Author Topic: Woodward's effect  (Read 284447 times)

Offline M.E.T.

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 445
  • Liked: 190
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1040 on: 09/28/2017 03:45 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.

As my username indicates, the Mach Effect Thruster is what brought me to this site in the first place (until I discovered the SpaceX section), and I have asked the exact question you ask above periodically over the last couple of years. I still don't quite understand the answer. It seems the EMdrive is what the public likes, while the now renamed MEGA thruster (Mach Effect thruster) seems to be based on actual theory and proper science to a far greater extent.

Anyway, hopefully we will see the breakthrough we have been waiting for sooner rather than later.

Offline wicoe

  • Member
  • Posts: 83
  • San Diego
  • Liked: 65
  • Likes Given: 138
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1041 on: 09/28/2017 03:48 PM »
First time posting in this thread, so I apologize if I'm asking something obvious... regarding the general principle that inertia is caused by some sort of interaction with the rest of the matter in the universe, while it's relatively easy to think of a world with no (or very little) matter, I'm having a hard time imagining a world without inertia.  Specifically, non-existent inertia would mean infinite acceleration during interaction of any kind (electromagnetic, etc), which makes no sense to me.  What would happen to interacting objects (e.g. two masses on a spring, etc) if we "get rid" of all the other matter in the universe?  It looks like inertia is a necessary condition for any kind of local interaction to make sense, so I'm not sure I fully understand the reasoning behind the Mach interpretation.  If it is true, then not only inertia, but essentially all forces must be attributed to some sort of coupling with the rest of the universe, because otherwise there would be no interaction of any kind, and therefore, no matter would form.  This sounds like a circular argument to me, and that's why I'm having a hard time accepting the Mach principle.  Any comments/clarifications would be appreciated!

Offline tdperk

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 243
  • Liked: 73
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1042 on: 09/28/2017 03:52 PM »
First time posting in this thread, so I apologize if I'm asking something obvious... regarding the general principle that inertia is caused by some sort of interaction with the rest of the matter in the universe, while it's relatively easy to think of a world with no (or very little) matter, I'm having a hard time imagining a world without inertia.  Specifically, non-existent inertia would mean infinite acceleration during interaction of any kind (electromagnetic, etc), which makes no sense to me.  What would happen to interacting objects (e.g. two masses on a spring, etc) if we "get rid" of all the other matter in the universe?  It looks like inertia is a necessary condition for any kind of local interaction to make sense, so I'm not sure I fully understand the reasoning behind the Mach interpretation.  If it is true, then not only inertia, but essentially all forces must be attributed to some sort of coupling with the rest of the universe, because otherwise there would be no interaction of any kind, and therefore, no matter would form.  This sounds like a circular argument to me, and that's why I'm having a hard time accepting the Mach principle.  Any comments/clarifications would be appreciated!

I don't understand why Mach's principle involved in any way accepting a lack of inertia?  It is a conceptual explanation for inertia.
« Last Edit: 09/28/2017 03:54 PM by tdperk »

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 209
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1043 on: 09/28/2017 04:34 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.

As my username indicates, the Mach Effect Thruster is what brought me to this site in the first place (until I discovered the SpaceX section), and I have asked the exact question you ask above periodically over the last couple of years. I still don't quite understand the answer. It seems the EMdrive is what the public likes, while the now renamed MEGA thruster (Mach Effect thruster) seems to be based on actual theory and proper science to a far greater extent.

Anyway, hopefully we will see the breakthrough we have been waiting for sooner rather than later.

There are two threads, one for the MEGA device using the Woodward effect and one for the EMDrive. Both concepts have data which is the most important thing. The theory for EMDrive is more unsettled at the moment but some feel it ultimately is a form of the Mach effect. Regardless, people claim to have replicated it and continue to attempt better replications of both. It's also possible they are both independent forms of propellentless propulsion. Proponents of EMDrive have been better at talking to the media earlier and more often but there is room for both concepts to be explored.
« Last Edit: 09/28/2017 04:36 PM by Bob012345 »

Online tchernik

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 251
  • Liked: 298
  • Likes Given: 583
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1044 on: 09/28/2017 04:49 PM »
Well, any of them being true and moderately scalable changes the world.

As Dr. Fearn's concept for a non-flyby interstellar probe with useful payload arriving in 20 or so years to Proxima B very eloquently shows.

Such a thing is simply impossible with any known technology.

The fact this is an actual phenomenon with evidence and now a NIAC project being actively researched is very exciting to say the least.
« Last Edit: 09/28/2017 04:50 PM by tchernik »

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 209
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1045 on: 09/28/2017 05:08 PM »
Well, any of them being true and moderately scalable changes the world.

As Dr. Fearn's concept for a non-flyby interstellar probe with useful payload arriving in 20 or so years to Proxima B very eloquently shows.

Such a thing is simply impossible with any known technology.

The fact this is an actual phenomenon with evidence and now a NIAC project being actively researched is very exciting to say the least.

It is exciting but it's not the first proposal for any propellentless propulsion based device (excluding beamed energy concepts) although it's likely the best and most scientifically reasonable proposal to date. Cannae has a Deep Space Probe concept and Shawyer has published an Intersteller Probe concept based on their respective drives. This is the first concept designed to stop at the target star though and the scientific team is more credible.

http://cannae.com/deep-space-probes/

http://www.emdrive.com/IAC14publishedpaper.pdf


« Last Edit: 09/28/2017 05:14 PM by Bob012345 »

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 209
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1046 on: 09/28/2017 05:20 PM »
Looking at the  section of the Q and A shown below, I wondered why they assert using the Mach effect as an energy generation scheme would be "very inefficient" if you assume the same advanced development devices assumed for the intersteller probe ~3 N/kW. Regardless, my reaction aligns with Jim Carrey's below;

« Last Edit: 09/28/2017 05:21 PM by Bob012345 »

Offline Povel

  • Member
  • Posts: 26
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1047 on: 09/28/2017 06:40 PM »
Quote
Looking at the  section of the Q and A shown below, I wondered why they assert using the Mach effect as an energy generation scheme would be "very inefficient" if you assume the same advanced development devices assumed for the intersteller probe ~3 N/kW. Regardless, my reaction aligns with Jim Carrey's below;

I'm wondering the same thing. Honestly that answer really doesn't mean anything. Saying that "the kinetic energy comes from the gravitational field" without further explanations on how this process works is not better than saying that it comes "from the vacuum".
Saying that using the device is an "inefficient" way to generate energy reminds me of a post from Rodal in this same thread.. don't know what are they thinking, but an inexhaustible source of energy beats any solar or nuclear option in my mind.

I'm frankly surprised that no one at the NIAC meeting asked about this.

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1792
  • Liked: 195
  • Likes Given: 182
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1048 on: 09/28/2017 08:17 PM »
Saying that "the kinetic energy comes from the gravitational field" without further explanations on how this process works is not better than saying that it comes "from the vacuum".
Saying that using the device is an "inefficient" way to generate energy reminds me of a post from Rodal in this same thread.. don't know what are they thinking, but an inexhaustible source of energy beats any solar or nuclear option in my mind.

I'm frankly surprised that no one at the NIAC meeting asked about this.

This is not complicated. Space-based solar is for all practicable purposes likewise inexhaustible, as well. Space Based Solar power in the orbit of Neptune, on the other hand would be so inefficient, even if it were possible, that there would be many better ways to generate power.

You might also design some Rube Goldberg solar-wind windmill as well, but it would not be very efficient. There would be better ways, far better ways to get what you needed done.

The MEGA Drive seems suited best to one thing, propellantless drive.
« Last Edit: 09/28/2017 08:18 PM by bad_astra »
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline Povel

  • Member
  • Posts: 26
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1049 on: 09/28/2017 09:41 PM »
Quote
This is not complicated. Space-based solar is for all practicable purposes likewise inexhaustible, as well. Space Based Solar power in the orbit of Neptune, on the other hand would be so inefficient, even if it were possible, that there would be many better ways to generate power.

You might also design some Rube Goldberg solar-wind windmill as well, but it would not be very efficient. There would be better ways, far better ways to get what you needed done.

The MEGA Drive seems suited best to one thing, propellantless drive.

I honestly don't see any reason to say this, given the current data available.
It might be so, sure.
But at this point it seems more like an apriori statement that is conveniently putted forward to avoid the whole discussion on where and how exactly this energy pops out.

If the MEGA drive really works, then in principle, with the efficiencies they are aiming for (~1N/MW), building a generator is as hard as putting two drives on a wheel and let them spin around the axis.
Depending on the mass of the device, after a more or less long "booting" time the kinetic energy of the wheel equals the output from the generator you are using to power the device, be it solar or nuclear, etc.
Running for double that time (four double of the energy) grants you 4 times the energy in output, triple it and you get 9 times and so on..

After closing the loop all you have to do for achieving high energy densities with such system is to wait.
So you could in theory end up with an energy source comparable in density with  nuclear power with none of its disadvantage and infinite. How can this be considered "inefficient"?
« Last Edit: 09/28/2017 10:10 PM by Povel »

Offline TheTraveller

Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1050 on: 09/29/2017 01:01 AM »
Interesting data, which suggests that the MEGA drive efficiency, ie Specific Force in uN/kW doubles as input power doubles.

This is NOT a characteristic of either the Shawyer EmDrive or a White QV Thruster, which both exhibit a 1:1 relationship between input power, generated force and Specific Force.

MEGA drive load impedance was selected as 200 ohm from Dr. Fearn's comment the input power was 200W. It is also assumed that the load impedance stays constant as voltage and power are varied.

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

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 611
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 246
  • Likes Given: 267
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1051 on: 09/29/2017 05:50 AM »
Interesting data, which suggests that the MEGA drive efficiency, ie Specific Force in uN/kW doubles as input power doubles.

This is NOT a characteristic of either the Shawyer EmDrive or a White QV Thruster, which both exhibit a 1:1 relationship between input power, generated force and Specific Force.

MEGA drive load impedance was selected as 200 ohm from Dr. Fearn's comment the input power was 200W. It is also assumed that the load impedance stays constant as voltage and power are varied.

This makes me think back to when I was speculating at a change in mass of light at one end of the cavity I got some term for force that went like the stored energy squared or Power squared which seemed too good to be true.  Not sure it really has any relevance to reality, though those look like experimental values. 
« Last Edit: 09/29/2017 06:15 AM by dustinthewind »

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 209
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1052 on: 09/29/2017 05:59 PM »
Quote
This is not complicated. Space-based solar is for all practicable purposes likewise inexhaustible, as well. Space Based Solar power in the orbit of Neptune, on the other hand would be so inefficient, even if it were possible, that there would be many better ways to generate power.

You might also design some Rube Goldberg solar-wind windmill as well, but it would not be very efficient. There would be better ways, far better ways to get what you needed done.

The MEGA Drive seems suited best to one thing, propellantless drive.

I honestly don't see any reason to say this, given the current data available.
It might be so, sure.
But at this point it seems more like an apriori statement that is conveniently putted forward to avoid the whole discussion on where and how exactly this energy pops out.

If the MEGA drive really works, then in principle, with the efficiencies they are aiming for (~1N/MW), building a generator is as hard as putting two drives on a wheel and let them spin around the axis.
Depending on the mass of the device, after a more or less long "booting" time the kinetic energy of the wheel equals the output from the generator you are using to power the device, be it solar or nuclear, etc.
Running for double that time (four double of the energy) grants you 4 times the energy in output, triple it and you get 9 times and so on..

After closing the loop all you have to do for achieving high energy densities with such system is to wait.
So you could in theory end up with an energy source comparable in density with  nuclear power with none of its disadvantage and infinite. How can this be considered "inefficient"?

Did you mean 1N/KW?

I wonder if the team feels that since energy generation is not the primary goal, focusing on it may be a distraction as well as that might "bring out the crazies" which is bad for scientific credibility?

But of course the same technology that could make the MEGA drive practical could also make energy generation practical, especially energy generation in deep space say, along the way to Proxima B ....just given the mission parameters in the presentation, the probe is generating some 10^5 times the total nuclear reactor energy in the form of kinetic energy. ;D

My questions for the team are;

1) Can deltaM/M be significantly increased?
2) Why does power have to be dissipated?
3) How much mass assumed per each MEGA drive in the probe design?
4) Are they exploring different means besides piezoelectric/electrostriction phenomenon?

Thanks!
« Last Edit: 09/29/2017 06:10 PM by Bob012345 »

Offline tdperk

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 243
  • Liked: 73
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1053 on: 09/30/2017 12:38 PM »
2) Why does power have to be dissipated?

Because electrical power is being moved through resistances, it will be dissipated.  V=I*R, W=I*I*R .  I know of no high k superconducting capacitors.
« Last Edit: 10/01/2017 05:11 PM by tdperk »

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 209
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1054 on: 09/30/2017 05:27 PM »
2) Why does power have to be dissipated?

Because electrical power is being moved through resistances, it will be dissipated.  V=I*R, W=I*I*R .  I know of know high k superconducting capacitors.

One can imagine energy pumped in and out of a system to create a mass fluctuation but the question is why there necessarily needs to be a dissipation mechanism, that's completely different from the fact that resistive devices dissipate power.

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1301
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1350
  • Likes Given: 1813
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1055 on: 09/30/2017 09:36 PM »
2) Why does power have to be dissipated?

Because electrical power is being moved through resistances, it will be dissipated.  V=I*R, W=I*I*R .  I know of know high k superconducting capacitors.

One can imagine energy pumped in and out of a system to create a mass fluctuation but the question is why there necessarily needs to be a dissipation mechanism, that's completely different from the fact that resistive devices dissipate power.

Hopefully, this will explain it. The power dissipation is an "effective gravitational potential".
See attached. I put this together for you from notes I posted in the EMDrive thread.

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 209
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1056 on: 10/04/2017 04:51 PM »
Everyone's favorite wormhole guy, Kip Thorne shares the 2017 Nobel physics prize for his contributions with the LIGO team which discovered gravitational waves.
« Last Edit: 10/04/2017 05:03 PM by Bob012345 »

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 209
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1057 on: 10/05/2017 05:40 PM »
2) Why does power have to be dissipated?

Because electrical power is being moved through resistances, it will be dissipated.  V=I*R, W=I*I*R .  I know of know high k superconducting capacitors.

One can imagine energy pumped in and out of a system to create a mass fluctuation but the question is why there necessarily needs to be a dissipation mechanism, that's completely different from the fact that resistive devices dissipate power.

Hopefully, this will explain it. The power dissipation is an "effective gravitational potential".
See attached. I put this together for you from notes I posted in the EMDrive thread.

Thanks. I understand that since the mass change is very tiny, most of the effect to accelerate the CM is due to classical physics at the appropriate frequencies.

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 611
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 246
  • Likes Given: 267
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1058 on: 10/05/2017 06:58 PM »
2) Why does power have to be dissipated?

Because electrical power is being moved through resistances, it will be dissipated.  V=I*R, W=I*I*R .  I know of know high k superconducting capacitors.

One can imagine energy pumped in and out of a system to create a mass fluctuation but the question is why there necessarily needs to be a dissipation mechanism, that's completely different from the fact that resistive devices dissipate power.

Hopefully, this will explain it. The power dissipation is an "effective gravitational potential".
See attached. I put this together for you from notes I posted in the EMDrive thread.

Thanks. I understand that since the mass change is very tiny, most of the effect to accelerate the CM is due to classical physics at the appropriate frequencies.

I would speculate this gravitational potential induced may be an induced flow in space time.  Similar to the speculation time slows down in Earth's gravitational potential because of increased relative velocity w.r.t. the vacuums velocity.  This being possibly similar to an induced flow in superfluid helium where you create a superfluid fountain?  Or basically momentum conserved by this acceleration of the vacuum which then acts on the rest of the universe.  Just my speculation. 

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1301
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1350
  • Likes Given: 1813
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1059 on: 10/06/2017 02:01 AM »
2) Why does power have to be dissipated?

Because electrical power is being moved through resistances, it will be dissipated.  V=I*R, W=I*I*R .  I know of know high k superconducting capacitors.

One can imagine energy pumped in and out of a system to create a mass fluctuation but the question is why there necessarily needs to be a dissipation mechanism, that's completely different from the fact that resistive devices dissipate power.

Hopefully, this will explain it. The power dissipation is an "effective gravitational potential".
See attached. I put this together for you from notes I posted in the EMDrive thread.

Thanks. I understand that since the mass change is very tiny, most of the effect to accelerate the CM is due to classical physics at the appropriate frequencies.

I would speculate this gravitational potential induced may be an induced flow in space time.  Similar to the speculation time slows down in Earth's gravitational potential because of increased relative velocity w.r.t. the vacuums velocity.  This being possibly similar to an induced flow in superfluid helium where you create a superfluid fountain?  Or basically momentum conserved by this acceleration of the vacuum which then acts on the rest of the universe.  Just my speculation.

In this case, the gravitational potential is the (negative) time derivative of the gravito-magnetic flux.

φ = -dχ/dt

Magnetic flux may be defined as Joule-seconds/Coulomb
Gravito-magnetic flux may be defined as Joule-seconds/Kilogram

The "Jerk" term that Dr. Rodal refers to in his paper, I equate to the 3rd time derivative of the gravito-magnetic flux, which is the 2nd derivative of the potential. You can see that power has to be dissipated to make it go. If anything, there is probably an asymmetrical flow of gravito-magnetic flux escaping the device, which carries away momentum.

IMO, all the matter and energy in the universe, along with the planet Earth, conspire to give us the local speed of light, as in c/K where K is "normalized" to 1 in the local space-time. Meaning, our rulers and clocks are scaled such that locally, c is a constant when measured using our local measuring devices. Therefore, "Inertia" is simply the sum of the dispersion forces acting on the wave functions, when those quantum objects are accelerated in a medium where the velocity must remain constant.


« Last Edit: 10/07/2017 02:18 AM by WarpTech »