it off he notes that it is valid to take his speed as zero since speed is relative. But then doing the same calculation again he can turn his drive on again for another time interval t and double his speed without violating conservation of energy. And continue time interval after time interval until you have whatever speed you want. You have effectively achieved constant acceleration with constant power.But is just mind blowingly stupid. At the end you have still built up a very high speed so that the kinetic energy is much higher than the energy you put in. You cannot do energy calculations in different frames of reference and then add them as if they were in the same frame of reference. As I said before he is not only wrong - he fails my Turing test.

We routinely hear a criticism of METs based upon an argument that claims: if aMET is operated at constant power input for a sufficiently long time, it will acquireenough kinetic energy to exceed the total input energy of operation. Assuming thisargument to be correct, critcs assert that METs violate energy conservation as the ratio ofthe acquired kinetic energy to total input energy exceeds “unity.”

...To wrap this up, we ask: is it possible to do a correct calculation of the sort thatcritics did that does not lead to wrong predictions of the violation of energy conservation?...