On 25 Aug 2017 at 12:37, C. Berry wrote:

> Similarly, show me a CG technology that requires constant power input
> in a given g-field, and I will happily use it to create a free-energy
> generator using a classic perpetual motion "unbalanced wheel" that
> actually works.

Depends on *how* you apply the CG.

If it "supports" the ship against gravity with a constant power
input, your perpetual motion idea won't work.

Yeah, you can drop something off the ship to generate energy, but
eventually you run out of things to drop. Getting more requires
hauling them up, which *takes* energy.

So as long as CG doesn't affect the gravity inside the ship (ie if
you are hovering in a 1 g field, and feel 1 g inside, and when
hovering in a 1.5 g field, you feel 1.5 g) and raising or lowering
the ship *via CG* has the appropriate energy inputs/outputs, then it
doesn't break anything.

For a "handle" to hang the idea on, consider it as "latching on" to
the gravity well (curvature of spacetime). That's just one
"explanation" that will give you a handle on it. I'm sure there are
others.

Yeah, reactionless drives and jump drive are broken. BuT Cg isn't.

You can keep the artificial gravity (and thrust compensators) from
being broken but that requirs some rather nasty edge effects.
Crossing the boundary between a 1 g area and a 1.5 g area wouild
require supplying the potential energy difference all at once. Or
worse *receiving* said energy difference.

That's why cavorite would be useless. You'd have to supply the
equivalent of the energuy required to reach escape velocity to climb
onto it. And stepping off would be really bad. :-)

I'm too tired to recall the potential "outs" that can reduce the
energuy difference between areas at different gravities, but I seem
to recall that there *might* be ways to reduce the potential energy
differences.

Meantime, "Gravity locks" between areas would be a good idea. :-)

Maybe sections of floor where the gravity varies smoothly from one
end to the other? They'd be flat, but would *act* as if they were
steeply uphill or downhill.

(added later). Now I recall the "trick" for lowering the potential
energy difference!

the "strength" of the gravity field (ie acceleration supplied/force
felt) is controlled by the *slope (angle of the side) of the gravity
well. the potential energy, on the other hand depends solely on the
*depth* of the well.

So for ship's gravity (and gravity controlled areas elsewhere) you
have steep but shallow wells. And likely (to balance things out) the
edges (just inside the hull on a ship) have even steeper (to take up
less space) inverted "wells".

I really need to get somebody to draw some diagrams for me...
--
Leonard Erickson (aka shadow)
shadow at shadowgard dot com