### Author Topic: Woodward's effect  (Read 449518 times)

#### Rodal

• Senior Member
• Posts: 5911
• USA
• Liked: 6121
• Likes Given: 5402
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #900 on: 05/12/2017 11:25 PM »
I cannot make heads or tails of this ...
...You need to understand what is supposed to accelerate the center of mass

... entropy seems to be entirely irrelevant.... Entropy isn't relevant.
Damping (entropy) isn't relevant to a phenomenon that only takes place at resonance ?  Damping isn't relevant to the amplitude at resonance ?

Do the math ...

...

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.

None. Zero. Nada of the input power can go into the kinetic power of the spacecraft. Only an external field can accelerate the center of mass No amount of internally generated power can ever accelerate the center of mass (unless you expel some mass).  Do the right math !

« Last Edit: 05/13/2017 12:04 AM by Rodal »

#### birchoff

• Full Member
• Posts: 273
• United States
• Liked: 125
• Likes Given: 95
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #901 on: 05/13/2017 01:55 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)?

I agree with you that until your derivations that the Woodward derivations did not take damping into account, I am not questioning that.

I guess what I am really searching for is an updated explanation of how thrust is generated. Because the push when heavy pull when lighter example does not seem capable of communicating the effect damping would have, at least from my perspective.

For example, am I correct in saying that this damping effect would set an upper limit on the amount of energy being transferred from the GI Field? If that is true, then I would imagine given your justification for why you couldnt build a generator from a MET. Damping would have to get worse as you tried to do the following with materials we know of today.

Increase energy being transffered from the GI to the MET
Runtime of MET
External forces currently acting on the MET

Am I in the right ball park with my crude attempt ?
« Last Edit: 05/13/2017 02:04 AM by birchoff »

#### ppnl

• Full Member
• Posts: 219
• Liked: 131
• Likes Given: 19
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #902 on: 05/13/2017 06:09 AM »

None. Zero. Nada of the input power can go into the kinetic power of the spacecraft. Only an external field can accelerate the center of mass No amount of internally generated power can ever accelerate the center of mass (unless you expel some mass).  Do the right math !

Yes I understand that. But that does not answer the question that was asked.

I understand that you think there is a mechanism to tap into the energy of the universe to accelerate a local space ship. Lets assume you are correct. The question is can that mechanism be used to generate local electrical power.

Turn on your drive and accelerate up to the speed of sound. Then turn off your drive. You are still going the speed of sound. Now there are many different methods to extract that kinetic energy as electrical energy.

Once you extract the energy of the universe it exists locally and we can use it any way we wish. Free energy for all.

#### M.E.T.

• Full Member
• Posts: 574
• Liked: 242
• Likes Given: 18
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #903 on: 05/13/2017 06:17 AM »
The last two posts state the question quite nicely.

We have understood for a long time - those who have been debating and following the Mach Effect - that it is not the electrical power going into the device that generates the thrust, but instead it is energy extracted from the rest of the Universe that does the work.

And therefore, if the theory works as we believe, then the amount of energy extracted from the distant Universe should eventually far exceed the amount of electrical energy that is powering the device itself.

If that is the case, then the device should equally be able to produce what is effectively unlimited energy locally, while still not being a free energy machine, as that energy is not created out of nothing, but is simply transferred from the distant Universe to the local area.

However, do I understand you correctly that once one takes damping into account, that the extraced energy from the distant Universe will never exceed the electrical energy that was input into the device?
« Last Edit: 05/13/2017 06:24 AM by M.E.T. »

#### Star-Drive

• Member
• Full Member
• Posts: 853
• TX/USA
• Liked: 935
• Likes Given: 17
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #904 on: 05/13/2017 02:20 PM »
The last two posts state the question quite nicely.

We have understood for a long time - those who have been debating and following the Mach Effect - that it is not the electrical power going into the device that generates the thrust, but instead it is energy extracted from the rest of the Universe that does the work.

And therefore, if the theory works as we believe, then the amount of energy extracted from the distant Universe should eventually far exceed the amount of electrical energy that is powering the device itself.

If that is the case, then the device should equally be able to produce what is effectively unlimited energy locally, while still not being a free energy machine, as that energy is not created out of nothing, but is simply transferred from the distant Universe to the local area.

However, do I understand you correctly that once one takes damping into account, that the extraced energy from the distant Universe will never exceed the electrical energy that was input into the device?

M.E.T.:

IMO the NET harvested energy in the local frame of reference of the MEGA drive in the form* of the increase in the attached vehicle kinetic energy that comes from the cosmological gravitational / inertial (G/I) field will turn out to be the MEGA drive's local input power times its operational loaded Q-factor, which includes ALL of Dr. Rodal's dissipative parasitic losses in the MEGA drive system's resonant circuits and any i^2 * R losses in it's local dc to RF power supply.

Best, Paul M.
« Last Edit: 05/13/2017 02:41 PM by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

#### Rodal

• Senior Member
• Posts: 5911
• USA
• Liked: 6121
• Likes Given: 5402
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #905 on: 05/13/2017 02:26 PM »
... it is not the electrical power going into the device that generates the thrust, but instead it is energy extracted from the rest of the Universe that does the work...

Gravity is not energy, not even a force, but the effect arising from the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of  mass-energy.

As I stated previously, gravity is not the source of energy in a hydroelectric powerplant: the Sun is the source of this energy.

I don't think that continuous free energy and perpetual motion are possible, because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics: entropy, but things can be  engineered over the short-term to mimic it.

...if the theory works as we believe, then the amount of energy extracted from the distant Universe  should eventually far exceed the amount of electrical energy that is powering the device itself...

We disagree: I think you have not calculated this for real materials, taking into account the entropy involved in converting into energy the spaceship motion produced by gravity, and the entropy  involved in vibrating a Langevin stack.   You are also assuming a constant thrust without taking into account the disturbance to the system by rotating into space, and the fact that the system is vibrating with piezoelectric excitation at a relatively slow 35 kHz.  Presently the materials used have a low Q~60.

When you state "if the theory works as we believe" you are apparently using a theory that completely neglects
the issues associated with resonance and damping, and not taking into account the limitations of real materials.

--------------------------------------------------

When a definite statement is made, as the one made by ppnl like this one:

...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.

One can then show ppnl's error: as ppnl incorrectly assumed (in his conservation of energy equation) that the input power was converted into acceleration of the spaceship, which is impossible. None (zero) of the input power can go into the kinetic power of the spacecraft. Only an external field can accelerate the center of mass of the spaceship.  No amount of internally generated power can ever accelerate the center of mass (unless you expel some mass).

However, when someone makes a general statement like this one, without taking into account real material properties:

...if the theory works as we believe, then the amount of energy extracted from the distant Universe
should eventually far exceed the amount of electrical energy that is powering the device itself...

one cannot negate it with a specific answer, because the statement does not say what theory is being considered (is the theory taking into account entropy losses?) and most importantly, no real material is being considered.

Sure, if you consider ideal materials that have no dissipation, that can have unlimited properties, then many theoretical things would be possible that are not possible in our real Universe.

For example a general statement can also be made that  "...if the theory works as we believe...then a building tall enough to work as a space elevator should be possible" but when one takes into account the tensile-strength/mass-density of any real material one realizes that this is impossible.

Similarly when one considers that all materials have internal defects that are responsible for damage that results in entropy (damping,plasticity, viscoelasticity, fatigue, etc.), and takes into account the dissipation involved in converting into energy  the possible thrust produced, then it does not appear possible to continuously produce extra energy with this device.  But to arrive at that conclusion one has to consider real material properties.  And for the idea of rotating the device, one has to consider the disturbance to the system produced by the rotation, as well as the fact that any such rotational device will involve materials having real material properties.  And continuous operation of the device at dozens or hundreds kHz quickly runs into the limitation that all piezoelectric real solid materials have a fatigue endurance limit.

So what is interesting about this concept is using Gravitation to achieve a space drive that does not need to exhaust a propellant mass, rather than as an energy source.  There are much more interesting energy sources than this one.  One such theoretical energy source are fusion powerplants, which is always 20 years into the future, at any point in time for the last 60 years, according to theoretical calculations (that assume rosy material properties)...
« Last Edit: 05/13/2017 02:51 PM by Rodal »

#### ppnl

• Full Member
• Posts: 219
• Liked: 131
• Likes Given: 19
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #906 on: 05/13/2017 02:42 PM »

Again I cannot make heads or tails of what Rodal is even saying.

Either the thing can accelerate at a constant average rate while using constant power or it cannot. Which is it?

#### RotoSequence

• Full Member
• Posts: 1030
• Liked: 728
• Likes Given: 856
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #907 on: 05/13/2017 02:53 PM »

Again I cannot make heads or tails of what Rodal is even saying.

Either the thing can accelerate at a constant average rate while using constant power or it cannot. Which is it?

I believe it's a third option; it can accelerate at a potentially constant rate while using constant power, as long as there's some sort of external references and relative motion to extract momentum from. In theory, the working mechanism should be some sort of orbital momentum parasitic action that would slow down the rotational velocity or orbital velocity of the Earth, Moon, or other orbital systems. Either that or I'm confusing this with EM-Drive specific theories, in which case, I don't know.
« Last Edit: 05/13/2017 02:56 PM by RotoSequence »

#### JohnFornaro

• Not an expert
• Senior Member
• Posts: 9168
• Delta-t is the salient metric.
• Planet Eaarth
• Liked: 620
• Likes Given: 326
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #908 on: 05/13/2017 03:07 PM »
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.

I'm not the class mathematician, but come on.  There's friction in the water, there's energy needed for acceleration.  This is not a good analogy for your point.

"Turn on your drive and accelerate up to the speed of sound. Then turn off your drive. You are still going the speed of sound. Now there are many different methods to extract that kinetic energy as electrical energy.

Discuss the extension cord required to transmit that kinetically produced electric energy in a useful fashion.  Discuss the gravitational attraction of nearby bodies, taking the "speed of sound" as a speed, having little to do with sound in space, otherwise discuss the friction of the medium you're travelling through and how your spacecraft maintains the speed of sound.

As Rodal mentioned:

Sure, if you consider ideal materials that have no dissipation, that can have unlimited properties, then many theoretical things would be possible that are not possible in our real Universe.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

#### ppnl

• Full Member
• Posts: 219
• Liked: 131
• Likes Given: 19
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #909 on: 05/13/2017 03:54 PM »

Again I cannot make heads or tails of what Rodal is even saying.

Either the thing can accelerate at a constant average rate while using constant power or it cannot. Which is it?

I believe it's a third option; it can accelerate at a potentially constant rate while using constant power, as long as there's some sort of external references and relative motion to extract momentum from. In theory, the working mechanism should be some sort of orbital momentum parasitic action that would slow down the rotational velocity or orbital velocity of the Earth, Moon, or other orbital systems. Either that or I'm confusing this with EM-Drive specific theories, in which case, I don't know.

But that would be a clear and unavoidable violation of conservation of energy.

A car accelerates by pushing against the Earth and so changes the Earths motion by a small amount. But a car needs four times the energy to accelerate from zero to sixty as it needs to accelerate from zero to thirty. Energy goes with the square of velocity.

Their drive is supposed to work by reacting against the cosmologically distant universe. This is somehow supposed to avoid the problem. Don't ask me.

#### ppnl

• Full Member
• Posts: 219
• Liked: 131
• Likes Given: 19
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #910 on: 05/13/2017 03:57 PM »
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.

I'm not the class mathematician, but come on.  There's friction in the water, there's energy needed for acceleration.  This is not a good analogy for your point.

"Turn on your drive and accelerate up to the speed of sound. Then turn off your drive. You are still going the speed of sound. Now there are many different methods to extract that kinetic energy as electrical energy.

Discuss the extension cord required to transmit that kinetically produced electric energy in a useful fashion.  Discuss the gravitational attraction of nearby bodies, taking the "speed of sound" as a speed, having little to do with sound in space, otherwise discuss the friction of the medium you're travelling through and how your spacecraft maintains the speed of sound.

As Rodal mentioned:

Sure, if you consider ideal materials that have no dissipation, that can have unlimited properties, then many theoretical things would be possible that are not possible in our real Universe.

By ship I mean space ship. No friction so would be close to 100% effecient.

#### RotoSequence

• Full Member
• Posts: 1030
• Liked: 728
• Likes Given: 856
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #911 on: 05/13/2017 04:31 PM »

Again I cannot make heads or tails of what Rodal is even saying.

Either the thing can accelerate at a constant average rate while using constant power or it cannot. Which is it?

I believe it's a third option; it can accelerate at a potentially constant rate while using constant power, as long as there's some sort of external references and relative motion to extract momentum from. In theory, the working mechanism should be some sort of orbital momentum parasitic action that would slow down the rotational velocity or orbital velocity of the Earth, Moon, or other orbital systems. Either that or I'm confusing this with EM-Drive specific theories, in which case, I don't know.

But that would be a clear and unavoidable violation of conservation of energy.

A car accelerates by pushing against the Earth and so changes the Earths motion by a small amount. But a car needs four times the energy to accelerate from zero to sixty as it needs to accelerate from zero to thirty. Energy goes with the square of velocity.

Their drive is supposed to work by reacting against the cosmologically distant universe. This is somehow supposed to avoid the problem. Don't ask me.

The proof's gonna be in the pudding; if it works, it works. How it works and how it scales and implementing any sort of scaling functionality are problems that will be worked from different disciplines (assuming this exploration amounts to something). If it's gravitationally relative, we should see diminishing power and velocity efficiency as it gets further away from a gravity well, but we have absolutely no data that's capable of suggesting one way or another. If we wanted to see a difference based on the strength of local gravity, you'd have to get pretty far away from Earth to keep today's experiments out of the noise floor.
« Last Edit: 05/13/2017 04:35 PM by RotoSequence »

#### birchoff

• Full Member
• Posts: 273
• United States
• Liked: 125
• Likes Given: 95
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #912 on: 05/13/2017 11:25 PM »
The last two posts state the question quite nicely.

We have understood for a long time - those who have been debating and following the Mach Effect - that it is not the electrical power going into the device that generates the thrust, but instead it is energy extracted from the rest of the Universe that does the work.

And therefore, if the theory works as we believe, then the amount of energy extracted from the distant Universe should eventually far exceed the amount of electrical energy that is powering the device itself.

If that is the case, then the device should equally be able to produce what is effectively unlimited energy locally, while still not being a free energy machine, as that energy is not created out of nothing, but is simply transferred from the distant Universe to the local area.

However, do I understand you correctly that once one takes damping into account, that the extraced energy from the distant Universe will never exceed the electrical energy that was input into the device?

M.E.T.:

IMO the NET harvested energy in the local frame of reference of the MEGA drive in the form* of the increase in the attached vehicle kinetic energy that comes from the cosmological gravitational / inertial (G/I) field will turn out to be the MEGA drive's local input power times its operational loaded Q-factor, which includes ALL of Dr. Rodal's dissipative parasitic losses in the MEGA drive system's resonant circuits and any i^2 * R losses in it's local dc to RF power supply.

Best, Paul M.

Paul should I interpret what you said as this
Quote
...
the increase in the attached vehicle's kinetic energy that comes from the cosmological gravitational / inertial (G/I) field will turn out to be EQUAL TO THE VALUE OF the MEGA drive's local input power times its operational loaded Q-factor
...

#### JohnFornaro

• Not an expert
• Senior Member
• Posts: 9168
• Delta-t is the salient metric.
• Planet Eaarth
• Liked: 620
• Likes Given: 326
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #913 on: 05/14/2017 12:54 PM »
By ship I mean space ship. No friction so would be close to 100% effecient.

Fine, then:

ppnl: "Tie a rope between two space 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."

The math there is known as angular momentum.  May we assume a cable between them, or is this a gravitational attraction?  Is is too much to ask if energy is being extracted from this spinning system?  Do the spacecraft accelerate and then just rotate?

It's not at all clear what point you're making about entropy in this simple system.

ppnl: "Turn on your drive and accelerate up to the speed of sound. Then turn off your drive. You are still going the speed of sound. Now there are many different methods to extract that kinetic energy as electrical energy."

In this example, it's not at all clear how you propose extracting kinetic energy for a useful purpose, unless crashing into a planet is the sole  purpose of the thought experiment.

Caryy on without me.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

#### Star-Drive

• Member
• Full Member
• Posts: 853
• TX/USA
• Liked: 935
• Likes Given: 17
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #914 on: 05/14/2017 01:02 PM »
The last two posts state the question quite nicely.

We have understood for a long time - those who have been debating and following the Mach Effect - that it is not the electrical power going into the device that generates the thrust, but instead it is energy extracted from the rest of the Universe that does the work.

And therefore, if the theory works as we believe, then the amount of energy extracted from the distant Universe should eventually far exceed the amount of electrical energy that is powering the device itself.

If that is the case, then the device should equally be able to produce what is effectively unlimited energy locally, while still not being a free energy machine, as that energy is not created out of nothing, but is simply transferred from the distant Universe to the local area.

However, do I understand you correctly that once one takes damping into account, that the extraced energy from the distant Universe will never exceed the electrical energy that was input into the device?

M.E.T.:

IMO the NET harvested energy in the local frame of reference of the MEGA drive in the form* of the increase in the attached vehicle kinetic energy that comes from the cosmological gravitational / inertial (G/I) field will turn out to be the MEGA drive's local input power times its operational loaded Q-factor, which includes ALL of Dr. Rodal's dissipative parasitic losses in the MEGA drive system's resonant circuits and any i^2 * R losses in it's local dc to RF power supply.

Best, Paul M.

Paul should I interpret what you said as this
Quote
...
the increase in the attached vehicle's kinetic energy that comes from the cosmological gravitational / inertial (G/I) field will turn out to be EQUAL TO THE VALUE OF the MEGA drive's local input power times its operational loaded Q-factor
...

Birchoff: Yes.
Star-Drive

#### tdperk

• Full Member
• Posts: 314
• Liked: 103
• Likes Given: 53
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #915 on: 05/14/2017 05:15 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.

Absolutely.  The net energy output comes from the Machian interactions (whether they are advanced waves or not, 'though I think they must be) the device has with the locally observable universe.

#### ppnl

• Full Member
• Posts: 219
• Liked: 131
• Likes Given: 19
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #916 on: 05/14/2017 06:17 PM »
By ship I mean space ship. No friction so would be close to 100% effecient.

Fine, then:

ppnl: "Tie a rope between two space 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."

The math there is known as angular momentum.  May we assume a cable between them, or is this a gravitational attraction?  Is is too much to ask if energy is being extracted from this spinning system?  Do the spacecraft accelerate and then just rotate?

It's not at all clear what point you're making about entropy in this simple system.

ppnl: "Turn on your drive and accelerate up to the speed of sound. Then turn off your drive. You are still going the speed of sound. Now there are many different methods to extract that kinetic energy as electrical energy."

In this example, it's not at all clear how you propose extracting kinetic energy for a useful purpose, unless crashing into a planet is the sole  purpose of the thought experiment.

Caryy on without me.

It goes not matter if it is a cable, gravity, magnetic field or anything else. The point is that you can store massive amounts of kinetic energy and extract it by a variety of ways. It is spinning so you can put a magnet on it and make a generator out of it for example. There is vast energy there. It can be extracted in a useful form. I really really can't see what is so complicated about this.

I have no point about entropy except that it is irrelevant. I can't understand why it was even mentioned.

Crashing into a planet would be a highly inefficient way to extract energy. My point was that even crashing into a planet and extracting geothermal energy from the molten rock would give more energy out than was put in for a high enough velocity. There are many better ways.

There is a vast amount of kinetic energy available here. I idea that you can never use it is just strange.

#### ppnl

• Full Member
• Posts: 219
• Liked: 131
• Likes Given: 19
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #917 on: 05/14/2017 07:01 PM »

Absolutely.  The net energy output comes from the Machian interactions (whether they are advanced waves or not, 'though I think they must be) the device has with the locally observable universe.

This is unclear to me for several reasons.

First, if the energy output is a simple multiple of the energy input then you cannot have constant acceleration with constant input power. Can we agree on this?

Second, what do you mean by "locally observable universe"? Do you mean local planets or cosmologically distant objects?

And finally how is the performance of the engine affected by its relative motion with respect to the part of the universe it is interacting with? For example a car interacts with the Earth by pushing against it. But it needs far more energy to go from 30mph to 60mph than it needed to go from 0mpg to 30mph. Relative motion makes it need more energy.

#### JohnFornaro

• Not an expert
• Senior Member
• Posts: 9168
• Delta-t is the salient metric.
• Planet Eaarth
• Liked: 620
• Likes Given: 326
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #918 on: 05/15/2017 12:31 PM »
I have no point about entropy except that it is irrelevant. I can't understand why it was even mentioned.

Well, at least you're consistent.  I'm afraid that entropy exists as a feature of the universe regardless of your understanding thereof.

Anyhow...

Quote from: ppnl
The point is that you can store massive amounts of kinetic energy and extract it by a variety of ways. It is spinning so you can put a magnet on it and make a generator out of it for example. There is vast energy there. It can be extracted in a useful form.

This is generally true.  To be more completely accurate, one never gets one hundred percent of the energy stored back, much less more than one hundred percent.  Why?  Because entropy.

It's not clear to me what is the larger point that you may be making.

You can check out the oracle on Flywheel Energy Storage for a bit of additional info on how different forms of energy are transformed one from another, stored, and transmitted.

The oracle also offers a pretty good intro to entropy.  I always skip the math above calculus, but hey:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_entropy

Bottom line:

You can't unscramble an egg.  And you can't get something for nothing.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

#### birchoff

• Full Member
• Posts: 273
• United States
• Liked: 125
• Likes Given: 95
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #919 on: 05/15/2017 01:42 PM »
I have no point about entropy except that it is irrelevant. I can't understand why it was even mentioned.

Well, at least you're consistent.  I'm afraid that entropy exists as a feature of the universe regardless of your understanding thereof.

Anyhow...

Quote from: ppnl
The point is that you can store massive amounts of kinetic energy and extract it by a variety of ways. It is spinning so you can put a magnet on it and make a generator out of it for example. There is vast energy there. It can be extracted in a useful form.

This is generally true.  To be more completely accurate, one never gets one hundred percent of the energy stored back, much less more than one hundred percent.  Why?  Because entropy.

It's not clear to me what is the larger point that you may be making.

You can check out the oracle on Flywheel Energy Storage for a bit of additional info on how different forms of energy are transformed one from another, stored, and transmitted.

The oracle also offers a pretty good intro to entropy.  I always skip the math above calculus, but hey:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_entropy

Bottom line:

You can't unscramble an egg.  And you can't get something for nothing.

It doesnt matter if you dont get 100% of the energy (Kinetic energy) back.

Mainly because we are not arguing that a MET can create a Free Energy machine. Where Free Energy means the output of the generator was created from nothing. Instead what we are arguing is that when the lab scale experiments are scaled up. and we start  higher levels of thrust. it should be possible to convert the kinetic energy that a MET imparts to the container it is fastened to, into other forms of energy; mainly electrical.

Now, from all the theoretical work and the work shop discussions it is also obvious that the main source of energy for a MET is not the power provided by the ships power system. Star-Drive's confirmation of my interpretation here

...

M.E.T.:

IMO the NET harvested energy in the local frame of reference of the MEGA drive in the form* of the increase in the attached vehicle kinetic energy that comes from the cosmological gravitational / inertial (G/I) field will turn out to be the MEGA drive's local input power times its operational loaded Q-factor, which includes ALL of Dr. Rodal's dissipative parasitic losses in the MEGA drive system's resonant circuits and any i^2 * R losses in it's local dc to RF power supply.

Best, Paul M.

Paul should I interpret what you said as this
Quote
...
the increase in the attached vehicle's kinetic energy that comes from the cosmological gravitational / inertial (G/I) field will turn out to be EQUAL TO THE VALUE OF the MEGA drive's local input power times its operational loaded Q-factor
...

Birchoff: Yes.

makes it clear that the only thing the local powersource is good for is defining one of the variables used to control how much energy is extracted from the proposed Grav/Inertial field; thats the external field rodal refers to as being the true source of the kinetic energy.

What matters is that the kinetic energy is greater than the energy being fed to the MET to create the interaction. That means if a MET is capable of imparting kinetic energy equal in value to or greater than the electrical energy supplied to it. Then it is plausible that with some engineering you should be able to turn a MET into a generator, which generates energy (most likely electrical) by converting the kinetic energy imparted by the external field.

The only way rodal's points about damping and entropy could be valid points against a MET being used as a generator at some point in time in the future. Is if damping and entropy will always limit the kinetic energy extracted from the field to be less than or equal to the electrical energy put into the MET. Then a MET could only be useful as a propulsion device.

Finally this does not mean a MET is a free energy device urgo it cannot work. That line of reasoning only makes sense if you provide proof that this external field that is being drawn on doesnt exist. Also, My math and physics are not strong enough to explain the specific properties of this field . So Questions about motion relative to the field will have to be tabled. As I understand the information that is available so far, the theory and experiments show that it works. A Complete detailed explaination about why is still pending.