Mach Effect progress

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Ric Capucho
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 7:05 am

Post by Ric Capucho »

In defence of Brian Wang (please don't flame me, only my opinion):

For whatever reason (I suspect a hard learned lesson in the past) Jim Woodward doesn't have some form of website for regular public updates and announcements on his Mach Effect work, and prefers to use his semi-private email list instead. Paul March does a fabulous job of transferring significant nuggets out of those emails into this forum, but of course this is hardly a mainstream forum for the tech-minded masses, and certainly not generalist.

Next Big Future *is* more for the masses, and by its nature is certainly generalist.

Brian Wang always references Talk Polywell as the source, and who knows, maybe the Polywell subject may catch people's fancy as they come here to read up on ME from a reference they picked up on NBF? Erm, that's what happened to me... So thanks to Brian Wang I now come here to read up on what may be the two most significant technological developments of the 21st century...

Only my opinion...

Ric

AcesHigh
Posts: 655
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:59 am

Post by AcesHigh »

GIThruster wrote:
Carl White wrote:
GIThruster wrote:I'm not sure everyone is following Tom Clarke's point and it is a good one. Reducing entropy locally does require increasing it in the rest of the system, which is universal, so it's fair to summarize that using M-E devices ought to hasten the end of the universe. It is essentially stealing and causing the universe to expand more rapidly.

Hence Tom Mayhood's quip from more than a decade ago, "Tomorrow's Momentum Today!" I think Heidi recently put that up on the door of the lab.
Here's a wild thought... the universe's accelerating expansion is due to broad use of this principle by space-faring civilizations.

Haha.
I had wondered. We still don't know what is causing the universe to accelerate toward entropy. It seems to me possible, both our future use could cause this now, and our past use given wormhole generators can travel back through time. Given wormholes are in the future seems their use would hasten the end of the universe, but provide a means to escape that end at the same time. The Restaurant at the End and all that. . .
somehow, reminds me of the plot of the Arthur C Clarke + Stephen Baxter series of books A Time Odyssey

"In the Time Odyssey series, not-so-benevolent godlike aliens start an endless mission to regulate the development of sentient life in the Universe, in order to prevent all other species from harnessing too much of its energy, which would only accelerate the inevitable entropic death of the Universe"



really, if ME theory gets accepted by mainstream science, maybe we will finally understand what is Dark Energy... and it may be an indicative of alien civilizations around the universe. The fact that dark energy is HOMOGENEOUS throught the universe seems to fit very well ME and the causally connected universe.


dont know how dark matter (which is not homogeneous) fits in all this however.

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

Ric Capucho wrote: I now come here to read up on what may be the two most significant technological developments of the 21st century...

Only my opinion...

Ric

I agree. A plausible A-Neutronic Fusion reactor, and a propellent-less propulsion system are the stuff of science fiction dreams being transformed into reality. It doesn't get much more significant than that.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

GeeGee
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 7:00 pm

Post by GeeGee »

Another post by GoatGuy. Pardon me, but since the calculation is Lorentz invariant, aren't all conservation laws satisfied? Why does he keep saying this?



I'm fine with energy equivalences... so far the universe whether relativistic or newtonian (which are but a continuum), has shown itself to be remarkably conservative with energy. Such immutable conservation isn't just a "Law", as if some hoary old philosopher came up with Laws... but real, and a part of the tie-together of how things work.

No physical system has, unless I'm wrong, ever violated the energy = integration-of-power-over-time (where power can be watts or newtons, or any equivalence derivative therein) equation. None. Ever. EVER.

Not black holes, not quantum tunneling of electrons or nucleons. Not waterfalls, submarines, capacitors, inductors. Not exotic physics, not stellar implosions, not hyper novae, not flies and mosquitoes zinging about to our discomfort. Nothing.

This is what makes the "Flux Capacitor" (which really is a good name for the work being done!) such a profound break. It sounds magnificent - and reasonable! - to say, "well, a fixed force for a finite amount of power - we see that all the time, in sails on boats, on motor cars, on [fill in the blank]".

No, we do not. We absolutely do not, when the whole physics equation is taken into account. Engines burn or use finite amounts of substances with potential energy contained in their makeup (chemical, or in dams - height, or nucleons - binding energy, or in springs - torsion and pressure). The potential energy is converted to other forms, becoming mechanical energy, which expressed over distance appears to be "force" and "power".

Rockets - chemical physics thrusters - burn so many kilograms per second of fuel, which becomes heated gasses, which exert pressure to the container, with the exhaust port having lower pressure... thus propelling the whole thing forward. Yet, never, ever, can "more than the energy of the burn" be realized in the whole physics package. Ever. You know it, and every rocket scientist knows it.

Yet the Woodward Effect / Mach flux capacitor, unlike all prior physics devices claims to make thrust, regardless of velocity, as a product of input power and a 'constant' effectiveness factor. This seemingly innocuous idea is a physics killer: such a device, tethered to a rotating wheel, can at some tangential velocity produce mechanical power in excess of the energy fed to it, violating the underlying principle of Conservation of Energy.

And this is profound.

The advocates just pull magic out to explain it: "oh, there's this all-pervading universal stuff, which since Einstein couldn't explain it, is what we think causes inertia, and we're just tapping it, causing the whole universe to stop expanding as fast as it is. Infinitessimal. Don't worry about it."

Well, I do worry about it, not that - if real - it would destroy the universe or any such thing, but because it rewrites the entire underlying notion of Conservation of Energy, which on every scale from the tiniest to the most galaxial, undermines all physics. And ... as Einstein once quipped, "God doesn't play dice with the universe".

So, there you are. If it is real, and velocity invariant force for finite driving power, then [a] I'll probably believe it when the forces become far less "close to the systemic noise" of the circuits, and shaking in my boots over the consequence. For if the "K" (factor of newtons-per-watt) can get large enough, at the very least, all known power sources ought to be replaced by the K-thrusters. All of 'em. Why not? It really is "free" energy. If the K can be high enough, then all motor vehicle motors can be replaced entirely. No gas can, no fill ups. Ever. Same goes for trains, ships, space-craft.

The invention, should it be real, is so utterly revolutionary as to spell a change to society as large as moving from huddling at the back of caves burning fire, to typing this message on my MacBook Air.

CaptainBeowulf
Posts: 498
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:35 am

Post by CaptainBeowulf »

The alien civilizations using M-E = dark energy/entropic death of the universe also reminds me of the Star Trek episode, late in the TNG series IIRC, that warp drive was damaging the fabric of space-time, threatening to rip holes in reality or something.

CaptainBeowulf
Posts: 498
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:35 am

Post by CaptainBeowulf »

I think it's his extrapolation that "such a device, tethered to a rotating wheel, can at some tangential velocity produce mechanical power in excess of the energy fed to it" which concerns him. At that point, the device could basically suck energy/increase entropy in the rest of the universe in order to decrease entropy/create energy locally, all under its own power.

That would be analogous to an un-physical heat pump, where the heat pump is supposedly somehow heating up cold water (or something else) and then using the heat in it to do work, but is still having enough over-unity energy to heat more water up. As others explained to me above, the M-E device would under GG's scenario be getting local low-entropy energy out of the (averaged) higher-entropy energy of the universe as a whole.

I'm unclear on the math, but perhaps such a scenario would be mathematically Lorentz invariant, but would still have the problem of extracting energy the "wrong way" along the heat gradient. Perhaps someone else could comment in more detail.

On the other hand, it seems that if Woodward's devices don't work then it may demonstrate that Mach's conjecture etc. are wrong and we have to re-think how inertia works.

Again, as I mentioned above, I wonder if there would be some sort of "protection mechanism" to stop this. To use a phrase which has been used before, maybe we can think of the M-E thruster as a "vacuum propeller" which pushes against the rest of the universe in order to move. Continuing with the aircraft analogy, the prop pushes against air in order to keep the aircraft moving, but as speed builds, the wind resistance of the air against the aircraft also builds, limiting its top speed. Perhaps whatever mediates inertia between different parts of the universe (who knows, all sorts of fun speculation here, maybe Higgs bosons are everywhere and mediate both gravity and inertia) will, as the M-E device tethered to the rotating arm or wheel approaches unity, start to exert a great deal of drag that prevents it from going over-unity.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

GeeGee wrote:Yet the Woodward Effect / Mach flux capacitor, unlike all prior physics devices claims to make thrust, regardless of velocity, as a product of input power and a 'constant' effectiveness factor. This seemingly innocuous idea is a physics killer: such a device, tethered to a rotating wheel, can at some tangential velocity produce mechanical power in excess of the energy fed to it, violating the underlying principle of Conservation of Energy.
As I said, the mistake he continues to make despite correction is to consider input power as constant, and only to include electrical input. That's why he comes up with a violation.

This is high school physics so I have a hard time that this mischaracterization is a blunder. It's been corrected so many times before that I can only think he's creating an issue where there isn't one for his own purposes.

Yes, all M-E technology offers the possibility to go "overunity". No, this does not constitute a violation of conservation. The fact that no physicists have made this claim over twenty years of peer review ought to be giving guys like this pause, but apparently not.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

CaptainBeowulf wrote:Perhaps whatever mediates inertia between different parts of the universe. . .will, as the M-E device tethered to the rotating arm or wheel approaches unity, start to exert a great deal of drag that prevents it from going over-unity.
That seems entirely possible to me, though would make it harder to explain the violations of our skies we've become so accustomed to. Something is enabling someone to regularly demonstrate abilities that would appear they have access to virtually limitless power, can carve right angles in the sky implying flying on a time like geodesic, and travel interstellar distances.

The evidence in the skies says to me that warp and wormhole are possible, and the fantastical amounts of power to create these are portable. I'm not sure I'd embrace the idea of an over-unity limit to tightly.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

GeeGee wrote:Another post by GoatGuy. Pardon me, but since the calculation is Lorentz invariant, aren't all conservation laws satisfied? Why does he keep saying this?



I'm fine with energy equivalences... so far the universe whether relativistic or newtonian (which are but a continuum), has shown itself to be remarkably conservative with energy. Such immutable conservation isn't just a "Law", as if some hoary old philosopher came up with Laws... but real, and a part of the tie-together of how things work.

No physical system has, unless I'm wrong, ever violated the energy = integration-of-power-over-time (where power can be watts or newtons, or any equivalence derivative therein) equation. None. Ever. EVER.

Not black holes, not quantum tunneling of electrons or nucleons. Not waterfalls, submarines, capacitors, inductors. Not exotic physics, not stellar implosions, not hyper novae, not flies and mosquitoes zinging about to our discomfort. Nothing.

This is what makes the "Flux Capacitor" (which really is a good name for the work being done!) such a profound break. It sounds magnificent - and reasonable! - to say, "well, a fixed force for a finite amount of power - we see that all the time, in sails on boats, on motor cars, on [fill in the blank]".

No, we do not. We absolutely do not, when the whole physics equation is taken into account. Engines burn or use finite amounts of substances with potential energy contained in their makeup (chemical, or in dams - height, or nucleons - binding energy, or in springs - torsion and pressure). The potential energy is converted to other forms, becoming mechanical energy, which expressed over distance appears to be "force" and "power".

Rockets - chemical physics thrusters - burn so many kilograms per second of fuel, which becomes heated gasses, which exert pressure to the container, with the exhaust port having lower pressure... thus propelling the whole thing forward. Yet, never, ever, can "more than the energy of the burn" be realized in the whole physics package. Ever. You know it, and every rocket scientist knows it.

Yet the Woodward Effect / Mach flux capacitor, unlike all prior physics devices claims to make thrust, regardless of velocity, as a product of input power and a 'constant' effectiveness factor. This seemingly innocuous idea is a physics killer: such a device, tethered to a rotating wheel, can at some tangential velocity produce mechanical power in excess of the energy fed to it, violating the underlying principle of Conservation of Energy.

I take issue with this statement. Perhaps I am being dense, but in what manner will this occur, and how would it be different from a Jet Engine tethered to a rotating Wheel?

Image

The Bussard Ramjet took Hydrogen gas from space and pushed it backward. It (theoretically) produced a thrust, and no one ever said this would create excess energy. How is it that you suggest a continuous thrust sans propellant somehow creates excess energy?

If you can do it without propellant, why can't you do it with spacial hydrogen? (Create excess energy from thrust, that is)
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

CaptainBeowulf wrote:
Perhaps whatever mediates inertia between different parts of the universe (who knows, all sorts of fun speculation here, maybe Higgs bosons are everywhere and mediate both gravity and inertia) will, as the M-E device tethered to the rotating arm or wheel approaches unity, start to exert a great deal of drag that prevents it from going over-unity.

This has always been my understanding. The higher the velocity, the more energy is required to go faster, and it doesn't really matter what is propelling you, the effect remains. Mass has a sort of inertial drag on it which limits velocity.

I thought this was established back when they invented cyclotrons?
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

GIThruster wrote:
CaptainBeowulf wrote:Perhaps whatever mediates inertia between different parts of the universe. . .will, as the M-E device tethered to the rotating arm or wheel approaches unity, start to exert a great deal of drag that prevents it from going over-unity.
That seems entirely possible to me, though would make it harder to explain the violations of our skies we've become so accustomed to. Something is enabling someone to regularly demonstrate abilities that would appear they have access to virtually limitless power, can carve right angles in the sky implying flying on a time like geodesic, and travel interstellar distances.

The evidence in the skies says to me that warp and wormhole are possible, and the fantastical amounts of power to create these are portable. I'm not sure I'd embrace the idea of an over-unity limit to tightly.

I am not convinced that any claims regarding UFOs are established as true. I will keep in mind that they might be, but this is a subject about which people need to keep a high degree of skepticism.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

That was my attitude until my mid 40's when a friend who was a senior officer at CIA challenged me to look into the issue. Until that time I never took the question seriously. He appealed to me to use the analytical skills of the philosopher (which I am by training) to evaluate the evidence, so I did.

I've now come to believe the evidence is unassailable. There is just too much from every walk of life. It isn't long after you start to look that you see this should be a settled question. There are many excellent books written in the last decade or so, since much of the important intel was declassified; but the best I've read in the last couple years is this:

http://www.amazon.com/UFOs-Generals-Pil ... eslie+Kean

You can argue over whether a single incident occurred or not, but there are so many obvious instances of these things that it staggers the imagination--many episodes where thousands of people witnessed the events over long periods of time. There's just too much evidence, IMHO.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

kurt9
Posts: 588
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:14 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA

Post by kurt9 »

This is one of the reasons why I do not believe in UFO's (as alien spacecraft):

http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_dail ... -star.html

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

No offense but I couldn't get more than half way down the page. This is obviously a bunch of empty rhetoric. It starts out with telling the reader that belief in UFO's is ending when in fact, it has not been this high since the 50's and is continuing to grow.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/201 ... rvey-finds

It then goes on to make this argument from the masses as if this were other than a fallacy. Then it commits to an argument that the internet has debunked the myths when in fact, by its nature, people cannot trust what they find on the web. All fallacious arguments.

I suggest you read Kean's book and then make an educated decision.

It simply does not matter how many alien abductions or other frauds take place. This has no bearing on whether there are alien craft visiting this planet.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

kunkmiester
Posts: 892
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:51 pm
Contact:

Post by kunkmiester »

An MLT generator would need to generate a newton of thrust for less than a watt of input. Referring to the transistor comparison, the input power isn't a limit, the efficiency is.

To put it simply, this is a grav-inertial pump, and that's how thrust is produced. Since the pump itself doesn't make gravity or inertia, it doesn't matter how much of it is spit out, only how much power it takes to do so.
Evil is evil, no matter how small

Post Reply