Author Topic: Woodward's effect  (Read 288264 times)

Offline jded

  • Member
  • Posts: 56
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #240 on: 03/08/2013 08:02 AM »
I have a different problem. If the inertia depends on the interaction with the rest of causally connected universe, shouldn't it change over time as far-off mass leaves the casually connected sphere? Especially, shouldn't it be dramatically different in the early universe?

Offline UncleMatt

  • Member
  • Posts: 15
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #241 on: 03/11/2013 02:42 AM »
I have read the new book, and wonder where the inertia of light originates? Light sails work. They prove that light has inertia, but supposedly not mass. But if mass is what is connected to distant mass for the effects of inertia to occur, what is it about light that is connecting with the distant mass of the universe to give it inertia?
« Last Edit: 03/11/2013 02:47 AM by UncleMatt »

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 #242 on: 03/11/2013 12:26 PM »
Thanks.  I will not get to sleep this evening...
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Liked: 292
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #243 on: 03/11/2013 08:04 PM »
I have read the new book, and wonder where the inertia of light originates? Light sails work. They prove that light has inertia, but supposedly not mass. But if mass is what is connected to distant mass for the effects of inertia to occur, what is it about light that is connecting with the distant mass of the universe to give it inertia?

It's total non-gravitational energy, not rest mass, that gravitates and thus determines the gravinertial interaction.

m = E/c²

Light has energy; therefore it has mass in this sense.  Just not rest mass.

Also, light is a bit of an edge case, since it has no rest mass, always moves at the speed of light, and has null proper time (or something).  I'd be careful with it...

I have a different problem. If the inertia depends on the interaction with the rest of causally connected universe, shouldn't it change over time as far-off mass leaves the casually connected sphere? Especially, shouldn't it be dramatically different in the early universe?

It is postulated that GM/R is a locally measured invariant equal to c².  So either the speed of light is changing, or G is changing.  I think...?
« Last Edit: 03/11/2013 08:25 PM by 93143 »

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 #244 on: 03/13/2013 01:25 PM »
I have a different problem. If the inertia depends on the interaction with the rest of causally connected universe, shouldn't it change over time as far-off mass leaves the casually connected sphere? Especially, shouldn't it be dramatically different in the early universe?

It is postulated that GM/R is a locally measured invariant equal to c².  So either the speed of light is changing, or G is changing.  I think...?

Something must be changing.  I don't think there has to be a speed limit.

Even so, Woodward is hard to believe.  If wormholes can be "absurdly benign", why haven't they "evolved" elsewhere over the last 15B years?  How come we're the first intelligent species to suggest creating these artifacts?  Is there nobody else out there?
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline MarkZero

  • Member
  • Posts: 17
  • Finland
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #245 on: 03/13/2013 09:42 PM »
Wouldn't "absurdly benign" wormholes also be absurdly small in astronomical scales (the size of spaceships) and emit/reflect very little radiation of any kind and as such be very hard to spot? If so there could be lots of other intelligent species out there creating these without us seeing any of 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 #246 on: 03/14/2013 11:54 AM »
As an illustration in his book, he includes a rendering of an airport like setting, with a nine foot diameter "wormhole", beyond which the viewer sees the Jovian "wormport",with "Jupiter" in the windows beyond. Kinda like you would see in a sci-fi movie.
« Last Edit: 03/16/2013 12:40 PM by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 800
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 148
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #247 on: 03/16/2013 06:17 AM »
I realized there is something basic I dont understand:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect :
Woodward claims the mass variation has been accomplished by demonstrating that the initial mass of a capacitor will increase with the energy stored in its electrical charge (m=E/c2).

If you can vary a mass like this, wouldnt you expect it to work without any new physics? I mean, you push a small mass to the left, you push a large mass to the right, repeat. That is like pushing (large minus small) mass to the right, right?
The devil is in the detail of how you are increasing the energy/mass of the capacitor without undoing the push you just gave yourself. For example you can't just let the mass flow as electricity in the reverse direction since that would give you a reverse push. What am I (and perhaps the wiki article) missing?

One possible difference is that in standard physics it would be the mass as you accelerated it at each end that mattered. That could have just been bad wording though.

I really think the lack of precision in the Wikipedia article seriously confuses the issue and I believe may be the source of your confusion.

To take just the sentence that I cut above from the wiki cite, it is not accurate to say that a mere change in the mass-energy of the capacitor from charging/discharging is sufficient to cause a mass fluctuation--otherwise the effect would be observed all the time in nature. And the quote above is not only badly wrong about what Woodward claims but also totally misstates the physical theory behind it.

Woodward's physical contention is accurately stated as that an object that undergoes a change in acceleration while simultaneously undergoing a change in internal mass-energy produces a rest mass fluctuation that can be observed as a temporary increase or decrease in inertial mass-reaction.

Yes it is really necessary to say all the italicized parts in order to be accurate.
And to say mass-energy instead of just mass because otherwise it makes it sound like it is enough to only have one or the other (change in energy or acceleration) when you need both.

Because it is not enough to only have either the change in acceleration (such as a vibrating string, or the piezo crystal Woodward uses) or the change in internal mass-energy (such as the charging/discharging capacitor). You need them both at the same time in order to get the effect. Hence Woodward's reliance on capacitors with piezo-electric and electro-strictive effects in the experiments.

So properly stated in the odd phraseology the article uses, it would be that Woodward claims that the mass variation has been accomplished by demonstrating that a capacitor charging and discharging while simultaneously undergoing changes in physical acceleration from piezoelectric effects, exhibits an otherwise un-explained force in a single direction.

That is as close as you can get to the Wikipedia statement while still approaching what Woodward actually says. In other words, there is no way to understand the Wikipedia statement of the principle because it's so inaccurate that it doesn't actually address the theory properly.

« Last Edit: 03/16/2013 06:20 AM by cuddihy »

Offline flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • France
  • Liked: 679
  • Likes Given: 929
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #248 on: 03/16/2013 10:50 AM »
In other words, there is no way to understand the Wikipedia statement of the principle because it's so inaccurate that it doesn't actually address the theory properly.

Hi. This was true a while back, but you should read the wikipedia article about the Woodward effect again, because it has changed a lot and the issues you are describing have already been addressed, along other withdrawn statements previously attributed to Woodward who never made them, especially this one regarding the so-called perpetual motion machine: "Appeal is made by Woodward to the rest of the universe for making up the energy imbalance" (problem reported on page 3 of this topic). Woodward never made such claim. Quite the opposite, he says that a Mach effect thruster cannot deliver "free" energy.

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 800
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 148
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #249 on: 03/18/2013 05:43 AM »
In other words, there is no way to understand the Wikipedia statement of the principle because it's so inaccurate that it doesn't actually address the theory properly.

Hi. This was true a while back, but you should read the wikipedia article about the Woodward effect again, because it has changed a lot and the issues you are describing have already been addressed, along other withdrawn statements previously attributed to Woodward who never made them, especially this one regarding the so-called perpetual motion machine: "Appeal is made by Woodward to the rest of the universe for making up the energy imbalance" (problem reported on page 3 of this topic). Woodward never made such claim. Quite the opposite, he says that a Mach effect thruster cannot deliver "free" energy.

Wow, no kidding it is much improved! It looks like Woodward's book has cleared up a lot of chaff related to misunderstandings about what his claims actually are.

*UPDATE - on second look it's actually gone too far the other direction, it omits proper reference to contrary evidence, for instance although it cites Woodward's rebuttal of the Oak Ridge National Labs replication that was unable to produce the effect, it leaves the actual ORNL paper out of the cites and evidence timelines. Negative evidence is fair game and ought to be included, when I have a chance to dig it out when I'm not on my iPhone I'll fix the Wikipedia
« Last Edit: 03/20/2013 12:55 AM by cuddihy »

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 877
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #250 on: 03/18/2013 11:30 AM »
Folks:

Noting up front that Dr. Woodward prefers "Mach-Effect" (M-E) instead of the "Woodward-Effect" descriptor of his discovery, you folks haven't asked WHY should a time rate of change of internal energy combined with the bulk acceleration of the energy storing media create the M-E's posited inertial mass variations in the first place.   Woodward merely points to the M-E’s math derivation and indicates that is what the math says ought to happen and then experimentally looks for the predicted inertial mass variation effects and goes from there.   Jim does provide though a two dimensional analog in his book of an accelerated mass that creates “Kinks” in the ambient cosmological gravitational (g) field that somehow transiently shields the local accelerated mass from the cumulative inertial effects of the cosmological g-field and that transient shielding effect is what gives rise to the accelerated mass’s inertial mass fluctuations.  I could buy that if the M-E didn’t have one other requirement that leads to some very strange predictions.

Woodward also posits that due to the fact that inertial reaction forces apparently occur instantaneously, (I can’t find any experiments that have directly  measured this assumption.), that the M-E's posited gravitational effects with the mostly distant mass-energy in the causally connected universe that give rise to the M-E have to interact effectively in no-time.  I.e. it’s Einstein’s famous “Spooky action at a distance” problem.  And IMO it is a problem in this regard, for how does an instantaneous g-field interaction in spacetime, TRANSIENTLY shield a locally accelerated mass from the rest of the cosmological g-field?   It would be nice if Dr. Woodward could explain to us how instantaneous g-field like Wheeler/Feynman radiation reaction forces can give rise to transient effects that take time to occur in the local laboratory frame of reference.

Best,
« Last Edit: 03/18/2013 11:31 AM by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 800
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 148
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #251 on: 03/19/2013 12:10 AM »
Folks:

Noting up front that Dr. Woodward prefers "Mach-Effect" (M-E) instead of the "Woodward-Effect" descriptor of his discovery,

Yeah, but that's likely, perhaps subconscious, false humility on Woodward's part in service of the idea, especially since nothing Mach said remotely leads necessarily to the effect, it is all Woodward's take on Sciama. Mach is just dead enough that he can't complain about it.
« Last Edit: 03/19/2013 11:33 PM by cuddihy »

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 877
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #252 on: 03/19/2013 03:20 AM »
This is Woodward's reply to my previous question:

"Paul,

So you've become a critic after all these years?  The answer to your question is on page 262 of the book.

The instantaneity of inertial reaction forces simply means that whenever something is pushed, the reaction force on it appears instantaneously.  So if the thing pushed is extended, but rigid, there are no Mach effects (as explained repeatedly in Chapter 3 of the book) because the acceleration and reaction takes place simlutaneously throughout the body.  But when an extended body does not react rigidly (and it absorbs internal energy), the effective mass of the body during the acceleration becomes a function of time, and the math of Chapter 3 follows in an elementary fashion.

You may want to review Chapter 2 as well, where the action-at-a-distance character of inertial forces is explained.

Best,

Jim"
Star-Drive

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 800
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 148
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #253 on: 03/19/2013 11:36 PM »
Paul, you're a mensch for posting Woodward's reply.

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2918
  • Liked: 488
  • Likes Given: 735
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #254 on: 03/20/2013 01:30 AM »
Paul, you're a mensch for posting Woodward's reply.
A "mensch" (human)?

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 800
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 148
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #255 on: 03/20/2013 05:38 AM »
Paul, you're a mensch for posting Woodward's reply.
A "mensch" (human)?

Common usage in English is the Yiddish-a man of integrity.

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2918
  • Liked: 488
  • Likes Given: 735
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #256 on: 03/20/2013 11:57 AM »
Interesting, "Mensch" means "human" in German. That is why I am asking.

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 #257 on: 03/20/2013 01:13 PM »
Paul, you're a mensch for posting Woodward's reply.

In the book, Woodward criticizes Paul when Paul is investigating Shawyer's work.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 877
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #258 on: 06/13/2013 03:35 AM »
Paul, you're a mensch for posting Woodward's reply.

In the book, Woodward criticizes Paul when Paul is investigating Shawyer's work.

Jim can complain all he wants to, but the truth of the matter is that Shawyer's resonant cavity work has now been replicated not only by the Chinese, twice, but in at least two other labs here in the USA with similar results.  These results lends some credance to White's Q-Thruster conjecture as well as our related DARPA work...

That said I'm going to post an excerpt from Dr. Woodward's May 10, 2013 weekly lab report that I posted over at the TalkPolywell.com site yesterday on the proposed Carver Mead thrust limit that bears repeating and thinking about here.


"To recap Carver's argument, he noted that both gravity and electromagnetism, as long range fields, have zero rest mass field quanta (assuming that gravitons actually exist of course).  As such, one can simply write E = pc for the energy and momentum carried by the field.  Now, if a MET produces thrust by completely converting the power applied to it (that is, dE/dt) into the equivalent momentum flux in the field, then the momentum flux will be dp/dt = (1/c)dE/dt and this is the thrust.  As an example, if dE/dt = 100 watts, then dp/dt is a third of a uN.  I'm going to call this relationship between power and thrust the "Mead limit".

There are a couple of questions here.  Can METs (Mach-Effect Thruster)s beat the Mead limit?  If they do, is there supporting plausible physics that underpins such behavior?  The first question is one for experiment.  The second one for "theory".  Tonight's email chiefly addresses the first question.  For if the Mead limit is found to apply in fact, then the second question is one for casual speculation at best.

Several weeks ago, I decided to go after the experimental question by building a device designed to run at higher frequency, one that would exceed the Mead limit if it could be made to perform as well as the devices that have been running now seemingly forever.  Then, last weekend, it dawned on me that the answer to this question was already present in the data that these devices have been producing for upwards of a year.  Indeed, the behavior is present in plots in chapter 5 of the book already.  And it is especially obvious in the constant frequency runs that have been featured in the last few email attachments.  Talk about feeling foolish.  Especially galling is that there is a cheap tourist trick of analysis that makes interpretation of the data, at least in approximation, trivial.  But on to the file (that will be attached to a following email).

The first dozen slides are selected from those sent last week.  They include some pictures of the apparatus and the results for the 10 second steady power/thrust test.  Immediately following are slides (13 through 16) with the results of a 14 second steady power/thrust test done after replacement of the lower flexural bearing in the balance.  They are essentially identical to the shorter interval test.  That is, after an initial transient thrust pulse lasting a couple of seconds settles, a steady thrust of a micronewton or two ensues.  When the device is switched off, there is a prominent thrust pulse of a couple of seconds duration that quickly settles.  The steady thrust, the focus of earlier attention, is right about at the Mead limit for this device.  So it cannot be used to settle the question of exceeding the Mead limit.

Until last weekend, the obvious thrust switching transients, noted many time in earlier work, were simply noted and ignored.  Last weekend, however, I paid attention to the transients.  For two reasons.  First, Carver's argument has an implicit assumption: the relationship between thrust and power is: thrust = constant X power.  Always.  This may be intuitively likely.  But it is not necessarily so.  If it is so, then the thrust transients in the displays MUST be accompanied by transient power surges that produce them.  That is, the voltage squared (proportional to the power) traces (dark blue) should show signs of power transients that produce the thrust transients.

The cheap tourist trick observation is that the thrust balance, as far as transients are concerned, behaves as a "ballistic pendulum".  A horizontal and damped pendulum -- which complicates careful analysis -- but a ballistic pendulum nonetheless.  If your introductory physics text was Sears and Zemanski, you'll remember that they have a chapter on impulse, force and energy, with the ballistic pendulum as an example.  Rudimentary analysis requires only elementary algebra.  Impulse is force times time = change in momentum.  Shoot a bullet into a block of wood suspended on strings, and the bullet plus block acquires kinetic energy equal to that of the bullet before inelastic impact.  The block rises on strings until its potential energy in the gravity field equals the initial kinetic energy.  You can compute the velocity of the bullet without fancy timing apparatus.

In our case, the two second thrust transients recorded MUST be produced by a force transient that satisfies the force times time condition to be equal to the thrust times 2 seconds.  Especially obvious in the case of the outgoing transient, there is no corresponding power transient that the Mead analysis requires to be present.  This is less obvious for in incoming transient, but it is also true there.  This can be seen by inspection of slides 18 and 19. Depending on the duration of the power transient assumed, the dark blue traces should show VERY pronounced deviations from simple rise to and fall from steady power supporting the steady thrust condition.  No, there is nothing in the system that would filter out such power transients.  The implicit assumption in Carver's argument is as a matter of fact wrong in this case.

You may be thinking, gee, that's weird.  If power transients aren't producing the thrust transients, what is?  The Mach effect.  Remember, the first Mach effect is NOT proportional to the power.  It is proportional to the rate of change of the power (that is, dP/dt).  So simply turning the device on and off should produce transients.  Everything needs to be tuned to produce the Mach effect of course.  But that does not depend on power transients beyond the simple switching of the power.  The size of the transient thrusts should depend on how quickly the power is switched.  Power switching is effected by the closing/opening of a relay that controls the driving signal to the power amplifier.  One may expect the rise time of the power to be a bit slower than the fall time in these circumstance, and accordingly that the outgoing thrust transient will be a bit larger than the incoming transient.

The data acquisition rate for the routinely stored data is 100 Hz, so detailed analysis of fast transients using it isn't possible.  But in slides 18 and 19 it is possible to determine that the rise time is at least a few ms and fall time is less than 10 ms.  The cheap trick comes in here.  The Mach effect thrust pulse that produces the ballistically measured thrust pulse of 2 s duration is just the measured average of the thrust pulses, say, a few uN, times 2 s divided by the rise/fall time, less than 10 ms.  That is, the measured thrust transients tell you that the Mach effect switching transients are on the order of at least hundreds of uN.  Given that there is no corresponding power transient, the Mead limit is far exceeded -- indicating that Carver's argument does not apply to these devices AS A MATTER OF FACT.  Since Mach effects are derived from elementary physics first principles, we see that the assumption that thrust = constant X power always is false.  Heidi and I, and others, are working on how this all works in detail. It is not a trivial problem."


Both Woodward's M-E and White's QVF conjectures predict that energy may be extracted locally from the cosmos' gravity/inertia (G/I) field, at least transiently when large power fluxes are being processed.  This may be the first experimental data indicating that there really is a higher than 4D dimensional realm that can be explored.  So it's going to be fun to see which of these conjectures makes the better predicitions as the experimental data continues to accumulate.  Right now it's still a neck and neck race IMO...

Best,
Star-Drive

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3534
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2101
  • Likes Given: 2480
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #259 on: 06/13/2013 07:35 AM »
I have a different problem. If the inertia depends on the interaction with the rest of causally connected universe, shouldn't it change over time as far-off mass leaves the casually connected sphere? Especially, shouldn't it be dramatically different in the early universe?

The idea that it depends on how much mass is in the "causally connected universe" is nuts.

The causally connected universe of a particular object at a particular moment in time is the set of matter/energy that could be reached by information from that object travelling at light speed, or equivalently the set of matter/energy that could have information arrive at that object at some point in the future.  It is all about future causality.  A star 100 light years away is in the causally connected universe of that object, but that causality can only take place 100 years in the future.

The idea that an effect here and now on an object depends on whether a causal link could happen at any point in the future is crazy.  It's confusing instantaneous causality with future causality.

That star 100 light years away does exert a (very small) gravitational effect on the object here and now, but that's from the position of the star 100 years ago.  That's the whole point of gravity waves -- if the star moves, the change in its gravity takes 100 years to reach the object.

Similarly, stars that are outside the causality universe of the object still exert a gravitational effect on the object, because at some point in the past they were within the causality universe of the object.  It's just like we can see light today from a star 100 light years away that 50 years ago disappeared into a black hole.  It doesn't matter that it's now in the black hole and beyond future causality.  What matters is that when the light originated from the star, it was still in the causality universe of the object, so it affects us today.

Either the Woodward effect is similar to all known fields and its effects travel at the speed of light, in which case, just like gravity, it doesn't matter whether a distant star is in the causality universe of an object, or the Woodward effect is instantaneous, in which case the entire universe is in the causality universe of every object.

In any case, the idea that the amount of mass in a causality universe of an object changes the Woodward effect is nuts.  I mean, even more nuts (which is saying a lot!) than the rest of the Woodward effect.