Now lets assume we are dealing with a Rocket with a near inexhaustible supply of fuel and oxidizer.
[...] Because if MET's cannot provide constant acceleration for constant input power. Wouldn't the simple answer to the critique be to say they can't.
I am forced to ask the question how would any mechanical system absent friction or gravitational interaction know that it isnt supposed to go any faster.
Quote from: birchoff on 12/25/2015 02:08 amNow lets assume we are dealing with a Rocket with a near inexhaustible supply of fuel and oxidizer.Yes, if you can somehow magically insert new propellant in the tanks, without having to pay for it by carrying it with you or collecting it from an outside medium, then a simple rocket becomes a CoE-violating free-energy machine.
Quote from: Paul451 on 12/25/2015 12:09 pmQuote from: birchoff on 12/25/2015 02:08 amNow lets assume we are dealing with a Rocket with a near inexhaustible supply of fuel and oxidizer.Yes, if you can somehow magically insert new propellant in the tanks, without having to pay for it by carrying it with you or collecting it from an outside medium, then a simple rocket becomes a CoE-violating free-energy machine.Paul451, can you please precise your thought because according to your sentence you are implying that a little rocket model on the edge of a spinning wheel, with a tube feeding propellant from the outside (connected at the wheel axis and going through a radius hollow arm to the rocket mode) does become a CoE-violating free-energy machine. In this example the propellant is not limited and stored inside the rocket, it is "unlimited" (well, stored within a huge tank) outside of the system.
Quote from: birchoff on 12/25/2015 02:08 amNow lets assume we are dealing with a Rocket with a near inexhaustible supply of fuel and oxidizer.I'm always puzzled how people can write things like this without alarm bells going off in their heads....
...Quote from: birchoff on 12/25/2015 02:08 amI am forced to ask the question how would any mechanical system absent friction or gravitational interaction know that it isnt supposed to go any faster.No conventional system (except a photon drive) has constant force/power. Therefore overunity cannot arise. There is no critical velocity that it needs to avoid, the limit is inherent in being a reaction engine.That's what makes reactionless thrusters fundamentally different, they lack that limit.(In a photon drive, the minimum velocity for unity is the speed of light. And thrust is below 3.3 newtons per gigawatt.)
...Quote from: birchoff on 12/25/2015 02:08 am[...] Because if MET's cannot provide constant acceleration for constant input power. Wouldn't the simple answer to the critique be to say they can't.You can't just say it. The MET has no inherent mechanism for altering the force/power ratio. Unlike any conventional system.It has no internal limit (it isn't throwing away mass like a rocket), and it isn't "aware" of its relative velocity (it isn't interacting with an external road/air/magnetic field/laser/etc) only its acceleration.Proposed mechanisms to limit reactionless thrusters to less than "unity" require them to somehow be aware of their velocity. But relative to what? The skeptics' overunity argument doesn't have a preferred frame of reference (as long as the measuring frame is non-accelerating and consistent.) So defenders/advocates propose some kind of pseudo-absolute frame of reference, such as your "inertial field", or average momentum of the deep universe or some other universal background effect.But proposed "absolute" frames don't solve the overunity problem for any device that has allegedly worked on Earth (or can be tested here or in orbit) because the velocity required for overunity in any device we can measure in a lab is generally less than Earth's orbital velocity, certainly less than the sun's orbital velocity around the Milky Way. For example, any device exceeding 5mN/kW (5uN/W), reaches unity at 200km/s. Any device that produces more than 30mN of force per kW reaches unity at 30km/s.The magic unity-countering background field should have already stopped the devices from working....
...Bringing this back to the essay. From my perspective after re-reading the essay and thinking about the proposed thought experiment. I think Woodward believes that MET's undergo constant acceleration for constant input. However, he doesn't believe that the constant acceleration occurs for as long as the MET is turned on. which is why I believe the argument he makes towards the end of the paper should really be read "there is a value for t beyond which you will no longer be accelerating". Because there is a limiting factor which will prevent it. Which is why I think the essay is more of a proof that there must be some limiting factor. Instead of an answer to the really interesting question, WHAT is that limiting factor.<Random Speculation>Personally I think the limiting factor is inertia, or more specifically the force inertia applies to a physical object. Now while there is no accepted theory on what the hell inertia is. We do know that it acts on a physical object to resist any change in its state of motion. To do this it must at all times be applying a force to the physical object or at the least apply that force when the object attempts to change is state of motion. Now a MET works by applying a voltage to a device to cause its Inertial Mass to oscillate from heavier to lighter. While at the same time applying a force to that same object in just the right way, so that it is pushed on in one direction when it is lighter and pushed on in the opposite direction when it is heavier; this results in a net directional force. Now if inertia is always applying a force to an object that is proportional to its inertial mass. Then the magnitude of that force when you push on the object while its inertial mass is reduced will be Flighter. When you push on the object while its inertial mass is increased it will be Fheavier. Which means by definition you should end up withFheavier - Flighter = FnetWhere Fnet is greater than zero.That means the total energy being fed into a MET device is the electrical energy used to trigger the controlled mass fluctuations and apply the external force which is pushing on the mass while it is lighter in one direction and pushing on the mass while it is heavier in the opposite direction. Plus Fnet which is the generated by inertia.</Random Speculation>My speculation only works if you can argue that inertia is a radiating field permeating the universe. Which is why I suspect Woodward/Fearn/Watsner have spent time updating Hoyle and Narlikar theory. Since it is a Machian version of Einsteins relativity. Which provides a mechanism for mass interactions in the local environment to communicate with the mass that is far away. This mechanism works so long as the expansion of the Universe is accelerating, which all observations seem to support.
Now lets assume we are dealing with a Rocket with a near inexhaustible supply of fuel...
birchoff,How fast are you moving with respect to that grav-inertial field? It matters because a car accelerates by reacting against the "earth-dirt" field and it can't accelerate constantly with constant power. What makes Woodwards drive different?
flux_capacitor,QuoteNow lets assume we are dealing with a Rocket with a near inexhaustible supply of fuel...You simply cannot do that. If the rocket has near inexhaustible fuel then it has near inexhaustible mass and needs near infinite energy to accelerate even a little.Forget air resistance. Forget gravity. Say you have a rocket in space with some normal amount of fuel. You turn on the rocket and it uses fuel at a constant rate. Since the chemical energy of the fuel is a constant then it would seem that the rocket is giving constant power and accelerating at a greater than constant rate as it loses fuel mass. So what gives?The answer is that the rocket is accelerating its fuel with it and so is injecting massive amounts of kinetic energy into its unused fuel.Woodward does claim that his drive will give a constant acceleration with constant power for a limited time interval. After that he resets the speed to zero and allows the same to happen again. Nothing can fix this level of +stupid. Even if his drive works by taping into some hidden power source his analysis is still silly.
Quote from: ppnl on 12/25/2015 05:05 pmflux_capacitor,QuoteNow lets assume we are dealing with a Rocket with a near inexhaustible supply of fuel...You simply cannot do that. If the rocket has near inexhaustible fuel then it has near inexhaustible mass and needs near infinite energy to accelerate even a little.Forget air resistance. Forget gravity. Say you have a rocket in space with some normal amount of fuel. You turn on the rocket and it uses fuel at a constant rate. Since the chemical energy of the fuel is a constant then it would seem that the rocket is giving constant power and accelerating at a greater than constant rate as it loses fuel mass. So what gives?The answer is that the rocket is accelerating its fuel with it and so is injecting massive amounts of kinetic energy into its unused fuel.Woodward does claim that his drive will give a constant acceleration with constant power for a limited time interval. After that he resets the speed to zero and allows the same to happen again. Nothing can fix this level of +stupid. Even if his drive works by taping into some hidden power source his analysis is still silly. I got a little loose with my terms and definitions. As clarified in my last comment the situation I was imagining was enough fuel+oxidizer to burn past the point which air friction was an issue. That said changing the example for a fusion rocket, antimatter rocket, or a simple ion rocket moving from Earth GEO to Mars GEO still shows a period of constant acceleration for constant power as the rocket approaches its terminal velocity. Which is determined by the maximum amount of energy released by the rockets power source + the increasing effects of inertia.As far as that essay is concerned Woodward doesn't claim what your saying. From my interpretation he is doing a by definition justification that a boundary must exist beyond which a MET cannot accelerate any longer.What is missing is an explanation of what is the physical process that reduces acceleration as you approach this time boundary.
Quote from: ppnl on 12/25/2015 05:13 pmbirchoff,How fast are you moving with respect to that grav-inertial field? It matters because a car accelerates by reacting against the "earth-dirt" field and it can't accelerate constantly with constant power. What makes Woodwards drive different?... it can't accelerate constantly with constant power. ...
Quote from: RonM on 12/25/2015 05:43 pmQuote from: ppnl on 12/25/2015 05:13 pmbirchoff,How fast are you moving with respect to that grav-inertial field? It matters because a car accelerates by reacting against the "earth-dirt" field and it can't accelerate constantly with constant power. What makes Woodwards drive different?... it can't accelerate constantly with constant power. ...So a couple of you have said this now and I think I need to take a step back and ask a few questions.What do you or other critics currently here mean when you say accelerate constantly with constant power?Devoid of knowledge of any assumptions you are making my interpretation is that if I provide constant input power to a MET or any mechanical system, AT NO TIME can it constantly accelerate. Instead from t=0 the moment I turn on my power supply which provides constant input power. The MET or other simple mechanical system will either instantaneously attain terminal velocity, or acceleration will start at maximum possible and continuously decrease from that point forward until terminal velocity is achieved.
Quote from: birchoff on 12/25/2015 05:47 pmQuote from: ppnl on 12/25/2015 05:05 pmflux_capacitor,QuoteNow lets assume we are dealing with a Rocket with a near inexhaustible supply of fuel...You simply cannot do that. If the rocket has near inexhaustible fuel then it has near inexhaustible mass and needs near infinite energy to accelerate even a little.Forget air resistance. Forget gravity. Say you have a rocket in space with some normal amount of fuel. You turn on the rocket and it uses fuel at a constant rate. Since the chemical energy of the fuel is a constant then it would seem that the rocket is giving constant power and accelerating at a greater than constant rate as it loses fuel mass. So what gives?The answer is that the rocket is accelerating its fuel with it and so is injecting massive amounts of kinetic energy into its unused fuel.Woodward does claim that his drive will give a constant acceleration with constant power for a limited time interval. After that he resets the speed to zero and allows the same to happen again. Nothing can fix this level of +stupid. Even if his drive works by taping into some hidden power source his analysis is still silly. I got a little loose with my terms and definitions. As clarified in my last comment the situation I was imagining was enough fuel+oxidizer to burn past the point which air friction was an issue. That said changing the example for a fusion rocket, antimatter rocket, or a simple ion rocket moving from Earth GEO to Mars GEO still shows a period of constant acceleration for constant power as the rocket approaches its terminal velocity. Which is determined by the maximum amount of energy released by the rockets power source + the increasing effects of inertia.As far as that essay is concerned Woodward doesn't claim what your saying. From my interpretation he is doing a by definition justification that a boundary must exist beyond which a MET cannot accelerate any longer.What is missing is an explanation of what is the physical process that reduces acceleration as you approach this time boundary.But Woodward is claiming that if you turn the drive off you get to reset your speed to zero and do it again and get exactly the same acceleration. Otherwise why is he talking about different intervals giving the same performance ratios? In the end the effect is the same. Summed over different discrete intervals you get the effect of constant acceleration with constant power just step-wise.And no rocket will give constant acceleration with constant power. With fuel that has high enough performance it can look constant but it is not.
Quote from: birchoff on 12/25/2015 06:23 pmQuote from: RonM on 12/25/2015 05:43 pmQuote from: ppnl on 12/25/2015 05:13 pmbirchoff,How fast are you moving with respect to that grav-inertial field? It matters because a car accelerates by reacting against the "earth-dirt" field and it can't accelerate constantly with constant power. What makes Woodwards drive different?... it can't accelerate constantly with constant power. ...So a couple of you have said this now and I think I need to take a step back and ask a few questions.What do you or other critics currently here mean when you say accelerate constantly with constant power?Devoid of knowledge of any assumptions you are making my interpretation is that if I provide constant input power to a MET or any mechanical system, AT NO TIME can it constantly accelerate. Instead from t=0 the moment I turn on my power supply which provides constant input power. The MET or other simple mechanical system will either instantaneously attain terminal velocity, or acceleration will start at maximum possible and continuously decrease from that point forward until terminal velocity is achieved.If you are reacting against something like with a rocket and its fuel or a car and the road then constant power can only deliver constantly *decreasing* acceleration. Viewed from the starting frame of reference there is an interval of time where that constant power for constant acceleration would not appear to violate conservation of energy. But the length of that interval is frame dependent. From another frame of reference it would still be violating conservation of energy. The idea that you can have constant power for constant acceleration for even an instant is an illusion created by your choice of inertial frames.There are many illusions that will hide this fact. Changing efficiency in converting power into kinetic energy. Changing fuel weight in a rocket. Changing kinetic energy content of the remaining fuel. Ignore all these and just assume 100% efficiency in converting power to kinetic energy and no change of weight of the vehicle and you cannot have constant power for constant acceleration for even an instant.
Where in the essay is he claiming you can turn the drive off and reset speed to zero? I dont see that direct claim anywhere in the essay. Do you mean it is implied by his deduction? If so which part of the deduction implies what you say he is claiming.
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.
That said would it be fair to say that instead what we have is constantly decreasing acceleration for constant input power? If so what is component responsible for this decreasing acceleration even though the power provided at each time interval remains the same (I am assuming that the point of contention isn't over if it is possible to provide constant power to a mechanical system or rocket).
or a simple ion rocket moving from Earth GEO to Mars GEO still shows a period of constant acceleration for constant power as the rocket approaches its terminal velocity.
The MET is pushing off of this so called Grav-Inertial Field, and it is the energy derived from this field interaction that would limit the terminal velocity of a MET.This solves the Over-Unity debate because the core problem with it as I see.
The MET is pushing off of this so called Grav-Inertial Field
Where in the essay is he claiming you can turn the drive off and reset speed to zero?
Quote from: birchoff on 12/25/2015 06:51 pmWhere in the essay is he claiming you can turn the drive off and reset speed to zero? I dont see that direct claim anywhere in the essay. Do you mean it is implied by his deduction? If so which part of the deduction implies what you say he is claiming.Once again...QuoteThat 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.What do you think he is saying when he talks about different intervals with the same ratios?Look, start with speed = 0 in some reference frame. Turn the drive on for some interval t. How much energy did you feed in? Lets call it E. How much speed did you gain? Lets call it S. How much kinetic energy did it gain? Lets call it K.Ok lets do it again. You are at rest in some frame of reference. It is a different frame of reference than in the first interval but "...the only invariant velocity that exists in this case is the one of instantaneous rest at the outset of each interval." So we are still allowed to say speed = 0. We again feed in E amount of energy. How much speed did we gain? Well the ratios must be the same as in the first interval so again we get S gain in speed. How much kinetic energy did we gain? again the ratio must be the same so again we seem to have gained K kinetic energy. Interval after interval you add energy and gain speed with the same ratio. Constant power - although delivered discreetly - gives constant acceleration - although delivered discretely. Only the kinetic energy isn't adding up right.
Quote from: ppnl on 12/25/2015 07:32 pmQuote from: birchoff on 12/25/2015 06:51 pmWhere in the essay is he claiming you can turn the drive off and reset speed to zero? I dont see that direct claim anywhere in the essay. Do you mean it is implied by his deduction? If so which part of the deduction implies what you say he is claiming.Once again...QuoteThat 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.What do you think he is saying when he talks about different intervals with the same ratios?Look, start with speed = 0 in some reference frame. Turn the drive on for some interval t. How much energy did you feed in? Lets call it E. How much speed did you gain? Lets call it S. How much kinetic energy did it gain? Lets call it K.Ok lets do it again. You are at rest in some frame of reference. It is a different frame of reference than in the first interval but "...the only invariant velocity that exists in this case is the one of instantaneous rest at the outset of each interval." So we are still allowed to say speed = 0. We again feed in E amount of energy. How much speed did we gain? Well the ratios must be the same as in the first interval so again we get S gain in speed. How much kinetic energy did we gain? again the ratio must be the same so again we seem to have gained K kinetic energy. Interval after interval you add energy and gain speed with the same ratio. Constant power - although delivered discreetly - gives constant acceleration - although delivered discretely. Only the kinetic energy isn't adding up right. Thanks for responding. But whether or not this is an issue is determined by how the Energy accounting is done. is the E added limited to just the electrical energy provided by the user of the MET. Or does it include the energy contributed by the Grav-Inertial Field.Which is why my only critique of the essay is that Woodward has not spelled out where all the energy is coming from. Along with what are the bounds on how much energy can be provided by the Grav-Inertial Field. I don't particularly believe this is sloppy science because it seems like their focus so far has been on building a highly replicatable experiment and coming up with a theory of operation that predicts experimental results while at the same time agree's with Relativity.That said the one thing that does bother me a bit is why would the energy contributed via the interaction between the thruster and the Field increase over time? The force that inertia is applying to an object in motion gets stronger the faster that object is moving. So on the surface it looks like Flighter and FheavierfromQuote from: birchoff on 12/25/2015 02:08 am...Bringing this back to the essay. From my perspective after re-reading the essay and thinking about the proposed thought experiment. I think Woodward believes that MET's undergo constant acceleration for constant input. However, he doesn't believe that the constant acceleration occurs for as long as the MET is turned on. which is why I believe the argument he makes towards the end of the paper should really be read "there is a value for t beyond which you will no longer be accelerating". Because there is a limiting factor which will prevent it. Which is why I think the essay is more of a proof that there must be some limiting factor. Instead of an answer to the really interesting question, WHAT is that limiting factor.<Random Speculation>Personally I think the limiting factor is inertia, or more specifically the force inertia applies to a physical object. Now while there is no accepted theory on what the hell inertia is. We do know that it acts on a physical object to resist any change in its state of motion. To do this it must at all times be applying a force to the physical object or at the least apply that force when the object attempts to change is state of motion. Now a MET works by applying a voltage to a device to cause its Inertial Mass to oscillate from heavier to lighter. While at the same time applying a force to that same object in just the right way, so that it is pushed on in one direction when it is lighter and pushed on in the opposite direction when it is heavier; this results in a net directional force. Now if inertia is always applying a force to an object that is proportional to its inertial mass. Then the magnitude of that force when you push on the object while its inertial mass is reduced will be Flighter. When you push on the object while its inertial mass is increased it will be Fheavier. Which means by definition you should end up withFheavier - Flighter = FnetWhere Fnet is greater than zero.That means the total energy being fed into a MET device is the electrical energy used to trigger the controlled mass fluctuations and apply the external force which is pushing on the mass while it is lighter in one direction and pushing on the mass while it is heavier in the opposite direction. Plus Fnet which is the generated by inertia.</Random Speculation>My speculation only works if you can argue that inertia is a radiating field permeating the universe. Which is why I suspect Woodward/Fearn/Watsner have spent time updating Hoyle and Narlikar theory. Since it is a Machian version of Einsteins relativity. Which provides a mechanism for mass interactions in the local environment to communicate with the mass that is far away. This mechanism works so long as the expansion of the Universe is accelerating, which all observations seem to support.would get larger the faster the MET is moving. However, I would also expect the increase in Flighter and Fheavier to be the same. Which means the difference between them should be the same. So unless I am missing something I am included to believe that no matter the definition of Energy in it would still be constant. so you shouldn't end up with constant acceleration, unless there is some other reaction not being accounted for.