Talk-Polywell.org

That's very kind, RJ, but Woodward would not accept any funding. He has steadfastly refused such help and was even a little annoyed the time I sent him a power amp. Now he needs one or two $7k power amps and it doesn't look like he'll get them unless he lands a grant. He would refuse to accept them as gifts I think, because he doesn't want to be in any way confused with those less reputable sorts who do raise finances on unproven promises.

When the time comes Woodward gets the quality of results he's after, he won't need funding. The world will come a knockin' on his door. . .so lets hope he gets there this next season. For now, he's about done and ready to leave for vacation in the next few days.

Set up a paypal and keep it private til you have your results Paul. I have $5 for you at least. Science needs donuts.

I don't know if I'd buy him a $7K amp, but I'd probably chip in something out of general interest, if grants aren't forthcoming and he changes his mind.

It's interesting that he refuses aid.

Can someone kindly assist a layman on this one?

While the implications for space travel are fairly obvious, I've seen it discussed that this theory, if true, could allow for a perpetual motion machine. While perhaps the math makes it very clear, I can't follow the math and am otherwise failing to grasp how this theory would make it such a thing possible.

Isn't this theory akin to putting a ladder against a wall to allow it to be climbed? In other words, its providing the grip necessary to climb something that could not have otherwise been climbed, but it still requires the climber to apply the force to climb it. Right?

I don't understand why a machine built on this principle could be any more perpetual than a battery powered toy. The toy doesn't eject any mass... but this certainly doesn't make its motion perpetual.

So (again, for a layman) what is it about this theory opens the door to perpetual motion?

its as much a perpetual motion machine as a windsail.

I am with Maui on this as well. You would have to put power into the machine in order to keep it going. In regards to spaceships, you would still have to put more energy into it, in order to accelerate, you are just saving on ass that you do not have to expell.

It would run forever for what it's worth, but it doesn't violate conservation of momentum due to the source of that momentum.

You do need a certain efficiency(a newton a watt IIRC) for the rotor with two thrusters on it to work. That'll be a while in the future.

TallDave wrote:I don't know if I'd buy him a $7K amp, but I'd probably chip in something out of general interest, if grants aren't forthcoming and he changes his mind.

It's interesting that he refuses aid.

Tall Dave:

Woodward is a scholar of the old school who has mores and morals that requires him not to accept aid from strangers until he is very sure of his results. Even then he insists that the gift has no strings attached and that the offering party will not miss the funds so offerred. However Jim is getting close the point that he is now sure about his results, so perhaps next fall when he gets back to CSUF after his summer break, you might send him a note to see what could be worked out.

Best,

kunkmiester wrote:It would run forever for what it's worth, but it doesn't violate conservation of momentum due to the source of that momentum.

You do need a certain efficiency(a newton a watt IIRC) for the rotor with two thrusters on it to work. That'll be a while in the future.

Folks:

An M-E drive is NOT a perpetual motion machine. It takes local and continuous input energy to set up the conditions required to extract momentum from the universe’s ambient gravity/inertial or gravinertial (G/I) field. How much energy and momentum may be locally extracted from the G/I field depends on how deep or large a pressure differential can be created by the M-E device in question. If you like, you can view an M-E based drive as a heat pump or air conditioning machine that can extract or dump into the G/I field a certain number of KWhr while expending some smaller percentage KWhr to keep it going. This will yield a coefficient of performance (CoP) like any heat pump or air conditioner that allows one to use say 1.0 kW of input power to pump say 5 kW of thermal power from the ambient air, water, ground, or the G/I field into or out of our machine. This would yield a CoP of 5.0.

Now some would ask how large of a CoP is required to make a viable M-E drive? That depends on the application, but right now anything better than conventional rockets is of interest and they are currently running around 0.0001 Newton per input Watt, since ALL the kinetic energy generated by the rocket has to come from its local power supply, be it chemical reactants like LOX and Hydrogen or nuclear based fuels. When you can extract power and momentum from the universe's G/I ambient field though, things can get a lot more interesting where the possibility of 1.0 Newtons per watt CoP becomes a possibility, albeit after several generations of engineering improvements. However there is no such thing as a free lunch, and the price we pay to extract power & energy from the universe's G/I field is a lowering of the average ambient temperature of the universe's current 2.73K background temperature. But then just look at how much extracted energy it would take to lower the universe's temperature by even an atto-degree and one boggles at the numbers of available KWhr for our use.

"May the G/I winds be at our backs..."

PS: The idea of lowering the universe's temperature to balance the M-E mometum books is my own speculation at the moment. Hard core proof of this conjecture will have to wait until we have large enough M-E drives that should be able to shed some light on this question.

Best,

I stand corrected.

Woodward will consider the offers here of some small support in order to press the work forward in the Fall. Between now and then, he'll be doing some serious modeling and until the Fall, won't know just what new apparatus he'll be needing.

So, if the offers of some small support here are genuine, I'll have some news for you about this in a few months. In the meantime, my suggestion is try to get current as possible on the work so you understand the decisions being made.

Maybe we can convince Paul March to be a periodic poster here again and lead the discussion of what he and Woodward are up to during the summer?

GIThruster wrote:That's very kind, RJ, but Woodward would not accept any funding. He has steadfastly refused such help and was even a little annoyed the time I sent him a power amp. Now he needs one or two $7k power amps and it doesn't look like he'll get them unless he lands a grant. He would refuse to accept them as gifts I think, because he doesn't want to be in any way confused with those less reputable sorts who do raise finances on unproven promises.

When the time comes Woodward gets the quality of results he's after, he won't need funding. The world will come a knockin' on his door. . .so lets hope he gets there this next season. For now, he's about done and ready to leave for vacation in the next few days.

This is going to be very rude, but I'm saying it pragmatically. How long can he afford to put off such help before his health problems catch up?

Of course that's not to say he might not have justification for refusing it even then. But I see it differently even though I'd respect his wishes. After the above quoted post, Paul March says it could be as soon as this fall that Woodward would accept help, but that's assuming there are no delays.

Paul, at NextBigFuture, GoatGuy said ME was a perpetual motion machine. I replied by giving the example of a sail.


This was his reply
[quote=GoatGuy]
Not at all Rogerio. A sail redirects a mass of air, giving a resultant force, and deriving that force by the displacement of the vector-of-velocity of the air thus displaced. A device (and note I didn't say M.E. device), any device for that matter, that has no resultant “equal and opposite force”, for a fixed amount of input power, becomes a perpetual motion device when W = F·D (or DW = F·DD) exceeds the input power to the system. I'm sorry, but this isn't a personal “belief” issue, but hard physics. It would be real, measurable, and a violation of the conservation of both energy and momentum.

BTW — I'm also not “resting my case” on this, but rather observing what is a logical error.

I also recall that you (or some very similar) forwarded the “wind sail” argument as a silver bullet supposedly through the heart of my argument. Unfortunately, while it is trivially easy to say, “Goat, you're full of shyte”, it is much harder to take the constraint system I've laid out, and show, numerically, why it doesn't become a violation of the underlying laws of Physics.

But please — go for it. I'm plenty ready to see NUMBERS and some derivations. I really am.
[/quote]



to THIS reply I posted as a quote your above post about ME not being a Perpetual Motion Machine. If however you feel like arguing with GoatGuy, and providing him with the numbers and derivations he wants, here is the link
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/06/scalin ... qus_thread

Sounds like "GoatGuy" mistakenly believes there is not an equal and opposite reaction. More the fool him?

KitemanSA wrote:Sounds like "GoatGuy" mistakenly believes there is not an equal and opposite reaction. More the fool him?

I suppose so. I am not skilled enough in physics (although my interest) to argue with him. Feel free to show him his wrongdoings.

I always assumed that the ME- device was more like the wheel of a car running "on" the gravity of the rest of the universe instead of a road (solid ground). Imagine it running on the "fabric" of the universe if you wish. You still have to put energy into it to turn the wheels, so you can accelerate (of course in space you will end up drifting at a constant speed when you stop accelerating, but that is just the conservation of the momentum that you gained when you "hit the pedal to accelerate and turn the wheels faster".
Am I wrong with this analogy?