Mach Effect progress

[CaptainBeowulf]

Amongst other places, GoatGuy's math appears here:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/02/nasa-f ... -mach.html

Imagine for the moment that two equations of MachEffect vehicles are true:

A = ΔV = KME × PELECTRIC / M
V = KME × PELECTRIC × T / M

EKINETIC = ½MV²
EKINETIC = ½M × ( KME × PELECTRIC × T / M )²
EKINETIC = ½K²P²T²/M


Which is to say the kinetic energy rises per the square of time ... since the K and E and M are constants. But, the energy put into the system is linear over time. Now - connect the dots - and you'll realize that when T = (2M)/(K²P) ... the amount of electric energy input to the Mach device equals the amount of kinetic energy of the craft itself. After that, the craft's energy exceeds the electrical energy input...

FACTOR VALUE UNITS NOTES
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mass 10,000.00 kg 10 ton craft
K 0.01 N/W low, but real conversion factor
P 9,800,000.00 W power needed for "1 G"
2M/K²P 20.41 sec sec, from dead stop, to kinetic energy exceeding electrical imput
A 9.80 m/s² Acceleration of craft
V 200.00 m/s velocity at cut-over where kinetic exceeds electrical
E 200,000,000 J Kinetic energy (== electrical input) at that point


It doesn't matter one whit whether the ME force (K) is really weak, or really strong - the equation works out to some time T where the kinetic energy of the moving vessel exceeds the energy actually put into it. After that point, it is a perpetual-motion machine (conceptually).

Another counter-argument - either Paul March's own words or NBF making an argument based on March's argument, it's unclear based on the way the post is written - is made there:

The equations are not accurate, it is a simple restatement of the argument that was already covered in this thread 6 months ago.

The equations are incorrect because they are falsely constrained solutions to the ME equations Woodward derives. If you constrain mass to be constant, then yes, you get this result for these equations--but if you falsely constrain mass to be constant, than inertial fluctuations are obviously precluded as well.

So it's a variation of disproving the means(ME) by arbitrarily precluding the stated required conditions(variability of inertial mass) and working backwards to make it look scientific.

Dishonest line of argument. You can't disprove the statement "a+b=c" by starting from the assumption that "b" doesn't exist.

That's called "asking a different question.."

So we really have two things to discuss:

1. Does Goatguy's equation lead to the same result for any rocket so long as energy input and acceleration are constant? (Remember that according to one line of argument, even if you hook up a chemical rocket to a flywheel and make it accelerate constantly by feeding it fuel, if Goatguy is correct you should be able to accelerate it past T at which point it should start to generate power which you can use to manufacture more fuel which you feed back into it, also creating a perpetual motion machine. Or, just compare a Hall Thruster attached to a flywheel - if you feed it power to keep accelerating, does it reach a point where it can power itself?).

2. What do mass fluctuations do to the math?

[GIThruster]

Since GoatGuy has K as a constant, even if the thruster is chemical it will go overunity.

Again, the trouble is that K needs to vary.

All thrusters have a stationary K. That is not to say that K is invariant. It is not.

There is nothing in GG's calculation that limits it to M-E thrusters. If it were true (which it is not) all thrusters would go overunity at some t. Obviously his method is wrong.

To be fair, this argument is pretty dated and I don't think GG believes this any more. As he explains below "That's the problem really - if the Mach Effect produces constant force for constant power input. . ." but the problem is that M-E theory nowhere says this. GG has had this explained to him more than once and I don't think he holds this objection any longer.

[dkfenger]

All thrusters have a stationary K. That is not to say that K is invariant. It is not.

Could you point me towards some math on the subject, then? Specifically for Mach Effect thrusters, how does K vary with velocity along the axis of thrust, and with acceleration perpendicular to it?

I've started working on the numbers for a rotary generator with the same Hall Effect thruster as before, and I can't make it go over-unity due to the cost of accelerating the propellant to the thruster's speed. It caps out around 60%. I'd like to play with a black-box Mach Effect thruster in the same model, but to do that I need the above - reasonable values for static and dynamic K.

[GIThruster]

No offense but you're asking me to teach you how to do graduate level GRT, and I am certainly not qualified.

Nowhere in Jim's papers does he develop the kind of illustration we're here discussing. The fact is however, that on first hearing what Paul and I planned to do with the Warpstar illustration, Jim told us "you can't do the math that way" and went on to explain about how we needed to take the sum of the instantaneous frames of rest. He knew that we don't know how to do that math (Lorentz transforms--that much you can find on wiki), and I know that you don't know how to do that math, so why are you asking me to show it to you?

If you have the training in GRT to do this calculation properly, you already know what I'm saying is true. If you don't have the training, then you're not going to get it by looking at someone else's equation.

Do you see why Jim told me not to get involved with this stuff?

[CaptainBeowulf]

The Wikipedia article does indeed seem to have the necessary basic forms of the Lorentz transformations for you to plug numbers into:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation

The first few paragraphs are mostly history lessons, then most of the rest of the article is the various forms of equations.

However, I don't know how to properly compare and contrast GG's math with math describing a thruster's acceleration and energy using those transformations. If you've got enough physics background I think the info is there for you to take a shot - but you could easily get something wrong and not even know it's wrong, or maybe know it's wrong but not know why it's wrong.

When I have time I may go over the NBF posts again to see if I can pick up on where GG drops this argument, if he actually has dropped it as GIT thinks he did. I do seem to recall him partially modifying his view on something to do with M-E, but there have been so many convoluted debates that I have trouble remembering who said what at this point.

[AcesHigh]

@ChrisMB: if GIT is not an engineer nor a physicist, obviously that doesnt mean Woodward theories are incorrect, only that you should not be arguing high level physics with him since it will lead to nothing. He is baseing what is he saying on what true physics experts said, but obviously his knowledge can´t match that of Woodward, Paul March, etc.

So imho its kind dishonest that you are trying to get HIM in a corner.

[DeltaV]

a recent article says there is stronger evidence that space-time is smooth, not foamy.

http://www.space.com/19202-einstein-spa ... mooth.html

I wonder if this affects in anyway White´s Warp Drive theories...

More evidence in support of Sachs' view: Physics In The 21st Century

[GIThruster]

a recent article says there is stronger evidence that space-time is smooth, not foamy.

http://www.space.com/19202-einstein-spa ... mooth.html

I wonder if this affects in anyway White´s Warp Drive theories...

It sounds like a pretty strong argument agains both ZPF and QVF models. Thing is, those holding these models don't much care about arguments against. They never even bother to answer them. That's why they don't qualify as science.

[chrismb]

@ChrisMB: if GIT is not an engineer nor a physicist, obviously that doesnt mean Woodward theories are incorrect, only that you should not be arguing high level physics with him since it will lead to nothing. He is baseing what is he saying on what true physics experts said, but obviously his knowledge can´t match that of Woodward, Paul March, etc.

So imho its kind dishonest that you are trying to get HIM in a corner.

No chrismb posts have tried to 'corner' GIT since he came out of the closet and clarified that he operated to a subjective form of 'philosophers instinct' kind of logic, because no further chrismb posts have been made.

So is it not 'kind of dishonest' that AcesH would suggest a logical 'dishonesty' when this is the first time GIT has properly stated that he cannot deal with 'high level physics'?

After that far-from-trivial revelation, there was no further expectation of more chrismb posts arriving. This is because whatever formal and logical arguments may be directed against the subjective ones GIT may proffer, he has rendered it totally and immaterially pointless to attempt a discussion on the formal analysis that would ordinarily be expected in such theories.

AcesH 'appeal to authority' fallacy ("true physics experts") only serves to prove where the first recent string of chrismb post came into this thread -- the last series of chrismb posts originated when chrismb bemoaned the 'high priests of the new physics' to whom homage must be undertaken.

This thread has now come full circle since that intervention of chrismb posts and has, demonstrably, proved that the original intervention was justified. GIT has now revealed himself to be a 'feeler', not a 'thinker'. Analytical arguments are an irrelevance to him. There is no objective argument that can be possibly said to him that would make any difference to him at all.

[GIThruster]

I didn't say anything about "feeling" or "instinct" or any of that other mess, chris, and I'd appreciate it of you'd stop placing your own words in quotes so they appear to be mine. All I said was I don't use hard numbers to do analysis and the same is true of all physicists. That doesn't mean they're all groping along by instinct, feeling their way about.


I'm now warning you for the second time, chris; this is harassment. If you don't stop, I'm going to write Joe and ask you be banned from this forum. Obviously simon is not going to take any real action.

[chrismb]

That doesn't mean they're all groping along by instinct, feeling their way about.

Then explain what it does mean!

By what means does GIT perform his analysis other than by groping along by instinct if he does not use "actual numbers the way engineers love to"?

GIT has said "Rather, I analyze the issues without numbers". For example, can GIT explain, for the benefit of the forum congregation, what techniques GIT uses to decide if GRT does or does not apply to a situation?

If using equations and numbers is out of GIT's 'argument vocabulary', then what sorts of arguments can be made to GIT so that he understands them?

I'm now warning you for the second time, chris; this is harassment. If you don't stop, I'm going to write Joe and ask you be banned from this forum. Obviously simon is not going to take any real action.

GIT should write to Joe and complain. In doing so, Joe should also judge for himself if GIT has mislead the forum by making unfounded claims regarding his understanding of these theories, yet has now come clean that he "won't [be seen] handeling [sic] actual numbers the way engineers love to".

Not using numbers and equations to analyse a scientific postulation is called "groping along by instinct". So, GIT has been trolling the scientific discussions of this forum.

The chrismb post in the last page of posts was due to be the last post on the GIT matter in this thread because it has become so painfully clear that GIT has nothing to contribute to a discussion following anything remotely resembling a scientific argument. If no posts expect or incite a chrismb posts then no further ones will be given, because this thread has been rubbished by a 'subjective' thinker who abhors the reality that equations and numbers purvey. If GIT really wants to make a formal complain then he should go ahead, or alternatively he could just stop provoking chrismb posts.

[chrismb]

OMGG!!

what??? Chrismb got so surprised by GIT´s admission that he refered to himself in FIRST PERSON!!!!

"Oh Many Good Gods"..

One God, alone, would likely be insufficient to contend with GIT.

[GIThruster]

. . .Joe should also judge for himself if GIT has mislead the forum by making unfounded claims regarding his understanding of these theories, yet has now come clean that he "won't [be seen] handeling [sic] actual numbers the way engineers love to".

chris, the explanation was made to dkfenger who is relatively new to these discussions. Everyone else knows that I'm not an engineer. dk asked why I was not going to crunch numbers for him and I explained, because I don't crunch numbers. That is not how I do analysis and it is not how physicists operate either. No one here is served by any further discussion of the pitfalls and benefits of either method. It is simply a fact that I don't bother with numbers and neither do physicists. We don't need them.

No one is making an issue of it but you, chris; and if you don't knock off harassing me, I am going to write Joe.

[chrismb]

No one here is served by any further discussion of the pitfalls and benefits of either method.

Either method? Does GIT mean objective analysis as one method? What does he suppose is the other method?

Please describe this 'non-objective' analytical method GIT uses, and how it has helped GIT to dismiss other people's objective arguments from GRT, thermodynamics, the conservation of energy, &c..

[GIThruster]

I have already given my analysis. It is not "non-objective". It is simply unnecessary to use numbers.

M-E thrusters, like all thrusters; produce a constant stationary force. Because force is not invariant, when the thruster is permitted to accelerate, a Lorentz transform needs to be used to get the force generated because the "constant" force generated varies based on its acceleration. This is simply noting the consequences of what "non-intertial frames of reference" are.

No numbers needed. If you try to do these calculations without accounting for the non-inertial frame the stationary force is in in order to be constant, you will get a gibberish answer, and we were all warned about this in high school.

Conclusion: you cannot ignore the nature of a non-inertial frame of reference and have more than a toy model. The WarpStar model was indeed a toy model that noted it made no relativistic corrections. The conservation violation that appears to arise from engineers plugging and chugging numbers arises specifically because they are doing what their high school physics teachers told them not to do.

No intuition. No "feeling" one's way along. No guesses and no numbers needed. Just basic high school physics. This is how physicists think, chris. I'm in good company here.