Author Topic: Woodward's effect  (Read 284924 times)

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3892
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1080 on: 10/21/2017 07:08 PM »
Well, I figured that electrons traveling in graphene only have apparent zero mass, but not actual zero mass, and must somehow be transferring apparent mass to the graphene in order for they themselves to seem massless (ie. some interaction between the electrons and graphene would reciprocally make the graphene heavier, even as it made the electrons seem massless)
So the mass of the graphene would presumably be the same regardless of whether you applied the electric field or not.

And yet, if work is required to make the electrons behave this way - isn't that work coming from the Vacuum?


Offline PotomacNeuron

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 203
  • Do I look like a neuroscientist?
  • MD
  • Liked: 115
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1081 on: 10/24/2017 04:59 PM »
OK, I stated in the EMDrive thread that I planned to do some Dean Drive experiments. The purpose was to try to investigate whether the Dean Drive effect was what really happening in the Mach Effect Thruster (MET or MEGA drive). My instinct told me that it was. (Side note: I have good physics instincts. Last time I thought NASA EW's 2014 experiment had not accounted for Lorentz force caused by ground loop DC current, and I experimentally showed that a similar construction had large Lorentz force up to a hundred micro-Newtons. A pdf document about it is downloadable from https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.07752)

 This time, I planned to experiment with MEGA.  I planned to first reproduce "their" MEGA results, ideally with "their" MEGA device; then I plan to place the entire thing (stand, counterweight, beam, bearing, MEGA, power supply etc) in a sealed box, hang the box under a thin piano wire, control the device on and off with optical or RF switch, then measure the rotation of the piano wire. If the thrust was true, the wire would rotate, at least to an angle. If the thrust was not there, it would not rotate.

I thought this was a good plan. Triggered by Monomorphic's post about his new E-10 bearing today, I started to do some on-line research to prepare for my experiment. To my disappointment,  I found that my experiment will not bring in anything new. Here is why.

I started from searching "metal spring dissipation", for differential dissipation between the cases when the spring was compressed quickly and slowly. This kind of asymmetrical movement, present in previous MEGA experiment, might have caused the "thrust", much like what happened in Dean Drive. I found some interesting documents, such as "Anomalous low frequency dissipation processes in metal springs" by Riccardo DeSalvo, "Dissipation processes in Metal springs" by Arianna Di Cintio, "The Elastic Hysteresis of Steel" by Bertram Hopkinson and G. Trevor Williams. And finally I found this page: https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/test-pm.htm. They quoted an article http://www.rexresearch.com/bull/1bull.htm about Harry W. BULL's "Reaction Motor". See how similar it is to MEGA!




Quote:
"Balance scales and even electronic balances can also be fooled by vibrations, due to mechanical "stiction" (the "stick and slip" phenomenon of friction). The scale itself is affected by nonlinear phenomena in its mechanism, and these can often display resonance peaks, dependent on the frequency of the vibrations. So a running motor on a balance scale may indeed seem to weigh less when it's running. That has fooled many people, and is one of the reasons for the strange results when Norman Dean demonstrated his "reactionless" drive of the early 1960s."

I lost the interest in performing the said experiment in the beginning of this post. Would my experiment add more evidence to science? I guess the answer is "No". That web page had summarized well the existing evidence. All my experiment would be able to show had been shown.

I write down this post to wrap up my short-lived interest in MET. By the way, I am interested in AI and I have been three years into it. 
I am working on the ultimate mission human beings are made for.

Offline Tcarey

  • Member
  • Posts: 42
  • Arlington, Tx
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 23
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1082 on: 10/24/2017 06:11 PM »
Potomic...   I am somewhat confused by your rational for not pursuing this exp. As I understand it a torsion wire would not be subject to the stiction error  of scales.  You would be looking for rotation in the wire larger than any back and forth motion produced by the drive. The won't be any stiction in a torsion wire since there is nothing to slip against or to stick to.

What am I missing?

Offline Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1189
  • United States
    • /r/QThruster
  • Liked: 3210
  • Likes Given: 1063
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1083 on: 10/24/2017 06:17 PM »
I noticed the rubber pad was absent in the "null" device constructed by Woodward. If the Mach Effect Thruster is basically a Harry Bull Reaction Motor, then it needs the rubber pad to "work."

Potomic...   I am somewhat confused by your rational for not pursuing this exp. As I understand it a torsion wire would not be subject to the stiction error  of scales.  You would be looking for rotation in the wire larger than any back and forth motion produced by the drive. The won't be any stiction in a torsion wire since there is nothing to slip against or to stick to.

What am I missing?

Here is the pertinent part copied from the link above:

"Even with this arrangement, self-deception can occur, as in Henry Bull's impulse engine of 1935. You can read about it in Popular Science Monthly, Jan 1935, p. 27: Harry W. Bull: Reaction Motor. His device was in an enclosed box, and suspended from wires as a pendulum. Inside the box two weights were driven by electromagnets, one weight making an inelastic impact with a spring, the other making a nearly elastic metal-to-metal impact. When running, the box containing the device moved to the side. Why? Due to the asymmetric motion inside the box, the center of mass of the box and its contents shifts relative to the box. But the center of mass must still remain where it was before (relative to the laboratory). So the box moves aside, while its center of mass stays put. Newton's laws were working properly, as they always do."
« Last Edit: 10/24/2017 07:30 PM by Monomorphic »

Offline PotomacNeuron

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 203
  • Do I look like a neuroscientist?
  • MD
  • Liked: 115
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1084 on: 10/24/2017 07:32 PM »
I noticed the rubber pad was absent in the "null" device constructed by Woodward. If the Mach Effect Thruster is basically a Harry Bull Reaction Motor, then it needs the rubber pad to "work."

I read somewhere that the pad greatly enhanced the "thrust". Without the pad, I think it will still "work", with less "thrust". This is because this time the asymmetrical elastic property of the stack (different k between compression and stretching) will provide the necessary asymmetrical movement (relatively elastic to one side and stiffer to the other side) for a Dean effect ("stiction").
I am working on the ultimate mission human beings are made for.

Offline PotomacNeuron

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 203
  • Do I look like a neuroscientist?
  • MD
  • Liked: 115
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1085 on: 10/24/2017 07:55 PM »
Potomic...   I am somewhat confused by your rational for not pursuing this exp. As I understand it a torsion wire would not be subject to the stiction error  of scales.  You would be looking for rotation in the wire larger than any back and forth motion produced by the drive. The won't be any stiction in a torsion wire since there is nothing to slip against or to stick to.

What am I missing?

My rational is that, I planed to use my experiment to relate MET to Dean effect, if successful, the ball would be in Woodward's yard. It would be their responsibility to explain why MET was / was not a Dean drive. Now I found the Bull's impulse engine (I think it belongs to Dean Drive in the general sense), that is sufficiently similar to MET that the ball is now in their yard indeed. My planned experiment thus will not contribute much.
I am working on the ultimate mission human beings are made for.

Offline PotomacNeuron

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 203
  • Do I look like a neuroscientist?
  • MD
  • Liked: 115
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1086 on: 10/24/2017 08:02 PM »
Potomic...   I am somewhat confused by your rational for not pursuing this exp. As I understand it a torsion wire would not be subject to the stiction error  of scales.  You would be looking for rotation in the wire larger than any back and forth motion produced by the drive. The won't be any stiction in a torsion wire since there is nothing to slip against or to stick to.

What am I missing?

Here is the pertinent part copied from the link above:

"Even with this arrangement, self-deception can occur, as in Henry Bull's impulse engine of 1935. You can read about it in Popular Science Monthly, Jan 1935, p. 27: Harry W. Bull: Reaction Motor. His device was in an enclosed box, and suspended from wires as a pendulum. Inside the box two weights were driven by electromagnets, one weight making an inelastic impact with a spring, the other making a nearly elastic metal-to-metal impact. When running, the box containing the device moved to the side. Why? Due to the asymmetric motion inside the box, the center of mass of the box and its contents shifts relative to the box. But the center of mass must still remain where it was before (relative to the laboratory). So the box moves aside, while its center of mass stays put. Newton's laws were working properly, as they always do."

I have not thought of this effect in detail. It may rotate or may not rotate because of shift of mass center. Anyway, I decide to save some brain cells by now.
I am working on the ultimate mission human beings are made for.

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 272
  • United States
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1087 on: 10/25/2017 12:03 AM »
OK, I stated in the EMDrive thread that I planned to do some Dean Drive experiments. The purpose was to try to investigate whether the Dean Drive effect was what really happening in the Mach Effect Thruster (MET or MEGA drive). My instinct told me that it was. (Side note: I have good physics instincts. Last time I thought NASA EW's 2014 experiment had not accounted for Lorentz force caused by ground loop DC current, and I experimentally showed that a similar construction had large Lorentz force up to a hundred micro-Newtons. A pdf document about it is downloadable from https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.07752)

 This time, I planned to experiment with MEGA.  I planned to first reproduce "their" MEGA results, ideally with "their" MEGA device; then I plan to place the entire thing (stand, counterweight, beam, bearing, MEGA, power supply etc) in a sealed box, hang the box under a thin piano wire, control the device on and off with optical or RF switch, then measure the rotation of the piano wire. If the thrust was true, the wire would rotate, at least to an angle. If the thrust was not there, it would not rotate.

I thought this was a good plan. Triggered by Monomorphic's post about his new E-10 bearing today, I started to do some on-line research to prepare for my experiment. To my disappointment,  I found that my experiment will not bring in anything new. Here is why.

I started from searching "metal spring dissipation", for differential dissipation between the cases when the spring was compressed quickly and slowly. This kind of asymmetrical movement, present in previous MEGA experiment, might have caused the "thrust", much like what happened in Dean Drive. I found some interesting documents, such as "Anomalous low frequency dissipation processes in metal springs" by Riccardo DeSalvo, "Dissipation processes in Metal springs" by Arianna Di Cintio, "The Elastic Hysteresis of Steel" by Bertram Hopkinson and G. Trevor Williams. And finally I found this page: https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/test-pm.htm. They quoted an article http://www.rexresearch.com/bull/1bull.htm about Harry W. BULL's "Reaction Motor". See how similar it is to MEGA!




Quote:
"Balance scales and even electronic balances can also be fooled by vibrations, due to mechanical "stiction" (the "stick and slip" phenomenon of friction). The scale itself is affected by nonlinear phenomena in its mechanism, and these can often display resonance peaks, dependent on the frequency of the vibrations. So a running motor on a balance scale may indeed seem to weigh less when it's running. That has fooled many people, and is one of the reasons for the strange results when Norman Dean demonstrated his "reactionless" drive of the early 1960s."

I lost the interest in performing the said experiment in the beginning of this post. Would my experiment add more evidence to science? I guess the answer is "No". That web page had summarized well the existing evidence. All my experiment would be able to show had been shown.

I write down this post to wrap up my short-lived interest in MET. By the way, I am interested in AI and I have been three years into it.

So I am very curious about your thought process here. Especially since they have presented experimental results showing not only thrust but also no thrust with the exact same stack configuration that has depolarized (IIRMC). I n addition their test results I believe also cover the case where the stack is driven outside of the correct frequency. Finally, the paper your referring to is talking about what looks like a different set of tests.

edit

Most importantly I dont believe the paper explain why the measured thrust results match the predicted thrust scaling from the theoretical derivation.

If your going to argue that the effect is not real or is something else then you would need to provide an explaination for the results in section 2 of Theory of mach effect thrust II, and I am not finding that in the paper you quoted
« Last Edit: 10/25/2017 12:11 AM by birchoff »

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3892
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1088 on: 10/25/2017 01:14 AM »
Apart from Mach Effect experiments, are there any other experiments or devices out there which attempt to oscillate the property of mass?

Offline PotomacNeuron

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 203
  • Do I look like a neuroscientist?
  • MD
  • Liked: 115
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1089 on: 10/25/2017 01:47 AM »

So I am very curious about your thought process here. Especially since they have presented experimental results showing not only thrust but also no thrust with the exact same stack configuration that has depolarized (IIRMC). I n addition their test results I believe also cover the case where the stack is driven outside of the correct frequency. Finally, the paper your referring to is talking about what looks like a different set of tests.

edit

Most importantly I dont believe the paper explain why the measured thrust results match the predicted thrust scaling from the theoretical derivation.

If your going to argue that the effect is not real or is something else then you would need to provide an explaination for the results in section 2 of Theory of mach effect thrust II, and I am not finding that in the paper you quoted

Some articles referred by "Theory of mach effect thrust II" are not downloadable. I think one needs to look into details to figure out why there is no thrust if the stack is depolarized, or is driven with different frequency. I think I will need to see and manipulate the experiment myself if I want to get a better understanding why. There are multiple possible reasons, for example, the frequency may need to be close to the resonance frequency of the system. Also I'd like to see they do the experiment I planned (sealed box with everything hanging under a wire). I generally lost interest to do that myself.
I am working on the ultimate mission human beings are made for.

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 272
  • United States
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1090 on: 10/25/2017 03:47 AM »

So I am very curious about your thought process here. Especially since they have presented experimental results showing not only thrust but also no thrust with the exact same stack configuration that has depolarized (IIRMC). I n addition their test results I believe also cover the case where the stack is driven outside of the correct frequency. Finally, the paper your referring to is talking about what looks like a different set of tests.

edit

Most importantly I dont believe the paper explain why the measured thrust results match the predicted thrust scaling from the theoretical derivation.

If your going to argue that the effect is not real or is something else then you would need to provide an explaination for the results in section 2 of Theory of mach effect thrust II, and I am not finding that in the paper you quoted

Some articles referred by "Theory of mach effect thrust II" are not downloadable. I think one needs to look into details to figure out why there is no thrust if the stack is depolarized, or is driven with different frequency. I think I will need to see and manipulate the experiment myself if I want to get a better understanding why. There are multiple possible reasons, for example, the frequency may need to be close to the resonance frequency of the system. Also I'd like to see they do the experiment I planned (sealed box with everything hanging under a wire). I generally lost interest to do that myself.

Honestly, I don't care if you have personally lost interest. I am just pointing out that if you want to show that the experimental results are being incorrectly interpreted. You have to do way more than you have done so far, otherwise, all you have is a belief that the measured effect is something else.

Basically, I am asking for critics to do the same thing they ask others to do.  If a critic isn't willing to do that when the person/team proposing a new idea has done the work to show agreement with their theory so far. I have a hard time taking the critics seriously.

P.S. please also keep in mind that it looks like between estes park last year and the NIAC presentation a lot more experimental runs have been performed that continue to show strong agreement with the predicted scaling.

Offline PotomacNeuron

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 203
  • Do I look like a neuroscientist?
  • MD
  • Liked: 115
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1091 on: 10/25/2017 08:05 AM »

Honestly, I don't care if you have personally lost interest. I am just pointing out that if you want to show that the experimental results are being incorrectly interpreted. You have to do way more than you have done so far, otherwise, all you have is a belief that the measured effect is something else.

Basically, I am asking for critics to do the same thing they ask others to do.  If a critic isn't willing to do that when the person/team proposing a new idea has done the work to show agreement with their theory so far. I have a hard time taking the critics seriously.

P.S. please also keep in mind that it looks like between estes park last year and the NIAC presentation a lot more experimental runs have been performed that continue to show strong agreement with the predicted scaling.

We direct our limited resources (time, brain capacity...) based on our own judgement. Calling it belief is not too inaccurate. Anyway, I am out of this MET business and it is my belief that it will not go too far.
I am working on the ultimate mission human beings are made for.

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1092 on: 10/25/2017 10:41 PM »
Anyway, I am out of this MET business and it is my belief that it will not go too far.

Thanks for your personal input. Bye bye.

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 272
  • United States
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1093 on: 10/26/2017 02:07 AM »

Honestly, I don't care if you have personally lost interest. I am just pointing out that if you want to show that the experimental results are being incorrectly interpreted. You have to do way more than you have done so far, otherwise, all you have is a belief that the measured effect is something else.

Basically, I am asking for critics to do the same thing they ask others to do.  If a critic isn't willing to do that when the person/team proposing a new idea has done the work to show agreement with their theory so far. I have a hard time taking the critics seriously.

P.S. please also keep in mind that it looks like between estes park last year and the NIAC presentation a lot more experimental runs have been performed that continue to show strong agreement with the predicted scaling.

We direct our limited resources (time, brain capacity...) based on our own judgement. Calling it belief is not too inaccurate. Anyway, I am out of this MET business and it is my belief that it will not go too far.

Agreed. Thank you for your input to the thread and being honest... wish more critics were at least that.

Offline Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1189
  • United States
    • /r/QThruster
  • Liked: 3210
  • Likes Given: 1063
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1094 on: 10/27/2017 11:06 PM »
Due to the asymmetric motion inside the box, the center of mass of the box and its contents shifts relative to the box. But the center of mass must still remain where it was before (relative to the laboratory). So the box moves aside, while its center of mass stays put. Newton's laws were working properly, as they always do."

I've constructed a couple of "asymmetric shakers" to test whether a Harry Bull Reaction Motor can produce similar "thrust" signatures as a Mach Effect Thruster (MET) using a torsional pendulum. It is a very straightforward design having a vibrator-weight-spring/damper internal configuration.

Two models have been produced, a 0.5W version and a 5.0W version. There is just enough room on my torsional pendulum to mount these one at a time for testing.  Both models are capable of vibrating from 31 Hz to 64,000 Hz. 
 
« Last Edit: 10/27/2017 11:09 PM by Monomorphic »

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1303
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1350
  • Likes Given: 1814
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1095 on: 10/28/2017 01:10 AM »
Due to the asymmetric motion inside the box, the center of mass of the box and its contents shifts relative to the box. But the center of mass must still remain where it was before (relative to the laboratory). So the box moves aside, while its center of mass stays put. Newton's laws were working properly, as they always do."

I've constructed a couple of "asymmetric shakers" to test whether a Harry Bull Reaction Motor can produce similar "thrust" signatures as a Mach Effect Thruster (MET) using a torsional pendulum. It is a very straightforward design having a vibrator-weight-spring/damper internal configuration.

Two models have been produced, a 0.5W version and a 5.0W version. There is just enough room on my torsional pendulum to mount these one at a time for testing.  Both models are capable of vibrating from 31 Hz to 64,000 Hz. 
 

Can you share your design?
Are these vibrators PZT based or electromagnetic solenoid?
What makes it "asymmetrical"?

Thanks!

Offline Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1189
  • United States
    • /r/QThruster
  • Liked: 3210
  • Likes Given: 1063
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1096 on: 10/28/2017 11:55 AM »
Can you share your design?
Are these vibrators PZT based or electromagnetic solenoid?
What makes it "asymmetrical"?

These two are electromagnetic. I purchased a 0.5W PZT version, but it does not vibrate very much in comparison. What makes it asymmetrical is simply the internal configuration: vibrator-mass-spring, with the mass and spring on one side of the vibrator, similar to METs having the brass mass and rubber pad on one side.

Offline Povel

  • Member
  • Posts: 26
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1097 on: 10/28/2017 03:53 PM »
Judging by the links provided on Bull's device it looks like his procedure to assess "thrust" was fundamentally different from Woodward's one. From the pictures it seems like he was using a simple pendulum, and its deflection was used as a qualitative measure of "thrust" with not further elaboration, like computing the total movement in a cycle, which of course is zero:

Quote
His device was in an enclosed box, and suspended from wires as a pendulum. Inside the box two weights were driven by electromagnets, one weight making an inelastic impact with a spring, the other making a nearly elastic metal-to-metal impact. When running, the box containing the device moved to the side. Why? Due to the asymmetric motion inside the box, the center of mass of the box and its contents shifts relative to the box. But the center of mass must still remain where it was before (relative to the laboratory). So the box moves aside, while its center of mass stays put.

I don't think that such effect could show up on a torsion/thrust balance (at least in a quasi-static situation where the center of mass moves relative to the device "box" and then stays there; it could happen on a simple pendulum though) since any movement of the center of mass relative to the device happens on a plane which is parallel to the direction of movement of the balance arm.
At most, with the frequencies involved, the arm should oscillate back and forth, averaging to zero, and the only way for this to simulate a thrust signal is if there were unaccounted sources of Dean drive-like effect.

By the way, I found this interesting 2006 paper from Marc Millis and Nicholas Thomas (back when Millis was working at NASA).
Quoting directly from the abstract:

Quote
Based on the experiences of the NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project, suggestions are
offered for constructively responding to proposals that purport breakthrough propulsion using mechanical
devices. Because of the relatively large number of unsolicited submissions received (about 1 per
workday) and because many of these involve similar concepts, this report is offered to help the would-be
submitters make genuine progress as well as to help reviewers respond to such submissions. Devices that
use oscillating masses or gyroscope falsely appear to create net thrust through differential friction or by
misinterpreting torques as linear forces. To cover both the possibility of an errant claim and a genuine
discovery, reviews should require that submitters meet minimal thresholds of proof before engaging in
further correspondence; such as achieving sustained deflection of a level-platform pendulum in the case
of mechanical thrusters.

I think it is an interesting read for everyone here.



« Last Edit: 10/28/2017 05:05 PM by Povel »

Offline tdperk

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 243
  • Liked: 73
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1098 on: 10/28/2017 11:56 PM »
What am I missing?

Nothing.

" Inside the box two weights were driven by electromagnets, one weight making an inelastic impact with a spring, the other making a nearly elastic metal-to-metal impact. "

And there is no such thing mechanically analogous to that in an MET.
« Last Edit: 10/30/2017 01:04 PM by tdperk »

Online Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1307
  • Liked: 231
  • Likes Given: 85
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1099 on: 10/29/2017 01:59 AM »
looks left...
looks right...

Wormholes are real!!!

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/10/teleportation-and-traversible-wormholes-are-all-real.html

...Runs out of thread cackling like a mad scientist.

(Of course the article appears to go out of the way to limit the potential usage to non superluminal communication of information or non violation of causality.)
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.