Author Topic: Woodward's effect  (Read 285400 times)

Online Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1308
  • Liked: 231
  • Likes Given: 86
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #880 on: 05/02/2017 04:51 PM »
But a laser wouldn't just melt it. in fact it probably wouldn't entirely melt it; but when you pit something with a laser you create a maneuvering thruster. just a little bit of deflection applied soon enough might result in a clean miss. if the laser effect was enough to cause the object to disintegrate explosively it might also result in a miss the same way a shotgun blast often misses if fired outside its effective range. if the laser plasmified it we get hit by near light speed heavy nuclei all the time. usually they are stopped before reaching ground level and if they did get to ground level all you might notice is phosphenes in your visual field.

furthermore acceleration even with a mach drive would likely take at least several months maybe even a year. while the thing is building up speed going away it will generate infrared light and coming back it will generate gamma rays or x rays. that is assuming you take it up to very near light speed and it will likely have to travel well beyond the limits of the solar system to obtain that speed.

something accelerating at 1 G takes months to hit relativistic speed. i think i have seen slides on METs and the like or similar things like Whites QT accelerate slowly.

Furthermore assuming the faction that launches a RKV is on earth even partially successful intercepts under your branch of speculation which assumes part of the RKV or all of it hits the earth Thier day where they are at gets ruined too. and even if it didn't directly get ruined...

I have seen boom calculators that say that the impact makes a crater throwing up megatons of molten rocks which are orbital and suborbital that rain all over the earth and set everything on fire or would if it werent already fried by the hypersonic super-heated winds. Supersonic superheated winds, shockwaves and pyroclastic flows race around around the world 8 times before slowing to subsonic speed also incinerating everything while pulverising multi-celled creatures into mist that would be pink if it had not been burned down to carbon. Off the scale beyond 9. -whatever earthquakes take place all over the world. Every existing or former volcano plus more that didn't even exist before also simultaneously erupt all over the world. the combined particulates from each of these effects covers everything and blots out the sun for at least three years. also as much as a quarter of the atmosphere would blow into space and the ozone layer would go bu-bye.

More than likely due to not wanting to be incinerated themselves they would restrict the homicidal speed down to manageable levels. say 1.3 percent light speed which turns a 20 KG inert slug into the equivalent of several hiroshima bombs. As portrayed in this video from the game mass effect:





When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline Ithirahad

  • Member
  • Posts: 4
  • in solar orbit
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #881 on: 05/02/2017 05:39 PM »
This looks like a discussion for a new topic entirely: "Large-scale Implications of a Functional Reactionless Space Drive (EmDrive, Woodward thruster, etc.)"

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 272
  • United States
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #882 on: 05/02/2017 05:43 PM »
....
Well, there will certainly be a dangerous transition period where RKIs are an existential risk for all of humanity (when we can build them already, but haven't moved into space habitats in large numbers yet). If we survive that period, then, yes, humanity as a whole will survive, but still, the need to protect large portions of the population from multi-Megaton-range sneak attacks from interplanetary space will remain. After one RKI wipes out a city, as a politician would you really tell your electorate that you are not doing anything about it because other people moved to other places and thus, humanity will survive?

The surface of any other planet, asteroid, or moon isn't safer than Earth by the way - these are all places where you can deterministically predict where the population centers will be, within a few meters, for thousands of years into the future. The only safe place, in the long run, is on ships equiped with their own Mach drive (certainly at war time, but then, for some organizations on this planet, its always war time...).

To alter the course of an RKI (even more so, pull up along side! much more efficient to just collide with it), you need time. To get time, you have to find them very far out. This is not easy to begin with - we can scan the whole sky today (we do), but we are not only limited by magnitude (the limit of how much light the object we are looking for reflects, or in this case, emits), but also by processing power to find the actual object amongst the billions of background stars and asteroids and cosmic-ray hits. Especially if an RKI is on a direct approach course, it will have very limited tangential velocity, so it will be difficult to spot as it looks like a very hot but tiny background star... Then, RKIs are moving at relativistic speeds, so most of that safety distance will actually be needed just to get their photons into the telescope (e.g., at 90% of c, finding them out at 10 Earth-Moon distances only gives you one second to react from the moment their light reaches the telescope - then they impact). Today, it would be completely hopeless to find objects of a few kg even in cislunar space... (and, btw, there is also a physical/optical limit to how good a telescope you can build to find these things).

Lasers are also of no good use here, because even if you vaporize the RKI with a laser, the ion velocities in the resulting plasma will still be very small compared to the relativistic forward velocity, and thus this will not make much of a difference (as builder of the RKI, you could even help this by using very heavy building materials which are difficult to accelerate, like tungsten). It doesn't really matter if the Earth is hit by a lob or tungsten or a cloud of tungsten atoms of the same mass, if it is at relativistic velocities. Also, it is by no means given that the approaching RKI would agree to be a passive target on a deterministic course. In the last section of its flight, it might accelerate and slightly change course at random, which - given the dimensions involved - would probably make it impossible to hit with a laser.

To protect surface populations against them, you would probably need a system-wide optical/infrared surveillance system (so you could triangulate and cut down on processing power), and then some kind of super-fast interceptor system which has a realistic chance of delivering a punch strong enough so the RKI misses its target.

Actually what a politician attempts to do about this threat will be determined by their philosophy/patrons. once humanity moves out into space. Unless we have FTL Comms. We will cease to be a cohesive whole. so banning MET's will only affect the system issuing the ban. Not everyone else.

As for inability to see. Since we would have the sun at our full disposal. We would have the ability to not only passively observe. We would also be able to actively listen by pinging in different EM Frequencies. As for the surveilance system I have in mind. I suspect if it was built it would be overlapping. We have a very flat picture of the universe around us. So as our usage of space ticks up it's going to be in our own best interest to be able to observe the behavior of anything within the Kuiper via multiple sensors. So I would expect we would be able to measure movement in all dimensions for any object entering the surveilance field; for lack of a better term. as for lack of computing power. I have a hard time believing no one would think it worth while to throw the neccessary hardware at the problem. With MET's capable of heavy lift you will need the space equivalent of air traffic control. Given the distances and velocities in volved it will need to be 100% automated with humans only around to override in case something wierd happens.

Ionizing your RKI slug is a good thing, because now you have the ability to steer using magnetic fields.


Online Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1308
  • Liked: 231
  • Likes Given: 86
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #883 on: 05/02/2017 05:56 PM »
Well i know there are some individuals who wouldn't care that they were killing themselves and destroying the planet but most rational actors would not want this to happen. Remember that the energy releases depends on both mass and velocity. so a less massive weapon traveling at faster speed would be the equivalent of this:




and what's scary is that it could even be worse than this. enough mass and velocity and you might turn the earth to dust and fling it out of the galaxy. Not that we would be able to appreciate the difference.

Project Rho's boom table:  http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/usefultables.php


« Last Edit: 05/02/2017 06:03 PM by Stormbringer »
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #884 on: 05/02/2017 08:59 PM »
Ok guys, per report to mods, this thread needs to get back on track from this point onwards. Thanks!

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8260
  • UK
  • Liked: 1338
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #885 on: 05/03/2017 08:21 PM »
Quote
Jason Wright @Astro_Wright

Huh. Abstract claims that propulsion-less drives have "been demonstrated over 10 years" which is…debatable, shall we say.

Full discussion on thread.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Astro_Wright/status/859768592795152385

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 876
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #886 on: 05/08/2017 02:39 PM »
Quote
Jason Wright @Astro_Wright

Huh. Abstract claims that propulsion-less drives have "been demonstrated over 10 years" which is…debatable, shall we say.

Full discussion on thread.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Astro_Wright/status/859768592795152385

All:

In this context "demonstrated" indicates published experimental results over the mentioned time period.  Of course the author of these comments would have to had performed "due-diligence" in finding the papers or articles where this data was published.  Then he or she would have to perform an evaluation of the five known to me labs results that have replicated Woodward's Mach-Effect-Gravity-Assist (MEGA) drive thruster test results to make their own call about the veracity of each test.  However,  I know that most folks threshold of pain when it comes to believing that paradigm breaking space-drives are real is to perform a deep-space (beyond LEO) propulsion test with a MEGA drive to validate that it can in deed accelerate and decelerate the attached vehicle.  Sadly it takes a lot of development $$$ to accomplish this kind of deep space demonstration, and it can only be pursued when the net thrust for these MEGA drives generate a hundred milli-Newton or more.

Next, Dr. Rodal's analytical revelation that I was talking about earlier was that ALL the kinetic energy generated by a MEGA drive has to come from the cosmological gravitational / inertial (G/I) field AKA spacetime in General Relativity Theory (GRT), while the local vehicle input power to the MEGA drive is used just to setup the conditions needed to extract energy from the G/I field.  In other words the local vehicle input power to the MEGA drive does NOT accelerate the vehicle, but is used just as the catalytic input energy needed to extract kinetic energy from the cosmological G/I field.

Lastly find below a picture of my now finished workshop and lab building that I had built in my backyard to continue the propulsion work I was pursuing at the NASA/JSC Eagleworks Lab.  I'm currently in the middle of transferring my home lab to this new lab facility and hope to be pursuing EMdrive & MEGA drive experiments by the end of this year.

Best, Paul M.
« Last Edit: 05/08/2017 02:50 PM by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 272
  • United States
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #887 on: 05/08/2017 10:48 PM »
...
Next, Dr. Rodal's analytical revelation that I was talking about earlier was that ALL the kinetic energy generated by a MEGA drive has to come from the cosmological gravitational / inertial (G/I) field AKA spacetime in General Relativity Theory (GRT), while the local vehicle input power to the MEGA drive is used just to setup the conditions needed to extract energy from the G/I field.  In other words the local vehicle input power to the MEGA drive does NOT accelerate the vehicle, but is used just as the catalytic input energy needed to extract kinetic energy from the cosmological G/I field.
...

This forces me to reask a question I know pops up on this thread every so often with no answer I have found to be definitive.

doesn't that mean we should be able to build generators with this technology? If not it would sound like there is some detail about how kinetic energy is transferred to the drive that would prevent coupling it to a generator.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 876
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #888 on: 05/09/2017 04:49 AM »
...
Next, Dr. Rodal's analytical revelation that I was talking about earlier was that ALL the kinetic energy generated by a MEGA drive has to come from the cosmological gravitational / inertial (G/I) field AKA spacetime in General Relativity Theory (GRT), while the local vehicle input power to the MEGA drive is used just to setup the conditions needed to extract energy from the G/I field.  In other words the local vehicle input power to the MEGA drive does NOT accelerate the vehicle, but is used just as the catalytic input energy needed to extract kinetic energy from the cosmological G/I field.
...

This forces me to reask a question I know pops up on this thread every so often with no answer I have found to be definitive.

doesn't that mean we should be able to build generators with this technology? If not it would sound like there is some detail about how kinetic energy is transferred to the drive that would prevent coupling it to a generator.

birchoff:

In principle local power generation from the G/I field should be possible, but the trick is to find the correct thermodynamic cycle that allows continuous or at least pulsed energy extraction from the G/I field that exceeds the required catalytic input energy needed to extract it.  This may just require a functioning MEGA drive mounted on the perimeter of a flywheel, unless the radial centrifugal forces of such a revolving system disrupts the Mach-Effect function.  Then again if we drive the MEGA drive into negative inertial mass wormhole territory all sorts of rotational approaches to thrust production and power generation come to the fore.  And Woodward may have already demonstrated that feat back in 2001 as described in his IIT paper, see attached.

Best, Paul M.
Star-Drive

Offline RotoSequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 778
  • Liked: 572
  • Likes Given: 780
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #889 on: 05/11/2017 01:46 PM »
birchoff:

In principle local power generation from the G/I field should be possible, but the trick is to find the correct thermodynamic cycle that allows continuous or at least pulsed energy extraction from the G/I field that exceeds the required catalytic input energy needed to extract it.  This may just require a functioning MEGA drive mounted on the perimeter of a flywheel, unless the radial centrifugal forces of such a revolving system disrupts the Mach-Effect function.  Then again if we drive the MEGA drive into negative inertial mass wormhole territory all sorts of rotational approaches to thrust production and power generation come to the fore.  And Woodward may have already demonstrated that feat back in 2001 as described in his IIT paper, see attached.

Best, Paul M.

It remains safe to assume that someone is paying for that energy lunch, or the effect itself isn't real.

Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #890 on: 05/11/2017 03:34 PM »
Hello !! ... the first of all is to apologize to everyone for the hard of the Spanish-English translation through google.

I would like to thank GI-Truster and Star Drive for all the information that was sent to the forum which has helped me to understand.

I wish I could reproduce some of these technologies on a small scale, greetings.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hola!!... lo primero de todo es disculparme ante todos por lo duro de la traducción español-ingles mediante google.

Deseo darle las gracias sobre todo a "GI-Truster" y a "Star drive" por toda la información vertida en el foro la cual me ha ayudado a comprender.

Me gustaría poder reproducir alguna de estas tecnologias a pequeña escala, saludos.

« Last Edit: 05/11/2017 03:38 PM by Antigraviticsystems1 »

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 272
  • United States
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #891 on: 05/11/2017 06:19 PM »
birchoff:

In principle local power generation from the G/I field should be possible, but the trick is to find the correct thermodynamic cycle that allows continuous or at least pulsed energy extraction from the G/I field that exceeds the required catalytic input energy needed to extract it.  This may just require a functioning MEGA drive mounted on the perimeter of a flywheel, unless the radial centrifugal forces of such a revolving system disrupts the Mach-Effect function.  Then again if we drive the MEGA drive into negative inertial mass wormhole territory all sorts of rotational approaches to thrust production and power generation come to the fore.  And Woodward may have already demonstrated that feat back in 2001 as described in his IIT paper, see attached.

Best, Paul M.

It remains safe to assume that someone is paying for that energy lunch, or the effect itself isn't real.

Yeah thats the other question I have. but I don't get the impression that anyone who frequents NSF and is a proponent of ME, understands it enough to explain not so much who is paying for what looks like a free lunch; but instead what effect should we see in the universe as we begin to make heavy use of the universal GI field.

Personally, my mind wants to believe there should be no effect. Mainly because the actual effect taking place in a MET is periodic mass fluctuation which is generated by the on board ship power plant. The part that actually generates thrust, occurs because we have the ability to push when heavy and pull when lighter. That pushing and pulling are purely local as I understand it. Only the mass fluctuation is occurring because of interactions with the mass shell of the universe. So if my understanding is sound, the ability to generate thrust should be unlimited. If it isn't then either this doesn't work or there is some very interesting subtlety that is lost on my at the moment.

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #892 on: 05/11/2017 09:04 PM »
...
Next, Dr. Rodal's analytical revelation that I was talking about earlier was that ALL the kinetic energy generated by a MEGA drive has to come from the cosmological gravitational / inertial (G/I) field AKA spacetime in General Relativity Theory (GRT), while the local vehicle input power to the MEGA drive is used just to setup the conditions needed to extract energy from the G/I field.  In other words the local vehicle input power to the MEGA drive does NOT accelerate the vehicle, but is used just as the catalytic input energy needed to extract kinetic energy from the cosmological G/I field.
...

This forces me to reask a question I know pops up on this thread every so often with no answer I have found to be definitive.

doesn't that mean we should be able to build generators with this technology? ..
No, you should not be able to continuously gain energy from that in a closed cycle, purely using gravitation without using other energy sources, just like you can use gravity assist to gain momentum and energy in one direction when going through the Jovian system, but you cannot use gravity assist to continuously gain energy in a closed cycle by circling between the Earth and the Jovian System.

As another example, a hydroelectric powerplant is only able to generate electricity continuously using gravity because the weather cycle (ultimately powered by the Sun) replenishes the water in the upper reservoir from which the energy is extracted by gravity. 
« Last Edit: 05/11/2017 09:05 PM by Rodal »

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 272
  • United States
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #893 on: 05/12/2017 01:09 AM »
...
Next, Dr. Rodal's analytical revelation that I was talking about earlier was that ALL the kinetic energy generated by a MEGA drive has to come from the cosmological gravitational / inertial (G/I) field AKA spacetime in General Relativity Theory (GRT), while the local vehicle input power to the MEGA drive is used just to setup the conditions needed to extract energy from the G/I field.  In other words the local vehicle input power to the MEGA drive does NOT accelerate the vehicle, but is used just as the catalytic input energy needed to extract kinetic energy from the cosmological G/I field.
...

This forces me to reask a question I know pops up on this thread every so often with no answer I have found to be definitive.

doesn't that mean we should be able to build generators with this technology? ..
No, you should not be able to continuously gain energy from that in a closed cycle, purely using gravitation without using other energy sources, just like you can use gravity assist to gain momentum and energy in one direction when going through the Jovian system, but you cannot use gravity assist to continuously gain energy in a closed cycle by circling between the Earth and the Jovian System.

As another example, a hydroelectric powerplant is only able to generate electricity continuously using gravity because the weather cycle (ultimately powered by the Sun) replenishes the water in the upper reservoir from which the energy is extracted by gravity.

I recall you saying this on the EmDrive thread. But the question I had at that time and failed to ask. What would prevent that from happening in the ME case? If bolting a MET to a flywheel results in a closed system. What is it about bolting it to a ship keeps it an open system during operation?


Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #894 on: 05/12/2017 01:43 AM »
...
Next, Dr. Rodal's analytical revelation that I was talking about earlier was that ALL the kinetic energy generated by a MEGA drive has to come from the cosmological gravitational / inertial (G/I) field AKA spacetime in General Relativity Theory (GRT), while the local vehicle input power to the MEGA drive is used just to setup the conditions needed to extract energy from the G/I field.  In other words the local vehicle input power to the MEGA drive does NOT accelerate the vehicle, but is used just as the catalytic input energy needed to extract kinetic energy from the cosmological G/I field.
...

This forces me to reask a question I know pops up on this thread every so often with no answer I have found to be definitive.

doesn't that mean we should be able to build generators with this technology? ..
No, you should not be able to continuously gain energy from that in a closed cycle, purely using gravitation without using other energy sources, just like you can use gravity assist to gain momentum and energy in one direction when going through the Jovian system, but you cannot use gravity assist to continuously gain energy in a closed cycle by circling between the Earth and the Jovian System.

As another example, a hydroelectric powerplant is only able to generate electricity continuously using gravity because the weather cycle (ultimately powered by the Sun) replenishes the water in the upper reservoir from which the energy is extracted by gravity.

I recall you saying this on the EmDrive thread. But the question I had at that time and failed to ask. What would prevent that from happening in the ME case? If bolting a MET to a flywheel results in a closed system. What is it about bolting it to a ship keeps it an open system during operation?
One word: entropy. 
The same reason why a perpetual motion machine cannot work.   There will be frictional losses in the bearing, there will be damping losses in the flywheel and there are damping losses in the MET (which has a low Q, very far away from infinity).    The rotating motion would also be a problem: the inertial forces: Euler and centrifugal, when you work it all out one realizes that more energy is spent that you will be able to get out, when using real materials (and not ignoring the properties of real materials, including fatigue, which in the case for the MET involve piezoelectricity and electrostriction).

Any study of the MET that fails to take into account entropy and the properties of real materials leads to absurd conclusions, the same way that a study about vibrations (remember that the MET works at resonance) would predict vibration amplitude growing to infinity if damping is ignored, and if a flywheel without friction would exist you could have mechanical clocks that could run forever and perpetual motion machines would be a reality ;)
« Last Edit: 05/12/2017 02:18 AM by Rodal »

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 272
  • United States
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #895 on: 05/12/2017 02:39 AM »
...
One word: entropy. 
The same reason why a perpetual motion machine cannot work.   There will be frictional losses in the bearing, there will be damping losses in the flywheel and there are damping losses in the MET (which has a low Q, very far away from infinity).    The rotating motion would also be a problem: the inertial forces: Euler and centrifugal, when you work it all out one realizes that more energy is spent that you will be able to get out, when using real materials (and not ignoring the properties of real materials, including fatigue, which in the case for the MET involve piezoelectricity and electrostriction).

Any study of the MET that fails to take into account entropy and the properties of real materials leads to absurd conclusions, the same way that a study about vibrations (remember that the MET works at resonance) would predict vibration amplitude growing to infinity if damping is ignored, and if a flywheel without friction would exist you could have mechanical clocks that could run forever and perpetual motion machines would be a reality ;).

Wouldn't that mean we would have to expect an optimized MET in a ship would only be capable of short bursts of thrust not continuous? If not. I could just take two MET's place one on either end of a piston and toggle when they are on; I am assuming MET's capable of N's of thrust.

My appologies for sticking on this.  I have a very hard time seeing how the losses your referring to would swamp a MET capable of Heavy Lift.

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #896 on: 05/12/2017 02:56 AM »
...
One word: entropy. 
The same reason why a perpetual motion machine cannot work.   There will be frictional losses in the bearing, there will be damping losses in the flywheel and there are damping losses in the MET (which has a low Q, very far away from infinity).    The rotating motion would also be a problem: the inertial forces: Euler and centrifugal, when you work it all out one realizes that more energy is spent that you will be able to get out, when using real materials (and not ignoring the properties of real materials, including fatigue, which in the case for the MET involve piezoelectricity and electrostriction).

Any study of the MET that fails to take into account entropy and the properties of real materials leads to absurd conclusions, the same way that a study about vibrations (remember that the MET works at resonance) would predict vibration amplitude growing to infinity if damping is ignored, and if a flywheel without friction would exist you could have mechanical clocks that could run forever and perpetual motion machines would be a reality ;).

Wouldn't that mean we would have to expect an optimized MET in a ship would only be capable of short bursts of thrust not continuous? If not. I could just take two MET's place one on either end of a piston and toggle when they are on; I am assuming MET's capable of N's of thrust.

My appologies for sticking on this.  I have a very hard time seeing how the losses your referring to would swamp a MET capable of Heavy Lift.
<<apologies for sticking on this.  I have a very hard time seeing how the losses your referring to would swamp a MET  >> That's probably because you read about the MET with formulations that did not take into account resonance and damping.  When one sees solutions that do not take into account resonance and damping, then it is understandable to have a hard time seeing how can this be so.  If one would know about any gizmo only from simplified formulas that ignore damping (entropy) losses, then one would naturally believe that the gizmo can have perpetual motion.  Without entropy losses, free energy would be a reality!

Let's cut to the chase then: you know about the MET.  Please tell me what solutions to the MET you know that take into account resonance and take into account damping (entropy)?
« Last Edit: 05/12/2017 11:36 AM by Rodal »

Offline M.E.T.

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 447
  • Liked: 190
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #897 on: 05/12/2017 03:19 AM »
A simpler question for me would be this:

If an MET can generate sufficient thrust to lift a weight - call it 1kg - 10m into the air, will it use more local input energy to do so than the weight has gained in potential energy due to its 10m higher altitude?

If not, then the weight can be used in similar fashion to water in a hydro electric power plant to generate electricity.

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1792
  • Liked: 195
  • Likes Given: 182
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #898 on: 05/12/2017 04:44 AM »
A simpler question for me would be this:

If an MET can generate sufficient thrust to lift a weight - call it 1kg - 10m into the air, will it use more local input energy to do so than the weight has gained in potential energy due to its 10m higher altitude?

If not, then the weight can be used in similar fashion to water in a hydro electric power plant to generate electricity.

less energy would be derived from that than the total amount inputed, including that derived from the Mach-affect assist.
I understand the gravity assist anology except for the fact that seems as if Woodward's device would be using the universe so its location in terms of affect would essentially not matter? With a gravity assisted probe it takes energy to get to the gravity well , therefore it is easy to see that conservation is not being broken. But I cant wrap my poor head around how this works without being a perpetual motion machine, except in the sense of, for instance, eventually it will run out but so far in the future it is not violating physical laws for for practical purposes is endless. I suppose I have that wrong. Must study more.
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Online ppnl

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #899 on: 05/12/2017 10:11 PM »
...
Next, Dr. Rodal's analytical revelation that I was talking about earlier was that ALL the kinetic energy generated by a MEGA drive has to come from the cosmological gravitational / inertial (G/I) field AKA spacetime in General Relativity Theory (GRT), while the local vehicle input power to the MEGA drive is used just to setup the conditions needed to extract energy from the G/I field.  In other words the local vehicle input power to the MEGA drive does NOT accelerate the vehicle, but is used just as the catalytic input energy needed to extract kinetic energy from the cosmological G/I field.
...

This forces me to reask a question I know pops up on this thread every so often with no answer I have found to be definitive.

doesn't that mean we should be able to build generators with this technology? ..
No, you should not be able to continuously gain energy from that in a closed cycle, purely using gravitation without using other energy sources, just like you can use gravity assist to gain momentum and energy in one direction when going through the Jovian system, but you cannot use gravity assist to continuously gain energy in a closed cycle by circling between the Earth and the Jovian System.

As another example, a hydroelectric powerplant is only able to generate electricity continuously using gravity because the weather cycle (ultimately powered by the Sun) replenishes the water in the upper reservoir from which the energy is extracted by gravity.

I recall you saying this on the EmDrive thread. But the question I had at that time and failed to ask. What would prevent that from happening in the ME case? If bolting a MET to a flywheel results in a closed system. What is it about bolting it to a ship keeps it an open system during operation?
One word: entropy. 
The same reason why a perpetual motion machine cannot work.   There will be frictional losses in the bearing, there will be damping losses in the flywheel and there are damping losses in the MET (which has a low Q, very far away from infinity).    The rotating motion would also be a problem: the inertial forces: Euler and centrifugal, when you work it all out one realizes that more energy is spent that you will be able to get out, when using real materials (and not ignoring the properties of real materials, including fatigue, which in the case for the MET involve piezoelectricity and electrostriction).

Any study of the MET that fails to take into account entropy and the properties of real materials leads to absurd conclusions, the same way that a study about vibrations (remember that the MET works at resonance) would predict vibration amplitude growing to infinity if damping is ignored, and if a flywheel without friction would exist you could have mechanical clocks that could run forever and perpetual motion machines would be a reality ;).

I cannot make heads or tails of this as entropy seems to be entirely irrelevant.

Tie a rope between two ships. Have them accelerate in opposite directions so that they spin around. How much energy is stored and where are the entropy losses. Do the math.

You want to see entropy losses? Accelerate the ship up to a few percent of the speed of light. Now crash it into a planet. Extract energy from the molten rock. Massive entropy losses. But with a high enough velocity you will still be able to recover far more energy than you put in. 

Energy goes with the square of velocity. If you get constant acceleration with constant input power then by definition that is a violation of conservation of energy. Entropy isn't relevant.