Author Topic: Woodward's effect  (Read 287900 times)

Online meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1388
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 318
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1140 on: 11/17/2017 08:40 PM »
Here is Tellmeagain's statements I'm responding to; it's all about power. And it's fundamentally flawed because he fundamentally misunderstands Woodward's paper in the first place. He claims Woodward is defining the figure of merit when in fact, Woodward is criticizing his critics for defining a figure of merit.

The power of F, denoted as P, can be obtained too,
P =d(Ef−Ei)/dt=Fat
It is obvious that P is not fixed, but increases with t because M moves faster and faster with t.
Now take a look of his equation (10). By defining a con- stant figure of merit, he explicitly made P = FmF con- stant. This directly contradicts to the fact P = F at. No wonder he reached contradiction as shown by his equa- tion (15).
First, you specifically were referring to the rocket that was discussed in the critique. That was in section III, but your quote is from section II. Stop trying to change what you said retroactively.

Second, all Woodward would have to do is show that equation 10 does not apply to his device, yet he never does so, and instead goes on to use equation 13 (which is directly derived from equation 10) in his final paragraph, despite having already shown that equation 10 is simply incompatible with the rest of physics. It is not a misunderstanding of Woodward's paper, but a fact that he does not actually reject equation 10.

Instead of denying equation 10, Woodward tries to claim that there is something wrong with the elementary school level of algebra that shows that equation 10 is inconsistent with the entire rest of physics. You are the one who does not appear to have understood Woodward's paper.

Quote
Completely false. When you say it only has to support the power in the co-moving frame, you are talking about a non-inertial reference frame. One second later, the object is moving at a different speed, so either your argument breaks down because you are no longer in a co-moving frame, you have made a mistake by changing reference frames while pretending you haven't, or you are using a non-inertial frame and leaving out all of the non-inertial effects. There is no mistake in the critique of Woodward's paper, and your attempt at claiming a mistake appears to be a complete strawman, because you are still using the term power while referring to a section of the critique that specifically calculated change in energy, not power. If you have any further complaints about that paper please reference the exact equation or statement that you have an issue with.

My co-moving frame is as valid a frame as staying in the initial rest frame. I'm watching the acceleration now from a frame in constant velocity which is just as valid. The reference is above. Thanks.
A co-moving frame with an accelerating object is by definition accelerating. If you actually define a single instant and stay with it (you still haven't picked one), then you just get the same results as in the critique, that Woodward's paper is wrong. The mistake that Woodward makes that you seem intent on ignoring is that he changes reference frames repeatedly without doing any frame change calculations.

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 564
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 209
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1141 on: 11/18/2017 04:58 PM »
Here is Tellmeagain's statements I'm responding to; it's all about power. And it's fundamentally flawed because he fundamentally misunderstands Woodward's paper in the first place. He claims Woodward is defining the figure of merit when in fact, Woodward is criticizing his critics for defining a figure of merit.

The power of F, denoted as P, can be obtained too,
P =d(Ef−Ei)/dt=Fat
It is obvious that P is not fixed, but increases with t because M moves faster and faster with t.
Now take a look of his equation (10). By defining a con- stant figure of merit, he explicitly made P = FmF con- stant. This directly contradicts to the fact P = F at. No wonder he reached contradiction as shown by his equa- tion (15).
First, you specifically were referring to the rocket that was discussed in the critique. That was in section III, but your quote is from section II. Stop trying to change what you said retroactively.

Second, all Woodward would have to do is show that equation 10 does not apply to his device, yet he never does so, and instead goes on to use equation 13 (which is directly derived from equation 10) in his final paragraph, despite having already shown that equation 10 is simply incompatible with the rest of physics. It is not a misunderstanding of Woodward's paper, but a fact that he does not actually reject equation 10.

Instead of denying equation 10, Woodward tries to claim that there is something wrong with the elementary school level of algebra that shows that equation 10 is inconsistent with the entire rest of physics. You are the one who does not appear to have understood Woodward's paper.

Quote
Completely false. When you say it only has to support the power in the co-moving frame, you are talking about a non-inertial reference frame. One second later, the object is moving at a different speed, so either your argument breaks down because you are no longer in a co-moving frame, you have made a mistake by changing reference frames while pretending you haven't, or you are using a non-inertial frame and leaving out all of the non-inertial effects. There is no mistake in the critique of Woodward's paper, and your attempt at claiming a mistake appears to be a complete strawman, because you are still using the term power while referring to a section of the critique that specifically calculated change in energy, not power. If you have any further complaints about that paper please reference the exact equation or statement that you have an issue with.

My co-moving frame is as valid a frame as staying in the initial rest frame. I'm watching the acceleration now from a frame in constant velocity which is just as valid. The reference is above. Thanks.
A co-moving frame with an accelerating object is by definition accelerating. If you actually define a single instant and stay with it (you still haven't picked one), then you just get the same results as in the critique, that Woodward's paper is wrong. The mistake that Woodward makes that you seem intent on ignoring is that he changes reference frames repeatedly without doing any frame change calculations.

I was reacting to the quote I showed from section two and added a mention of rockets to make my point. The fact that the paper starts talking about rockets in section three is quite irrelevant. I agree "a co-moving frame with an accelerating object is by definition accelerating". You must have assumed I meant a continuous jump to a different co-moving frame each instant which I did not nor I believe does Woodward in that paper. He picks a new reference frame at certain time intervals for his argument which was certainly allowed and valid. I'm not necessarily agreeing with his argument nor do I have to in order to see the critique is still flawed.

Offline Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1191
  • United States
    • /r/QThruster
  • Liked: 3215
  • Likes Given: 1065
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1142 on: 11/18/2017 06:19 PM »
Version 4 of the shaker works far better than version 3.  ;D   I nearly quadrupled the shaker's mass and moved it to the same level as the torsional pendulum beam. So now there is a 40 gram stainless steel mass that I can vibrate at a range of frequencies.

As predicted the displacement was also increased. 1Hz had the greatest overall "thrust" but not by much. There were frequencies that did not produce any "thrust", namely 50Hz. But overall, it is now fairly trivial to produce a "thrust" signal using a vibrating mass on a torsional pendulum. The raw data is also included below in excel.

The blue On/Off signals are a little off because I was having to send those manually by ear and the low Hz was hard to hear.
« Last Edit: 11/18/2017 06:27 PM by Monomorphic »

Online meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1388
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 318
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1143 on: 11/18/2017 07:09 PM »
I was reacting to the quote I showed from section two and added a mention of rockets to make my point.
Your exact words were:
In Woodward's paper, the power is applied wrt the instantaneous rest frame co-moving with the device. That's makes a huge difference. It's just like the rocket you describe. The rocket does a burn of the same power irregardless of its current velocity wrt some observer.
There is no possible way I can interpret this except you talking about section 3 where the rocket is discussed, and maybe section 4 which discusses Woodward's abuse of reference frames. There is literally nothing there that would suggest you talking about section 2.

I agree "a co-moving frame with an accelerating object is by definition accelerating". You must have assumed I meant a continuous jump to a different co-moving frame each instant which I did not
You are going to have to clarify what you are saying here. You agree that a co-moving frame is accelerating, and then you claim that your co-moving frame you were discussing was not accelerating. You agreed with my definition of co-moving frame, and then immediately used it contrary to this definition.

nor I believe does Woodward in that paper. He picks a new reference frame at certain time intervals for his argument which was certainly allowed and valid.
Except he does no frame change calculations when he changes frames, so his calculations are not even remotely valid.


nor I believe I'm not necessarily agreeing with his argument
If you agree that Woodward's argument is wrong, then the original point that was made that Woodward failed at freshman level physics stands.

nor I believe nor do I have to in order to see the critique is still flawed.
Yet you cannot point to a single flaw in the critique. The only specific thing you have pointed to so far involved you claiming that Woodward's paper states the exact opposite of the nonsense that Woodward concluded.

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1314
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1351
  • Likes Given: 1820
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1144 on: 11/18/2017 10:37 PM »
Version 4 of the shaker works far better than version 3.  ;D   I nearly quadrupled the shaker's mass and moved it to the same level as the torsional pendulum beam. So now there is a 40 gram stainless steel mass that I can vibrate at a range of frequencies.

As predicted the displacement was also increased. 1Hz had the greatest overall "thrust" but not by much. There were frequencies that did not produce any "thrust", namely 50Hz. But overall, it is now fairly trivial to produce a "thrust" signal using a vibrating mass on a torsional pendulum. The raw data is also included below in excel.

The blue On/Off signals are a little off because I was having to send those manually by ear and the low Hz was hard to hear.

Are you driving this with a sine wave or a pulse train?

If it's a pulse as I see on the images, then it's really not just 1Hz. There are a lot of frequencies in the sharp transitions On-Off and Off-On.


Offline Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1191
  • United States
    • /r/QThruster
  • Liked: 3215
  • Likes Given: 1065
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1145 on: 11/18/2017 11:19 PM »
Are you driving this with a sine wave or a pulse train?

If it's a pulse as I see on the images, then it's really not just 1Hz. There are a lot of frequencies in the sharp transitions On-Off and Off-On.
Right now it is a square wave. The next upgrade to the arduino will allow me to use sine, square, triangle, sawtooth, and more.
« Last Edit: 11/18/2017 11:22 PM by Monomorphic »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1146 on: 11/19/2017 09:14 PM »
Are you driving this with a sine wave or a pulse train?

If it's a pulse as I see on the images, then it's really not just 1Hz. There are a lot of frequencies in the sharp transitions On-Off and Off-On.
Right now it is a square wave. The next upgrade to the arduino will allow me to use sine, square, triangle, sawtooth, and more.
Assuming you are inputting a voltage excitation, did you (or are you planning to) conduct tests to show what is the measured curve of force vs. voltage you get for this shaker test?

For the MEGA drive Fearn/Woodward report force ~ voltage^4

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1314
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1351
  • Likes Given: 1820
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1147 on: 11/19/2017 09:56 PM »
Version 4 of the shaker works far better than version 3.  ;D   I nearly quadrupled the shaker's mass and moved it to the same level as the torsional pendulum beam. So now there is a 40 gram stainless steel mass that I can vibrate at a range of frequencies.

As predicted the displacement was also increased. 1Hz had the greatest overall "thrust" but not by much. There were frequencies that did not produce any "thrust", namely 50Hz. But overall, it is now fairly trivial to produce a "thrust" signal using a vibrating mass on a torsional pendulum. The raw data is also included below in excel.

The blue On/Off signals are a little off because I was having to send those manually by ear and the low Hz was hard to hear.

I could be wrong but at 1Hz, what this one looks like to me is;



When the very first pulse turns on, the displacement of the shaker displaces the pendulum arm in the opposite direction. The shaker has a very long displacement compare to a MEGA Drive. The length of that displacement plunger and the mass it displaces, also displaces the pendulum arm by a proportional amount.

zCM = (marm * z1 + mshaker * z2)/(marm + mshaker)

The value z2 - z1 between the two masses gets longer on the first pulse. After that, the slow response of the balance does not bring it back because the shaker displacement arm is holding it there "on average". The CM is not thrusting, it's just offset from where it was before the plunger arm was extended.

A test would be to force the shaker to keep the plunger extended and then see where the pendulum arm comes to rest.

« Last Edit: 11/19/2017 09:59 PM by WarpTech »

Offline Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1191
  • United States
    • /r/QThruster
  • Liked: 3215
  • Likes Given: 1065
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1148 on: 11/19/2017 10:09 PM »
Assuming you are inputting a voltage excitation, did you (or are you planning to) conduct tests to show what is the measured curve of force vs. voltage you get for this shaker test?

For the MEGA drive Fearn/Woodward report force ~ voltage^4

Yes, and that is another upgrade I plan on making in the next couple of days. I have a spare Dataq ADC and a free USB port on the on-board PC. However, the data from the two separate ADCs will need to be combined later. I've never done that before, but I don't think it will be a problem so long as I keep the sample rates the same.

« Last Edit: 11/20/2017 12:04 PM by Monomorphic »

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1149 on: 11/20/2017 01:31 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.


maybe I misunderstood you at page 55?

I thought you meant that you would not make any effort to disprove the ME Thruster theory because you had no time to lose with it.

But it also seemed to me you would stop with your baseless criticism...

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1314
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1351
  • Likes Given: 1820
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1150 on: 11/20/2017 01:49 AM »
Assuming you are inputting a voltage excitation, did you (or are you planning to) conduct tests to show what is the measured curve of force vs. voltage you get for this shaker test?

For the MEGA drive Fearn/Woodward report force ~ voltage^4

Jamie’s shakers are electromagnetic solenoid based. The force is determined by the gradient in the inductance as the armature moves, and is proportional to B2. But it is also ferromagnetic, so the response of the armature will be non-linear. Once the pulse is applied the armature is going to "jump" to the opposite position. Unfortunately, while I have the equation for the force, I don’t know the relationship between Voltage and Displacement of the armature and he’s not driving it with a sine wave. (yet)

Any ideas or suggestions on how we calculate the displacement as a function of voltage for a solenoid armature? Given that, we can answer your question.

« Last Edit: 11/20/2017 01:54 AM by WarpTech »

Offline ThatOtherGuy

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 173
  • Liked: 84
  • Likes Given: 41
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1151 on: 11/20/2017 11:00 AM »
Testing vibrating devices for thrust on a torsional pendulum is a fundamentally flawed experiment. I would recommend switching to a linear track where acceleration over a distance can be shown. That the device can cause a box attached to an arm to jiggle one way or the other is not very convincing in my opinion.

An idea could be building a small track (like a railway) placing the thruster over a ball bearings chariot and ensuring the track has a slight slope (just enough to keep the chariot down to starting position) so that the vibrator will need to push the chariot "up the rail" (and will go back to initial position when unpowered)

Offline Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1191
  • United States
    • /r/QThruster
  • Liked: 3215
  • Likes Given: 1065
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1152 on: 11/20/2017 11:59 AM »
An idea could be building a small track (like a railway) placing the thruster over a ball bearings chariot and ensuring the track has a slight slope (just enough to keep the chariot down to starting position) so that the vibrator will need to push the chariot "up the rail" (and will go back to initial position when unpowered)

That would still have the same flaw as the torsional pendulum. There needs to be no resistance to its movement, friction, gravity, or torsional spring rate. I would build a frictionless linear track, whether an air track or something electromagnetic I am not sure. Then I would mount two thrusters pointing in opposite directions. Allow the thruster assembly to freely float and use one thruster at a time to change the direction at will. And if Woodward can then show an acceleration curve over a distance of a few cm, then that would be very convincing. I think a rotary platform would also satisfy this requirement.
« Last Edit: 11/20/2017 01:10 PM by Monomorphic »

Offline Povel

  • Member
  • Posts: 27
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1153 on: 11/20/2017 12:30 PM »
@Monomorphic

If you have time I'd suggest you to read the article by Millis I posted few pages ago.
In short, using an air track can give spurious signals too; according to him, the best way to check for an unambiguous thrust signal is to use a level pendulum by putting both the device and the auxiliary sistems connected to it on a platform.

Quote
Basics of a level pendulum test. A pendulum is a simple tool for measuring lateral force and a level pendulum keeps the test platform from tilting during operation. If a thrusting device can sustain a deflection of a level pendulum, then there is strong evidence toward the claim of net thrust. It is anticipated, however, that mechanical devices will instead oscillate the pendulum back and forth, with the average position being zero deflection.


Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 564
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 209
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1154 on: 11/20/2017 07:33 PM »
I was reacting to the quote I showed from section two and added a mention of rockets to make my point.
Your exact words were:
In Woodward's paper, the power is applied wrt the instantaneous rest frame co-moving with the device. That's makes a huge difference. It's just like the rocket you describe. The rocket does a burn of the same power irregardless of its current velocity wrt some observer.
There is no possible way I can interpret this except you talking about section 3 where the rocket is discussed, and maybe section 4 which discusses Woodward's abuse of reference frames. There is literally nothing there that would suggest you talking about section 2.

I agree "a co-moving frame with an accelerating object is by definition accelerating". You must have assumed I meant a continuous jump to a different co-moving frame each instant which I did not
You are going to have to clarify what you are saying here. You agree that a co-moving frame is accelerating, and then you claim that your co-moving frame you were discussing was not accelerating. You agreed with my definition of co-moving frame, and then immediately used it contrary to this definition.

nor I believe does Woodward in that paper. He picks a new reference frame at certain time intervals for his argument which was certainly allowed and valid.
Except he does no frame change calculations when he changes frames, so his calculations are not even remotely valid.


nor I believe I'm not necessarily agreeing with his argument
If you agree that Woodward's argument is wrong, then the original point that was made that Woodward failed at freshman level physics stands.

nor I believe nor do I have to in order to see the critique is still flawed.
Yet you cannot point to a single flaw in the critique. The only specific thing you have pointed to so far involved you claiming that Woodward's paper states the exact opposite of the nonsense that Woodward concluded.


Quote
Your exact words were

You'd make a great lawyer.  ;)

Quote
There is no possible way I can interpret this except you talking about section 3 where the rocket is discussed, and maybe section 4 which discusses Woodward's abuse of reference frames. There is literally nothing there that would suggest you talking about section 2.

I told you I was talking about the quote in section two. That should settle it.

I pointed to a major flaw in the critique. I'm not going to rehash.

Quote
You are going to have to clarify what you are saying here. You agree that a co-moving frame is accelerating, and then you claim that your co-moving frame you were discussing was not accelerating. You agreed with my definition of co-moving frame, and then immediately used it contrary to this definition.

I explained what I meant as does professor Woodward. Please reread the caveat with the word 'continuous'.

I suggest we move on. Thanks for the discussion. Have a nice Thanksgiving. :)

Online meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1388
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 318
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1155 on: 11/20/2017 09:56 PM »
I pointed to a major flaw in the critique. I'm not going to rehash.
Did you write it in invisible ink?

As I literally just said:
Yet you cannot point to a single flaw in the critique. The only specific thing you have pointed to so far involved you claiming that Woodward's paper states the exact opposite of the nonsense that Woodward concluded.
Either you did not read the post you were responding to, or you are making a false statement while knowing that you are wrong.

Quote
You are going to have to clarify what you are saying here. You agree that a co-moving frame is accelerating, and then you claim that your co-moving frame you were discussing was not accelerating. You agreed with my definition of co-moving frame, and then immediately used it contrary to this definition.

I explained what I meant as does professor Woodward. Please reread the caveat with the word 'continuous'.
For the phrase "a co-moving frame with an accelerating object is by definition accelerating" to be true (which you agreed) then "continuous" must be wrapped into the definition of co-moving. Your next sentence implied that co-moving did not mean continuous. I can only read this as a contradiction.

I told you I was talking about the quote in section two. That should settle it.
I agree that should settle it and I should just accept that you miscommunicated. However, this is in the same post where you claim that you pointed out a major flaw in the critique immediately after I just pointed out that the only specific thing you pointed to was actually correct and in claiming it was a flaw you misrepresented Woodward's conclusion. When you are already engaging in what appears to be blatant intellectual dishonesty, I have trouble accepting that this is what you really intended.

In a way it is as settled as it can be, because the only way you are going to convince me of this now is by demonstrating some honesty elsewhere, starting with acknowledging that I provided a complete counterargument to the supposed flaw you pointed to.

I suggest we move on. Thanks for the discussion. Have a nice Thanksgiving. :)
Not going to move on as long as you continue to slander another poster here by claiming a major flaw in their work while not actually pointing to any flaws.

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 564
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 209
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1156 on: 11/21/2017 12:17 AM »
I pointed to a major flaw in the critique. I'm not going to rehash.
Did you write it in invisible ink?

As I literally just said:
Yet you cannot point to a single flaw in the critique. The only specific thing you have pointed to so far involved you claiming that Woodward's paper states the exact opposite of the nonsense that Woodward concluded.
Either you did not read the post you were responding to, or you are making a false statement while knowing that you are wrong.

Quote
You are going to have to clarify what you are saying here. You agree that a co-moving frame is accelerating, and then you claim that your co-moving frame you were discussing was not accelerating. You agreed with my definition of co-moving frame, and then immediately used it contrary to this definition.

I explained what I meant as does professor Woodward. Please reread the caveat with the word 'continuous'.
For the phrase "a co-moving frame with an accelerating object is by definition accelerating" to be true (which you agreed) then "continuous" must be wrapped into the definition of co-moving. Your next sentence implied that co-moving did not mean continuous. I can only read this as a contradiction.

I told you I was talking about the quote in section two. That should settle it.
I agree that should settle it and I should just accept that you miscommunicated. However, this is in the same post where you claim that you pointed out a major flaw in the critique immediately after I just pointed out that the only specific thing you pointed to was actually correct and in claiming it was a flaw you misrepresented Woodward's conclusion. When you are already engaging in what appears to be blatant intellectual dishonesty, I have trouble accepting that this is what you really intended.

In a way it is as settled as it can be, because the only way you are going to convince me of this now is by demonstrating some honesty elsewhere, starting with acknowledging that I provided a complete counterargument to the supposed flaw you pointed to.

I suggest we move on. Thanks for the discussion. Have a nice Thanksgiving. :)
Not going to move on as long as you continue to slander another poster here by claiming a major flaw in their work while not actually pointing to any flaws.


Certainly I believe you think you provided a complete counter argument which I didn't accept but it seems to me that you actually require me to accept your counter argument in order to be intellectually honest. I hope that's not the case or there would be no point in discussing anything if one had to agree.

I think we obviously are having such serious miscommunications so why insist on untangling a web of misunderstandings? I really don't wish to argue about the debate instead of debating about the ideas. If one can't say a paper, theory or idea is wrong or flawed without being accused of 'slander' we might as well shut down this group. This isn't the 16th century where people took debates personal and dueled over scientific disagreements. I'll ask again, let's please move on and enjoy a nice Thanksgiving. Thanks.

Online meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1388
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 318
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1157 on: 11/21/2017 01:58 AM »
Certainly I believe you think you provided a complete counter argument which I didn't accept but it seems to me that you actually require me to accept your counter argument in order to be intellectually honest. I hope that's not the case or there would be no point in discussing anything if one had to agree.
Until this post you never so much as acknowledged that I had made a counterargument, while still insisting that you had found a "major flaw," as if my counterargument didn't even exist. That is dishonest.

I think we obviously are having such serious miscommunications so why insist on untangling a web of misunderstandings?
How are we supposed to communicate if we don't clarify misunderstandings?

I really don't wish to argue about the debate instead of debating about the ideas.
Actions speak louder than words. You have made 3 responses to me since the first post where I presented the counterargument to your point, yet this is the first post you have acknowledged that the counterargument exists, and you still haven't said a word about the content of the counterargument. Based on this evidence it seems that you have no interest in debating about the ideas. Please, prove me wrong. It is easy, you just have to actually respond to the content of what I wrote, none of the rest of this post is relevant since it is just meta-discussion that no longer matters if you actually discuss the ideas. I'll even repeat my counterargument here for convenience:
Second, all Woodward would have to do is show that equation 10 does not apply to his device, yet he never does so, and instead goes on to use equation 13 (which is directly derived from equation 10) in his final paragraph, despite having already shown that equation 10 is simply incompatible with the rest of physics. It is not a misunderstanding of Woodward's paper, but a fact that he does not actually reject equation 10.

If one can't say a paper, theory or idea is wrong or flawed without being accused of 'slander' we might as well shut down this group. This isn't the 16th century where people took debates personal and dueled over scientific disagreements. I'll ask again, let's please move on and enjoy a nice Thanksgiving. Thanks.
It becomes slander when you repeatedly act as if no counterargument has been made, and present no new evidence.

Offline ppnl

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 183
  • Liked: 109
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1158 on: 11/21/2017 06:15 AM »
Meberbs, Bob012345

Guys, your discussion has become so meta that it is useless. You are arguing about arguing about arguing...

Get back to the source material. I think the entire Woodward paper is essentially contained in the final paragraph.

To wrap this up, we ask: is it possible to do a correct calculation of the sort that
critics did that does not lead to wrong predictions of the violation of energy conservation?
By paying attention to the physics of the situation, yes, such a calculation is possible.
We take Equations (9) and (13) as the integrations for the constant force work equation and
the figure of merit equation respectively.  We know that, starting from t= 0, if we let the
integration interval t get very large, the work equation integral will first equal and then
exceed the energy calculated by the figure of merit equation.  So we require that t be
sufficiently small that this obvious violation of energy conservation does not happen. 
Should all of the input power be transformed into kinetic energy, we would choose the
positive root of the solution of Equation (15).  If some of the power ends up as, for
example, heat, then a smaller value of t would obtain.  We then choose the
value of t for the time differential that for all intervals to be summed to get the energies for the two
methods.  That is, we note what should be obvious physics for this situation: the energies added to the two sums in every differential time interval are always in the same ratio as
they are in the very first interval because the only invariant velocity that exists in this
case is the one of instantaneous rest at the outset of each interval. If this prescription
– the only one that makes physical sense in the circumstances – is followed, no energy
conservation violation follows from the calculation.  And elementary mechanics is not
threatened by an obviously wrong calculation


I think this paragraph is the whole point and result of the paper. Now if both of you can explain exactly what Woodward is saying here and explain why it does or does not violate entry level physics. Don't even worry about the math for now. Just show that you understand what is being said.

Offline Povel

  • Member
  • Posts: 27
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1159 on: 11/21/2017 01:37 PM »
Referring again to PotomacNeuron's last comment:

Indeed mistakes like these don't give a good image of their work and I feel that, since Woodward has apparently changed (again) his mind on this matter he should either rewrite that document or at least ask SSI administrator to remove it.


Regarding the quality of his theory, it seems that no one here is qualified enough to assess it.
Still, the fact that the papers detailing it have been sitting on a serious peer-review journal starting from 1990 can't be ignored. (Foundations of Physics Letters, now absorbed into Foundations of Physics).
It means, at least, that there shouldn't be any obvious fundamental mistake within these papers, like the one discussed here.

Critics in most cases don't even try reading any of his papers, considering his work as "crackpottery".
When asked where is the error they point to "local conservation laws violation", bypassing the actual question to point out where exactly Woodward goes wrong, since these apparent violations are deduced consequences, but they are not assumptions contained in his work, or chances are his papers wouldn't have last that long in a scientific journal.

I think this is a legitimate and reasonable request to critics. Without any detailed discussion like this I find hard to not be at least positively skeptic.