Author Topic: Woodward's effect  (Read 287752 times)

Offline antiquark

  • Member
  • Posts: 76
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #200 on: 02/16/2013 05:10 PM »
Y'all are forgetting that propellantless propulsion will INEVITABLY lead to free energy!

For that reason, y'all should be very skeptical about propellantless propulsion!

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Liked: 292
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #201 on: 02/16/2013 08:45 PM »
Conservation of momentum and energy is guaranteed by the interaction with the distant universe.  No violation.

Technically, this isn't a "propellantless" thruster.  The rest of the observable universe is the propellant.
« Last Edit: 02/16/2013 08:46 PM by 93143 »

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #202 on: 02/16/2013 09:48 PM »
Conservation of momentum and energy is guaranteed by the interaction with the distant universe.  No violation.

Technically, this isn't a "propellantless" thruster.  The rest of the observable universe is the propellant.

I would think the fact that the M-E equation is Lorentz invariant would be enough to settle the issue.

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2918
  • Liked: 488
  • Likes Given: 735
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #203 on: 02/16/2013 10:06 PM »
Y'all are forgetting that propellantless propulsion will INEVITABLY lead to free energy!

For that reason, y'all should be very skeptical about propellantless propulsion!
Woodwards ME drive is supposedly as much propellantless as a car is.
It is good to be skeptical, but lets not make hasty conclusions without doing the math.

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3578
  • Liked: 490
  • Likes Given: 126
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #204 on: 02/17/2013 11:24 AM »
There might be another problem. Presumably the woodward drive would work even if the universe was at a very high state of entropy. If you could grab energy distributed across the universe and concentrate it into the velocity of a vehicle then you are violating the second law of thermodynamics.

Maybe it only works because the universe is expanding or something, but is this hidden in the math somewhere, the assumption of an expanding universe? Just another example of the fact that it should have some sort of profound cosmological significance.

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3578
  • Liked: 490
  • Likes Given: 126
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #205 on: 02/17/2013 11:33 AM »
Y'all are forgetting that propellantless propulsion will INEVITABLY lead to free energy!

For that reason, y'all should be very skeptical about propellantless propulsion!
Woodwards ME drive is supposedly as much propellantless as a car is.
It is good to be skeptical, but lets not make hasty conclusions without doing the math.

It is a bit different from a car pushing on the ground. A car is better than a rocket but you still have the Ek=0.5mv2 relationship. This Woodwards drive is apparently always fortunate enough to find some mass that is in average moving at the same velocity, so it can increase velocity directly proportional to energy.

This probably violate thermodynamics. For example, suppose an airplane propeller could select only the particles in the surrounding air that happen to be moving at the same velocity to push against. In that case you could also increase velocity proportional to energy and then extract energy proportional to velocity squared, magically concentrating kinetic energy out of the random motions of atoms in the air.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9163
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 611
  • Likes Given: 316
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #206 on: 02/17/2013 01:54 PM »
Conservation of momentum and energy is guaranteed by the interaction with the distant universe.  No violation.

Technically, this isn't a "propellantless" thruster.  The rest of the observable universe is the propellant.

I would think the fact that the M-E equation is Lorentz invariant would be enough to settle the issue.

Explain that better than the wiki page, if ya don't mind.  I still don't get Lorentz invariance.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline antiquark

  • Member
  • Posts: 76
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #207 on: 02/17/2013 02:44 PM »

This probably violate thermodynamics. For example, suppose an airplane propeller could select only the particles in the surrounding air that happen to be moving at the same velocity to push against. In that case you could also increase velocity proportional to energy and then extract energy proportional to velocity squared, magically concentrating kinetic energy out of the random motions of atoms in the air.

You are referring (basically) to Maxwell's Demon! That's a free energy machine that even the top physicists were stumped by, over 100 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon

But don't worry, they eventually figured out what "the catch" was. The demon in the experiment would need more energy to run, than the energy produced by the machine.

Online HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1379
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 272
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #208 on: 02/17/2013 04:38 PM »
Woodward talked, if I recalled correctly, about wanting to build a propellantless thrusting device since undergrad.

And while the motivation doesn't matter once it has been independently verified (by disinterested parties) to high certainty, before that happens it certainly should affect our judgement of how likely it is Woodward is fooling himself.

You and I both know that the correct solution to the pertinant equations is the only way to determine the liklihood of him "fooling himself".

However, there has been no news on the experimental side for some months now.  And that lack of news is on top of several years of sketchily reported results with little reported evidence of the dang thing actually moving.  If anybody has "complete apathy towards pre-validation results", who could argue otherwise?

Dec 2012:  http://physics.fullerton.edu/%7Ejimw/ASPW2012.pdf

Summer 2012 (Joint Propulsion Conf. AIAA): http://physics.fullerton.edu/%7Ejimw/JPC2012.pdf

Edit: date correction
« Last Edit: 02/17/2013 06:15 PM by HMXHMX »

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 800
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 148
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #209 on: 02/17/2013 04:44 PM »
Understood.  What's the friggin' assumption here that you're having a bolide about?

My guess would be: free energy!

That's a conclusion, not an assumption. You keep getting this confused. Einstein's theory of special relativity has the speed of light being the max speed as a conclusion, not an assumption. Woodward's theory of inertial and mass fluctuation has the potential of harvesting energy from distant, far-off mass at low (not no) cost as a conclusion, not an assumption.

Worse, Cuddihy continues to focus on the extravagant claim, without investigating the backup material.  The claim is easily ignored.  The backup material doesn't lead inexorably to free energy, from my take.

Maybe there needs to be a thread on inertia?
That's Antiquark, not me.

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 800
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 148
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #210 on: 02/17/2013 04:50 PM »
Y'all are forgetting that propellantless propulsion will INEVITABLY lead to free energy!

For that reason, y'all should be very skeptical about propellantless propulsion!
Woodwards ME drive is supposedly as much propellantless as a car is.
It is good to be skeptical, but lets not make hasty conclusions without doing the math.

It is a bit different from a car pushing on the ground. A car is better than a rocket but you still have the Ek=0.5mv2 relationship. This Woodwards drive is apparently always fortunate enough to find some mass that is in average moving at the same velocity, so it can increase velocity directly proportional to energy.


Where does this claim come from? Not Woodward.

File under "speculative derivative, utterly unprovable."

How the force is transmitted is apart from whether or not it is transmitted at all, which is the claim in question. Perhaps there is no direct Mass to Mass coupling, perhaps it only pushes on the universe as a whole. Maybe it's invisible midgets that do the coupling, whatever knowing how the momentum gets from the mass to the rest of the universe isn't necessary to the claim.
« Last Edit: 02/17/2013 04:54 PM by cuddihy »

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3578
  • Liked: 490
  • Likes Given: 126
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #211 on: 02/17/2013 07:25 PM »

You are referring (basically) to Maxwell's Demon! That's a free energy machine that even the top physicists were stumped by, over 100 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon

But don't worry, they eventually figured out what "the catch" was. The demon in the experiment would need more energy to run, than the energy produced by the machine.

Yeah I've met that one. I had great fun designing perpetual motion machines as a kid. One of my favorite was a sort of cloth that consisted of lots of tiny one-way trapdoors. If an atom of atmosphere hits one side it goes through, if it hits the other it bounces. The result being it would supposedly feel more air pressure on one side than the other ;)

btw the structure of the cloth was meant to be sort of like chicken wire made of carbon chains, with additional chains leading off to only one side, sort of like a carpet. I realize it has been established this cant work but it still feels intuitive to me that an atom that gets tangled in the threads of this 'carpet' would work itself away from the constrained side, ie away from the bottom of the carpet to the top.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9163
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 611
  • Likes Given: 316
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #212 on: 02/18/2013 01:45 PM »
Understood.  What's the friggin' assumption here that you're having a bolide about?

My guess would be: free energy!

That's a conclusion, not an assumption. You keep getting this confused. Einstein's theory of special relativity has the speed of light being the max speed as a conclusion, not an assumption. Woodward's theory of inertial and mass fluctuation has the potential of harvesting energy from distant, far-off mass at low (not no) cost as a conclusion, not an assumption.

Worse, Cuddihy continues to focus on the extravagant claim, without investigating the backup material.  The claim is easily ignored.  The backup material doesn't lead inexorably to free energy, from my take.

Maybe there needs to be a thread on inertia?
That's Antiquark, not me.

Sorry about that.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9163
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 611
  • Likes Given: 316
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #213 on: 02/18/2013 01:49 PM »
One more about Maxwell's demon.  He's not necessary, if you're willing to wait. 
Say you have two gas chambers, separated by a small hole with an airtight valve.  The random motion of the gas is such that, if you wait long enough, all the gas will eventually be in one chamber, if the term "random motion" has any meaning.  Then you quickly close the valve.

You'd have to wait a very long time, tho.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9163
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 611
  • Likes Given: 316
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #214 on: 02/18/2013 01:54 PM »
Woodward talked, if I recalled correctly, about wanting to build a propellantless thrusting device since undergrad.

And while the motivation doesn't matter once it has been independently verified (by disinterested parties) to high certainty, before that happens it certainly should affect our judgement of how likely it is Woodward is fooling himself.

You and I both know that the correct solution to the pertinant equations is the only way to determine the liklihood of him "fooling himself".

However, there has been no news on the experimental side for some months now.  And that lack of news is on top of several years of sketchily reported results with little reported evidence of the dang thing actually moving.  If anybody has "complete apathy towards pre-validation results", who could argue otherwise?

Dec 2012:  http://physics.fullerton.edu/%7Ejimw/ASPW2012.pdf

Summer 2012 (Joint Propulsion Conf. AIAA): http://physics.fullerton.edu/%7Ejimw/JPC2012.pdf

Edit: date correction

Perfectly acceptable nit, but still, with little reported evidence of the dang thing actually moving in a way that can be replicated by other labs, nor widespread agreement about the fundamental math of the explaining theory. 

If anybody has complete apathy towards these results, why shouldn't they?
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Online HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1379
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 272
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #215 on: 02/18/2013 10:14 PM »
Woodward talked, if I recalled correctly, about wanting to build a propellantless thrusting device since undergrad.

And while the motivation doesn't matter once it has been independently verified (by disinterested parties) to high certainty, before that happens it certainly should affect our judgement of how likely it is Woodward is fooling himself.

You and I both know that the correct solution to the pertinant equations is the only way to determine the liklihood of him "fooling himself".

However, there has been no news on the experimental side for some months now.  And that lack of news is on top of several years of sketchily reported results with little reported evidence of the dang thing actually moving.  If anybody has "complete apathy towards pre-validation results", who could argue otherwise?

Dec 2012:  http://physics.fullerton.edu/%7Ejimw/ASPW2012.pdf

Summer 2012 (Joint Propulsion Conf. AIAA): http://physics.fullerton.edu/%7Ejimw/JPC2012.pdf

Edit: date correction

Perfectly acceptable nit, but still, with little reported evidence of the dang thing actually moving in a way that can be replicated by other labs, nor widespread agreement about the fundamental math of the explaining theory. 

If anybody has complete apathy towards these results, why shouldn't they?

OK, you gave me the straight line, so I'll take it:

"Nevertheless, it moves..."  :)

I'd like to see replication, surely, but that means someone has to try.  These days, almost no one will do replication of any experiment.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9163
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 611
  • Likes Given: 316
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #216 on: 02/18/2013 11:57 PM »
"Nevertheless, it moves..." 

I'd like to see replication, surely, but that means someone has to try.  These days, almost no one will do replication of any experiment.

Of course they won't Galileo, old buddy. 

Two reasons:  1) It didn't move all that much.  2) The objectors are latching on to the extravagant claim, instead of the experimental claim, largely because the math is obtuse.  This saves the time of having to thoroughly understand Maxwell, Mach, Sciama, and Woodward.

Like this exchange:

Y'all are forgetting that propellantless propulsion will INEVITABLY lead to free energy!

So you don't know about Sciama's gravelectric equation either?

If the equation predicts free energy, then sorry, I don't plan on reading it.

It [the gravilectric equation] does not.  That much is clear.

I don't have an official opinion on this "flux capacitor", but I have a long held intuition that the speed of light is not necessarily a limiting factor to causality.  I don't mention this in polite society.

Either we live in one universe which had one cause, or else we live in a number of different universes which sprang from one cause, but which are now not attached by causality, because of the speed of light.  Somehow, no matter how far "out" you go, you can never get to the expanding boundary of the universe that we are in, therefore those other universes which sprang from this one cannot be proven to exist, since no signal can be received from them.

Somehow, after the Big Bang, during the "expansionary" period, these parts of the universe sped away faster than the speed of light?  They were causally connected with us, but now they're not?  Even tho, at the edge of our universe, they would seem to be causally connected per the relative speeds of galaxies at the "edge".  You'd think that the residents of UDFj-39546284 would be able to see those galaxies, no?

This makes no intuitive sense to my tiny brain.

Sheesh.  I picked a fine time to stop sniffing glue...
« Last Edit: 02/20/2013 02:21 PM by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline antiquark

  • Member
  • Posts: 76
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #217 on: 02/19/2013 12:22 AM »
2) The objectors are latching on to the extravagant claim, instead of the experimental claim, largely because the math is obtuse.

The "free energy" claim isn't some weird obtuse interpretation of quantum physics.  If someone invented a usable propellantless propulsion device, you would be able to show, within an hour, that it produces free energy! And the mathematics behind it is taught in high school.

So it's perfectly valid to argue that Woodward's device will produce free energy.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9163
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 611
  • Likes Given: 316
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #218 on: 02/19/2013 12:31 AM »
2) The objectors are latching on to the extravagant claim, instead of the experimental claim, largely because the math is obtuse.

The "free energy" claim isn't some weird obtuse interpretation of quantum physics.  If someone invented a usable propellantless propulsion device, you would be able to show, within an hour, that it produces free energy! And the mathematics behind it is taught in high school.

So it's perfectly valid to argue that Woodward's device will produce free energy.

The only way I'll say "fine", is if you give the hour long math lesson here.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline antiquark

  • Member
  • Posts: 76
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #219 on: 02/19/2013 12:44 AM »
The only way I'll say "fine", is if you give the hour long math lesson here.

Ek = 1/2 m v^2

F = m a

Those two equations are all you need to show that Woodward's device would produce free energy.