Talk-Polywell.org

The first is that the M-E thruster is a transducer, when in fact it is a transistor. The second is the transducer can have its action reversed like turning an electric motor into a generator. Neither of these things are true. Of course one can only guess what chris is thinking so we'll wait and see...

There would be no way to recover energy from a circular system given the mechanics equations above. Just think of the whole situation as being in a car. The tyre is this speculated connection with the mass of the universe. One way or another, creating a 'thrust' (torque on the tyre) achieves nothing...

So how long would it take to reach .1C for 500Kg @ 1.5uN push? (@ chrismb post?) There would appear to be no physical limit to what force can be applied to an object if some form of force-connection can be made between an object and the rest of the universe. But the energy required to generate that...

The very essential notion of this, irrespective of any mathematical arguments that might arise in the paper, appears to be that the centre of mass of a closed system can be altered back and forth by the conversion of mass into energy. . . Not even close. M-E theory has no resemblance to this charge...

yet no one has had the courage to follow proper scientific procedure. Does GeeGee think the mechanics analysis in http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?t=4228 is 'scientific' enough for him? After all, it does seem to show that a propellantless thruster is not necessarily a thermodynamic in...

GIThruster wrote:There really isn't any reason I can see from your post that anyone should take the time to read it. No value added, chris. Sheesh.

So, does GIT agree with all the conclusions, or which conclusions does he not agree with?

GIThruster wrote:simply hopeless. . .

GIT to explain the logic of this statement?

ME thrusters have not yet been proven to produce any sort of thrust. GIT should resist reifications in this thread. It is an attempt to put at least some degree of formalisation on what an ME thruster would look like, if one were to ever be created. There is no indication in the above formalisation ...

Is there any way that as the M-E ship accelerates, Q would grow for it, and Q on the distant matter would grow too, resulting in the two summing to zero? Is there an alternative mathematical description that makes sense for such a hypothetical M-E thruster? Or do you get to the same over-unity situ...

Paul, A post will appear in the next few days, titled 'A final word on propellantless thrusters', or similar. Cutting straight to the conclusion, which is a real spoiler of course, is that the energy such a thruster would need to expend to accelerate is proportional to its differential velocity wrt ...

it is not a falacy if its the opinion of the majority of the experts on the subject It is a fallacy if a thing is claimed true because it is the majority opinion of experts. The opinion itself is not the fallacy, it is forming an argument that purports to conclude an objective fact based on that op...

The chrismb post looks like it was withdrawn having thought better of trying to continue some debate with GIT. But there is now a new chrismb post at http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?t=4190 giving a full analysis and rebuff of any claim that propellant thrusters thermodynamically 'viola...

Take a test mass, M kg, travelling at velocity Q. It begins ejecting mass at the rate of m kg/s of material at Vm/s at t=0. Now consider the energy required for this ejection rate in a time sample of Δt at t=0. Impulse Equations (Force = rate of change of momentum): Force on ejectant = d(m[Q+V])/dt ...

---

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 dismi...