Author Topic: Woodward's effect  (Read 284640 times)

Online Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1307
  • Liked: 231
  • Likes Given: 85
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1020 on: 09/24/2017 01:43 AM »
There were a couple of articles about the nature of gravity last week. One says there are at least two types of gravity and that like neutrinos they oscillate from one type to the other. Another articles says that gravity is a result of the average of quantum collapse states at the quantum level.
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline tdperk

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 243
  • Liked: 73
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1021 on: 09/24/2017 03:20 PM »
There were a couple of articles about the nature of gravity last week. One says there are at least two types of gravity and that like neutrinos they oscillate from one type to the other. Another articles says that gravity is a result of the average of quantum collapse states at the quantum level.

So if the momentum with which useful work is done in an ME drive is brought about by influencing how quantum states collapse, hence which "sets" of backwards and forward sets of arrows in time are realized, the action of the device introduces no shear in the GI field--and so no more energy is required than operates the device in a rest state (drive waves in phase as opposed to 90 out).

Online Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1307
  • Liked: 231
  • Likes Given: 85
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1022 on: 09/24/2017 03:56 PM »
here is an article about the collapse theory. from it people who need the peer review or at least more detailed reports can track 'em down.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/physics/gravity-could-be-the-result-of-random-quantum-fluctuations/

and here is an article on two types of gravity (waves) that oscillate into each other just to confuse everybody...

https://phys.org/news/2017-09-gravitational-oscillate-neutrinos.html

( To wade into just a bit fringey part of the pool;  Either of those look like they might just barely lead to ways to create, destroy or manipulate gravity.)
« Last Edit: 09/24/2017 04:03 PM by Stormbringer »
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline Povel

  • Member
  • Posts: 26
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1023 on: 09/24/2017 07:03 PM »
Quote
Having read Woodward's book, I am not certain what you are looking for?  Are you looking for a mathematical model for what the operation of a Mach effect device does to the momentum of an atom? or a kg? located X far away?

I am more interested in quantization of the distal effects.  The universe is really big.  To provide the momentum to accelerate the very tiny ME active mass, it seems intuitively obvious some of the universe is moved a Planck length and some not moved at all.  To me this requires "shear force" which is potentially energy robbing.

Yes, that's what I'm looking for. I've also read the book, and there's no mention of this.
I don't know if it is possible and/or convenient to try to trace down each contribute every far away bit of "mass"  gives to the momentum/kinetic energy of the device, but if the effect is real this must be possible to do it in principle at least at a reasonable level of approximation using the relevant model.


It seems to me that a classical theory should be able to handle this, with no necessity of introducing quantum mechanics. After all, general relativity with absorber interactions or Hoyle-Narlikar/gravity absorber theory are classical.
« Last Edit: 09/24/2017 07:06 PM by Povel »

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 209
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1024 on: 09/25/2017 04:51 PM »
Quote
Having read Woodward's book, I am not certain what you are looking for?  Are you looking for a mathematical model for what the operation of a Mach effect device does to the momentum of an atom? or a kg? located X far away?

I am more interested in quantization of the distal effects.  The universe is really big.  To provide the momentum to accelerate the very tiny ME active mass, it seems intuitively obvious some of the universe is moved a Planck length and some not moved at all.  To me this requires "shear force" which is potentially energy robbing.

Yes, that's what I'm looking for. I've also read the book, and there's no mention of this.
I don't know if it is possible and/or convenient to try to trace down each contribute every far away bit of "mass"  gives to the momentum/kinetic energy of the device, but if the effect is real this must be possible to do it in principle at least at a reasonable level of approximation using the relevant model.


It seems to me that a classical theory should be able to handle this, with no necessity of introducing quantum mechanics. After all, general relativity with absorber interactions or Hoyle-Narlikar/gravity absorber theory are classical.

I agree there is no need to invoke QM at all to explain Mach effects and the technology that might follow from such effects. It seems to me that once the force is accounted for, the energy is accounted for simply by the way kinetic energy is dependent on different reference frames, that it can be generated in one frame and harvested in another where it has a higher value. In this case, harvesting simply means the vehicle gains extraordinary kinetic energy because the force acting on it always acts from within a moving reference frame which is co-moving with the vehicle. This is not a mystery.

Offline tdperk

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 243
  • Liked: 73
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1025 on: 09/26/2017 12:30 AM »
Quote
Having read Woodward's book, I am not certain what you are looking for?  Are you looking for a mathematical model for what the operation of a Mach effect device does to the momentum of an atom? or a kg? located X far away?

I am more interested in quantization of the distal effects.  The universe is really big.  To provide the momentum to accelerate the very tiny ME active mass, it seems intuitively obvious some of the universe is moved a Planck length and some not moved at all.  To me this requires "shear force" which is potentially energy robbing.

Yes, that's what I'm looking for. I've also read the book, and there's no mention of this.
I don't know if it is possible and/or convenient to try to trace down each contribute every far away bit of "mass"  gives to the momentum/kinetic energy of the device, but if the effect is real this must be possible to do it in principle at least at a reasonable level of approximation using the relevant model.


It seems to me that a classical theory should be able to handle this, with no necessity of introducing quantum mechanics. After all, general relativity with absorber interactions or Hoyle-Narlikar/gravity absorber theory are classical.

I agree there is no need to invoke QM at all to explain Mach effects and the technology that might follow from such effects. It seems to me that once the force is accounted for, the energy is accounted for simply by the way kinetic energy is dependent on different reference frames, that it can be generated in one frame and harvested in another where it has a higher value. In this case, harvesting simply means the vehicle gains extraordinary kinetic energy because the force acting on it always acts from within a moving reference frame which is co-moving with the vehicle. This is not a mystery.

Pull heavy, push light is intuitively obvious from a classical standpoint, the issue is whether you can actually make something alternatively "heavy" and "light".  My interest is the concept that the thing made heavy and light has a mass which is infinitesimal compared to the light cone of the observable universe.  If in order for it to experience a net force, momentum is exchanged which if that momentum were taken evenly from all the observable universe, the rest of the universe then moves 1/10^19th a Planck length, that no, that doesn't happen.  Instead 1/10^19 of the universe moves a Planck length, and the rest stays still.  Classical and quantized.

I have no idea how to write the equation, but it seems intuitively obvious.

I am wondering what the holes are in the theory?
« Last Edit: 09/26/2017 12:31 AM by tdperk »

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 611
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 246
  • Likes Given: 267
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1026 on: 09/26/2017 01:29 AM »
Quote
Having read Woodward's book, I am not certain what you are looking for?  Are you looking for a mathematical model for what the operation of a Mach effect device does to the momentum of an atom? or a kg? located X far away?

I am more interested in quantization of the distal effects.  The universe is really big.  To provide the momentum to accelerate the very tiny ME active mass, it seems intuitively obvious some of the universe is moved a Planck length and some not moved at all.  To me this requires "shear force" which is potentially energy robbing.

Yes, that's what I'm looking for. I've also read the book, and there's no mention of this.
I don't know if it is possible and/or convenient to try to trace down each contribute every far away bit of "mass"  gives to the momentum/kinetic energy of the device, but if the effect is real this must be possible to do it in principle at least at a reasonable level of approximation using the relevant model.


It seems to me that a classical theory should be able to handle this, with no necessity of introducing quantum mechanics. After all, general relativity with absorber interactions or Hoyle-Narlikar/gravity absorber theory are classical.

I agree there is no need to invoke QM at all to explain Mach effects and the technology that might follow from such effects. It seems to me that once the force is accounted for, the energy is accounted for simply by the way kinetic energy is dependent on different reference frames, that it can be generated in one frame and harvested in another where it has a higher value. In this case, harvesting simply means the vehicle gains extraordinary kinetic energy because the force acting on it always acts from within a moving reference frame which is co-moving with the vehicle. This is not a mystery.

Are you sure its pushing off something that is always at rest with respect to the observer (w.r.t.) ?  Take for instance the twin paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox WarpTech brought up in the "Any resolutions to FTL paradoxes?" thread https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43385.0.  Paralleling that with the space time cone where the person that accelerates converges their space & time axis into the light cone (blue) - making space part of time and time part of space.  As a result the person that accelerates now travels through time (blue axis on light cone - motion through space is motion through time).  By special relativity in the Twin paradox you might have difficulty discerning which twin ages more than the other.
By their relative velocity to each other both their clocks should seem to run slow so whose axis tilts when velocity is relative???

Taking into account which person actually tilts their time & space axis (blue) toward the light cone via acceleration makes it clear which person is the time traveler and who isn't (white axis of light cone).  This seems to demand that one person is actually moving near c while another is not. 

from: http://www.theculture.org/rich/sharpblue/archives/000089.html


We may see this reflected in the CMB background of our universe and discussed here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43385.msg1708835#msg1708835  A web side on the matter: http://webhome.phy.duke.edu/~kolena/cmb.htm 

I guess what I am saying is that I am not so sure we can think of the vacuum as being always at rest w.r.t. any moving individual.  Take for instance a black hole.  If the frame of the local vacuum is accelerating near a gravitational object and the vacuum frame reaches the speed of light at the event horizon then no light can escape. 

It might be argued that our mass prefers to be at rest w.r.t. some vacuum frame and that is why we are accelerated toward a gravitational object.  This may suggest any non-accelerated object is at rest w.r.t. that vacuum but then again maybe it's just that objects resist accelerating in a vacuum but not moving at a constant velocity through it.  (do super-fluids behave like this?)

If we think of space/time as contracting into the planet via the same effect we can almost visualize such a forward motion through space time.  That space time axis having converged some what on the light cone and our forward motion through it, suggests the possibly the reason our clock runs slower in a gravitational field.  It also suggests why we end up in the universes future via slowing our time. 
« Last Edit: 09/26/2017 01:39 AM by dustinthewind »

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 209
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1027 on: 09/26/2017 05:44 PM »
Quote
Having read Woodward's book, I am not certain what you are looking for?  Are you looking for a mathematical model for what the operation of a Mach effect device does to the momentum of an atom? or a kg? located X far away?

I am more interested in quantization of the distal effects.  The universe is really big.  To provide the momentum to accelerate the very tiny ME active mass, it seems intuitively obvious some of the universe is moved a Planck length and some not moved at all.  To me this requires "shear force" which is potentially energy robbing.

Yes, that's what I'm looking for. I've also read the book, and there's no mention of this.
I don't know if it is possible and/or convenient to try to trace down each contribute every far away bit of "mass"  gives to the momentum/kinetic energy of the device, but if the effect is real this must be possible to do it in principle at least at a reasonable level of approximation using the relevant model.


It seems to me that a classical theory should be able to handle this, with no necessity of introducing quantum mechanics. After all, general relativity with absorber interactions or Hoyle-Narlikar/gravity absorber theory are classical.

I agree there is no need to invoke QM at all to explain Mach effects and the technology that might follow from such effects. It seems to me that once the force is accounted for, the energy is accounted for simply by the way kinetic energy is dependent on different reference frames, that it can be generated in one frame and harvested in another where it has a higher value. In this case, harvesting simply means the vehicle gains extraordinary kinetic energy because the force acting on it always acts from within a moving reference frame which is co-moving with the vehicle. This is not a mystery.

Are you sure its pushing off something that is always at rest with respect to the observer (w.r.t.) ?  Take for instance the twin paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox WarpTech brought up in the "Any resolutions to FTL paradoxes?" thread https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43385.0.  Paralleling that with the space time cone where the person that accelerates converges their space & time axis into the light cone (blue) - making space part of time and time part of space.  As a result the person that accelerates now travels through time (blue axis on light cone - motion through space is motion through time).  By special relativity in the Twin paradox you might have difficulty discerning which twin ages more than the other.
By their relative velocity to each other both their clocks should seem to run slow so whose axis tilts when velocity is relative???

Taking into account which person actually tilts their time & space axis (blue) toward the light cone via acceleration makes it clear which person is the time traveler and who isn't (white axis of light cone).  This seems to demand that one person is actually moving near c while another is not. 

from: http://www.theculture.org/rich/sharpblue/archives/000089.html


We may see this reflected in the CMB background of our universe and discussed here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43385.msg1708835#msg1708835  A web side on the matter: http://webhome.phy.duke.edu/~kolena/cmb.htm 

I guess what I am saying is that I am not so sure we can think of the vacuum as being always at rest w.r.t. any moving individual.  Take for instance a black hole.  If the frame of the local vacuum is accelerating near a gravitational object and the vacuum frame reaches the speed of light at the event horizon then no light can escape. 

It might be argued that our mass prefers to be at rest w.r.t. some vacuum frame and that is why we are accelerated toward a gravitational object.  This may suggest any non-accelerated object is at rest w.r.t. that vacuum but then again maybe it's just that objects resist accelerating in a vacuum but not moving at a constant velocity through it.  (do super-fluids behave like this?)

If we think of space/time as contracting into the planet via the same effect we can almost visualize such a forward motion through space time.  That space time axis having converged some what on the light cone and our forward motion through it, suggests the possibly the reason our clock runs slower in a gravitational field.  It also suggests why we end up in the universes future via slowing our time.

The vacuum doesn't figure in my point and Special Relativity isn't necessary in the low speed limit. A big caveat is I said "once the force is taken into account" I'm assuming that with the Mach effect, the force acts on the object the same regardless of what speed it's going since velocity is relative and not absolute. Thus it can be considered to act in the reference frame (or the instantaneous rest frame co-moving with the object) at that instant and every instant.

A very simple example is this. Suppose there exists a reference frame R moving at speed v w.r.t. some frame such as the earth we shall call the lab frame L. An object of mass m in L is accelerated to v using a unit of energy K=1/2 m v^2 and is thus moving with R. Now, we apply the same energy in R to move the object from zero speed in R to v w.r.t. R. The object now has speed 2v and four times the kinetic energy w.r.t. L. We invested 2K (one K in L and one K in R) and harvested 4K in L. We don't have to agonize over where the extra energy came from. It didn't miraculously appear from the 'vacuum'. Ideally, it didn't 'come from' anywhere because it already existed in the form of the kinetic energy it had in R. It's a property of the relativity of kinetic energy.

You can raise the question of the validity of the existence of the idealized reference frame R (or any frame) and argue a perfect reference frame doesn't really exist, one that is immutable. Even if R were a planet moving by it would lose a little kinetic energy accelerating the object in R but if nature provides a near perfect frame to use, one can multiply energy in principle. Then you can assume the extra energy comes from the loss of energy of R needed to support it acting like a near ideal reference frame. Applying this to the Mach effect as I understand it, the Mach effect acts on the object regardless of speed in effect creating the frame R at whatever speed v the object is going as well as the energy to accelerate the object in R but the cost is the slight loss of gravitational potential energy of the universe as a whole. We merely put in some energy to create the conditions that support the Mach effect to work much like a transistor is provided a very small current (energy) to switch a much larger current (energy). The gain in kinetic energy of the object w.r.t. L is matched by that loss which supports the integrity of R but the gain is really explained by the translation of kinetic energy from one frame to another supported by the energy it takes to support the integrity of that reference frame and the force. This is my simplified conceptual tool to understand the propellent less propulsion generated by the Mach effect.
« Last Edit: 09/26/2017 05:45 PM by Bob012345 »

Offline Bob Woods

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 240
  • Salem, Oregon USA
  • Liked: 330
  • Likes Given: 1055
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1028 on: 09/27/2017 03:29 PM »
Today Dr. Fearn will be giving her presentation on the Mach Effect MEGA thruster at 11:10 Mountain Time.  It's available live at https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1379
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 272
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1029 on: 09/27/2017 03:39 PM »
Today Dr. Fearn will be giving her presentation on the Mach Effect MEGA thruster at 11:10 Mountain Time.  It's available live at https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017

And SSI.org will post her slides, Q&A handout and poster at approximately the same time.

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2917
  • Liked: 488
  • Likes Given: 733
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1030 on: 09/27/2017 05:09 PM »
Today Dr. Fearn will be giving her presentation on the Mach Effect MEGA thruster at 11:10 Mountain Time.  It's available live at https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017

And SSI.org will post her slides, Q&A handout and poster at approximately the same time.
Looking forward to watching the presentation!


Offline TheTraveller

Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1032 on: 09/28/2017 01:40 AM »
poster 41 mb
http://ssi.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/SSI_NIAC2017_Poster.pdf

slides 37mb
http://ssi.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/SSI_NIAC2017_Slides.pdf

Q&A 10mb
http://ssi.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/SSI_NIAC2017_QandA.pdf

NIAC video:
https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017/videos/163432557 starts at approx 48:00

Calculated specific thrust for the interstellar probe's MEGA drive is 5N/kW. 1.2MWe driving the MEGA drives. 6,000N from the MEGA drives pushing a 15t spacecraft = 0.4m/sec^2 acceleration.

Constant acceleration at 0.4m/sec^2 1/2 way to their target star and then constant deceleration the last half of the journey. Then enter orbit around a target planet.

Believe Prof Tajmar has presented his paper at IAC 2017 on his MEGA drive replication.

Trust the full paper will surface some time soon.

Abstract here:
https://iafastro.directory/iac/paper/id/38595/summary/

Expect the full paper to turn up here:
https://tu-dresden.de/ing/maschinenwesen/ilr/rfs/forschung/forschungsfelder/raumfahrtantriebe-und-neue-konzepte/breakthrough-propulsion-physics

Three main slides:
« Last Edit: 09/28/2017 03:20 AM by TheTraveller »
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.”
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1033 on: 09/28/2017 02:17 AM »
1.2 MWe seems very doable. Didn´t VASIMR required 200 MWe to send a spacecraft to Mars in 30 days?


Based on those assumptions of power requirements,what our current nuclear reactor tech would allow?

there is also the question of how much nuclear fuel we can take on a spacecraft and how long it takes to consume the fuel. (suppose we want to send humans to Proxima at 1G acceleration to reach 99.9% C, decelerate, and return. 200 tons spacecraft. How much of the 200 tons would need to be nuclear fuel?

Offline TheTraveller

Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1034 on: 09/28/2017 02:35 AM »
1.2 MWe seems very doable. Didn´t VASIMR required 200 MWe to send a spacecraft to Mars in 30 days?


Based on those assumptions of power requirements,what our current nuclear reactor tech would allow?

there is also the question of how much nuclear fuel we can take on a spacecraft and how long it takes to consume the fuel. (suppose we want to send humans to Proxima at 1G acceleration to reach 99.9% C, decelerate, and return. 200 tons spacecraft. How much of the 200 tons would need to be nuclear fuel?

Hi AcesHigh,

For 1g at 200t will need 1.96x10^6 N and at 5N/kWe that needs 392MWe. Then at say 2kg/kWe for the total power system mass = 784t.

Suggests that ship will need more like 100N/kWe P-P drives, which reduces power system mass to 39.2t. Still a lot of the total 200t ship mass but a good start.
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.”
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline tchernik

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 251
  • Liked: 298
  • Likes Given: 583
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1035 on: 09/28/2017 03:36 AM »
Very interesting presentation, thanks TT!

And it seems Dr. Slavas' presentation right after it about solar gravity lens telescopy, is like a match made in Heaven for the MEGA thruster probe presented by Dr. Fearn: no need of gravity assists (why use Jupiter's and the Sun's masses when you can use the entire Universe  ;D ) and I imagine it could reach the required 650 AU much faster (like in months instead of 20 something years).

Offline TheTraveller

Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1036 on: 09/28/2017 03:49 AM »
Expect Prof Tajmar's full MEGA drive replication paper to turn up here:

https://tu-dresden.de/ing/maschinenwesen/ilr/rfs/forschung/forschungsfelder/raumfahrtantriebe-und-neue-konzepte/breakthrough-propulsion-physics

Unless someone posts it here 1st?
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.”
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline TheTraveller

Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1037 on: 09/28/2017 05:37 AM »
Here is the MEGA drive theory as presented in the ssi.org linked documents.
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.”
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline TheTraveller

Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1038 on: 09/28/2017 07:23 AM »
Dr. Heidi Fearn's NIAC presentation is now on YouTube:

"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.”
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1792
  • Liked: 195
  • Likes Given: 182
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1039 on: 09/28/2017 02:08 PM »
This is is an amazingly easy to understand presentation, especially when combined with the QandA. I have to wonder why Emdrive gets so much attention when this is a device with a working theory which should be able to be replicated.
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin