Author Topic: Woodward's effect  (Read 286760 times)

Offline Cinder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 562
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 189
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #300 on: 06/15/2013 11:22 AM »
attached 2004 and 2012 papers from Dr. Woodward and then analyzing the 2004 paper's appendix A, which has the full M-E derivation in it.  Many people have tried to shoot holes in Dr. Woodward's M-E derivation over the years and they have failed to date.  If you are up to the task and find a credible error in the M-E derivation

Surely what ChrisWilson68 means to do, to put "the Woodward effect" right to bed, since among other things:

Sciama's results are mathematically equivalent to formulations that follow certain laws and Woodward's theories violate those laws, it's not mathematically possible that Woodward is simply following Sciama.
etc.

Maybe such a math demonstration would go in the Woodward Effect Math thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31119.0
« Last Edit: 06/15/2013 11:27 AM by Cinder »
The pork must flow.

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 #301 on: 06/15/2013 01:38 PM »
Quote from: Paul
Many people have tried to shoot holes in Dr. Woodward's M-E derivation over the years and they have failed to date.

I don't operate that particular mathematical gun at that level, thus do not attempt that shooting.  As an aside, on this thread, I continue to point out the disdain which some of the critics here heap on that gun.

And on the math only thread, I've asked, but have not yet received.

The answers I've gotten so far are mostly the functional equivalent of the sarcastic comment above: "Read my 40,000 page theory on ponies where I skip over the most crucial steps in the math, because basically, it is beneath me to take the time to explain it fully to my inferiors".

Moving right along...

Quote from: Paul
...think about what just the 0.4 N/kWe specific force performance metric ... will do for space flight if we can perfect the device's run time.


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 #302 on: 06/15/2013 03:03 PM »
Quote from: Paul
Many people have tried to shoot holes in Dr. Woodward's M-E derivation over the years and they have failed to date.

I don't operate that particular mathematical gun at that level, thus do not attempt that shooting.  As an aside, on this thread, I continue to point out the disdain which some of the critics here heap on that gun.

And on the math only thread, I've asked, but have not yet received.

The answers I've gotten so far are mostly the functional equivalent of the sarcastic comment above: "Read my 40,000 page theory on ponies where I skip over the most crucial steps in the math, because basically, it is beneath me to take the time to explain it fully to my inferiors".

Moving right along...

Quote from: Paul
...think about what just the 0.4 N/kWe specific force performance metric ... will do for space flight if we can perfect the device's run time.




John:

If you want to comment on a topic, I think you have the responsibility to at least make an effort to try to understand it before you try to criticize it, ponies notwithstanding.  So I could just respond to you that you’re below cute Star Trek quote where Kirk asks Spock "Is that a lot” is just an exercise left to the student, i.e., you, as many professors have told me in the past.  However I will give you a hint.  The electrodynamic Hall thruster that is the M-E thruster's nearest conventional electric rocket analog has a maximum specific force of ~0.05 N/KWe with a specific impulse (Isp) of ~2,500 seconds dependent on anode voltage.  The M-E device I built back in 2003 not only had a specific force almost an order of magnitude larger than the best Hall thrusters, see below URL, its equivalent Isp based on energy flow into the device where mass = E/c^2 , yields an equivalent Isp of over 1x10^12 seconds.  Yes, a functional M-E based thruster matters and it could matter in a big way if we can perfect it.

http://www.busek.com/technologies__hall.htm

In regards to Woodward's M-E work, it’s not an easy subject to master since it takes a working knowledge, (and yes that means the math contained in same), of Newtonian Physics, Special & General relativity, and the latest data in cosmology, but if you really want to understand the M-E conjecture that's the effort that will be required.  On top of that if you want to understand the technology behind Woodward's experiments, you had better become very good in solid state physics, electrical and mechanical engineering, material science and acoustics.  I've been a student of this M-E conjecture since 1998 and I still don’t consider myself an expert in it, but I keep trying to learn more about it most every day that I have the opportunity to do so…

Edit:

PS: I'm also working with Dr. Harold Sonny White at NASA/JSC on White's Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation (QVF) Conjecture that covers similar territory that Woodward's M-E conjecture does, but it also adds in possible Quantum Mechanical (QM) effects as well.  As to which or either of these conjectures proves to be a true reflection of nature in the end analysis is still up for grabs, but either one is worth fighting for IMO.

Best, P.M.
« Last Edit: 06/15/2013 03:34 PM by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

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 #303 on: 06/15/2013 04:30 PM »
Paul:

You need to let humor into your life.

****************************************

From Sciama 1953:

"We shall assume that matter receding with velocity greater than that of light makes no contribution to the potential, so that the integral in (1) is taken over the spherical radius of c tau.  An assumption of this sort is necessary since we have naievly extrapolated the Hubble law without considering relativistic effects, and should give the correct order of magnitude."

In other words, the naieve extrapolation assumed "should" give the correct order of magnitude of phi.

This is one of the areas that I can't get past.  How can an assumption which only "should" provide a correct order of magnitude, be depended upon for correct results? 

If the radius of the universe is changing, and the mass of the universe is changing, and if all of the mass in the universe hasn't yet been accounted for, what is the validity of the scalar potential phi?

****************************************

I'm not claiming the theoretical ability to float the device into the conference room.  You are.  Based on Woodward's theory and recently also on Shawyer's theory.

I'm happy to have you lecture me on my commenting "responsibilitie" while simultaneously not having reviewed my posting history as evidence of my effort on this subject.

Quote from: Paul
Yes, a functional M-E based thruster matters and it could matter in a big way if we can perfect it.

Yeah, I get that 0.4 N/kWe "would" be a lot.

What are your latest results?  How much power was put into the experimental system and how much thrust was produced by that system and reliably reported, including all the losses?

I am not asking about the "free energy" claims.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3893
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #304 on: 06/15/2013 10:50 PM »
I'm not sure I agree with the rejection of instantaneous interaction with distant non-local matter. Distant matter which has existed for some time has propagated its fields over to your locality, so that any immediate change of your local mass is interacting with that propagated field manifestation, rather than interacting with the distant original matter itself.

Even if GmM/R^2 only works at the speed of light, it still interacts locally with whatever is available at the time. The interaction doesn't have to trace back to some distant point of origin in order to interact with it.

If you as a surfer catch a wave produced by some distant source, does this mean you are instantaneously interacting with the distant source itself? Of course not - you are locally interacting with the propagated wave. That does not require instantaneous interaction with the origin.


Offline djolds1

  • Member
  • Posts: 11
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #305 on: 06/15/2013 11:40 PM »
Next for those new to this Mach-Effect (M-E) topic on this thread, you might consider reading and understanding the attached 2004 and 2012 papers from Dr. Woodward and then analyzing the 2004 paper's appendix A, which has the full M-E derivation in it.  Many people have tried to shoot holes in Dr. Woodward's M-E derivation over the years and they have failed to date.  If you are up to the task and find a credible error in the M-E derivation, Dr. Woodward would love to hear about it.  He can be reached at his CSUF e-mail address or you can ask me for his personal e-mail address if you would prefer that com-link.
There were refinements in recent years IIRC - recognition of the bulk acceleration nature of the effect in the working mass, etc. The 2004 paper would fail to capture those, yes?
« Last Edit: 06/15/2013 11:43 PM by djolds1 »

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 877
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #306 on: 06/17/2013 04:31 AM »
Next for those new to this Mach-Effect (M-E) topic on this thread, you might consider reading and understanding the attached 2004 and 2012 papers from Dr. Woodward and then analyzing the 2004 paper's appendix A, which has the full M-E derivation in it.  Many people have tried to shoot holes in Dr. Woodward's M-E derivation over the years and they have failed to date.  If you are up to the task and find a credible error in the M-E derivation, Dr. Woodward would love to hear about it.  He can be reached at his CSUF e-mail address or you can ask me for his personal e-mail address if you would prefer that com-link.
There were refinements in recent years IIRC - recognition of the bulk acceleration nature of the effect in the working mass, etc. The 2004 paper would fail to capture those, yes?

Agreed and that is why I included Woodward's & Fern's 2012 paper in my last post where they address the bulk acceleration oversight in the original 2004 Appendix A derivation.  Including that bulk acceleration addition to Woodward's original M-E model now has it predicting forces within one order of magnitude of his shuttler experimental results.

Best, P.M.
Star-Drive

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 877
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #307 on: 06/17/2013 12:48 PM »
Paul:

You need to let humor into your life.

****************************************

From Sciama 1953:

"We shall assume that matter receding with velocity greater than that of light makes no contribution to the potential, so that the integral in (1) is taken over the spherical radius of c tau.  An assumption of this sort is necessary since we have naievly extrapolated the Hubble law without considering relativistic effects, and should give the correct order of magnitude."

In other words, the naieve extrapolation assumed "should" give the correct order of magnitude of phi.

This is one of the areas that I can't get past.  How can an assumption which only "should" provide a correct order of magnitude, be depended upon for correct results? 

If the radius of the universe is changing, and the mass of the universe is changing, and if all of the mass in the universe hasn't yet been accounted for, what is the validity of the scalar potential phi?

****************************************

I'm not claiming the theoretical ability to float the device into the conference room.  You are.  Based on Woodward's theory and recently also on Shawyer's theory.

I'm happy to have you lecture me on my commenting "responsibilitie" while simultaneously not having reviewed my posting history as evidence of my effort on this subject.

Quote from: Paul
Yes, a functional M-E based thruster matters and it could matter in a big way if we can perfect it.

Yeah, I get that 0.4 N/kWe "would" be a lot.

What are your latest results?  How much power was put into the experimental system and how much thrust was produced by that system and reliably reported, including all the losses?

I am not asking about the "free energy" claims.
John:

I’ll try to remember to smile on occasion…

“This is one of the areas that I can't get past.  How can an assumption which only "should" provide a correct order of magnitude, be depended upon for correct results?”
 
In cosmology any data within an order of magnitude of prediction is considered to be a correct results.  It’s a tribute to the size of the error bars in this field.

“If the radius of the universe is changing, and the mass of the universe is changing, and if all of the mass in the universe hasn't yet been accounted for, what is the validity of the scalar potential phi?”

Good question and only further experimental data from a number of fronts will tell us if Sciama & Woodward’s phi=C^2 conjecture is right, wrong, or close enough.  At the moment the latest NASA and ESA cosmological mapping data suggests that this is the correct assumption.
 
“I'm not claiming the theoretical ability to float the device into the conference room.  You are.  Based on Woodward's theory and recently also on Shawyer's theory.”

Both Woodward’s M-E and White’s QVF conjectures at this time do not preclude the possibility of developing a related thruster with a thrust to weight ratio of greater than 1-to-1.  And that of course is where it really gets interesting.

“I'm happy to have you lecture me on my commenting "responsibilitie" while simultaneously not having reviewed my posting history as evidence of my effort on this subject.”

My point in that quip was that IMO we should all do more reading and understanding of the related papers in this field and less posting until you are familiar with both the pros and cons of the conjecture in question including Woodward’s and White’s.  And no I’m not here to teach you for that is your responsibility.  What I’m trying to do on this forum is to report on what is going on in Woodward’s and White’s labs and try to convey the impacts that these results may have in the aerospace field.
 
“What are your latest results?  How much power was put into the experimental system and how much thrust was produced by that system and reliably reported, including all the losses?”

Most of the test results from various labs working on these types of RF and shuttler like devices save one indicate that 0.1-to-1.0 N/kWe is the current norm for the 1st generation experimental devices, and yes that includes all the resistive losses in the system.  The lab with the exception to this current rule of thumb performance range uses high voltage, low currents, and they are reporting specific force numbers in the 1.0-to-20.0 N/kWe range with possibilities of going up to well over 100.0 N/kWe.  And no I’m not at liberty to say who is doing this or how far along they are in making a reliable thruster that works every time.  NDAs etc.  As to the thrust output range they go from Woodword's single digit micro-Newtons (uN), which is a tribute to Woodward's torque pendulum design and sensitivity, up to just over 10 milli-Newton (mN).   

Best, P.M.
Star-Drive

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 #308 on: 06/17/2013 02:12 PM »
I’ll try to remember to smile on occasion…

Good.  Remember, Kirk and Spock are thought to be very intelligent individuals.  This inherent intelligence is not always obvious when in completely unfamiliar circumstances.

Quote from: JF
what is the validity of the scalar potential phi?

Quote from: PM
Good question and only further experimental data from a number of fronts will tell us if Sciama & Woodward’s phi=C^2 conjecture is right, wrong, or close enough.

You see, I trust, why I'm hung up on initial assumptions which may be off by an order of magnitude.  Start adding those magnitudes, and results further down the equation food chain start getting iffy.

Chapter 2 of Woodward's book goes on to say that space is "flat", and that the scalar gravitational potential cannot be "localized".  Therefore, Woodward, using Brans' work says:

Quote from: Woodward
This condition on gravitational potential energy reveals Einstein's first prediction quoted above as wrong.

Is that "first prediction" the addition of Einstein's "cosmological constant"?

****************************

Then, if "0.1-to-1.0 N/kWe" is clearly indicated in your all's (a loose term) experimental results, what the problem is?

The problem being flying one of these devices in LEO.

Too much experimental mass, and no clear method of reducing it?  Cooling problems?  Degenerating "flux" capacitors?
« Last Edit: 06/17/2013 03:54 PM by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline mrmandias

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 507
  • US
  • Liked: 29
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #309 on: 06/17/2013 03:30 PM »
StarDrive,
thanks for the info, and best of luck.

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Liked: 292
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #310 on: 06/17/2013 08:08 PM »
what the problem is?

Too much magnetic field and whatnot in LEO.  You'd need to go to deep space, and even then there are things that could go wrong (electrical interaction with an offgassing component could produce an accidental ion drive or some such).

If the thruster lifetimes haven't gotten any better, straight offgassing (perhaps thermally driven, to explain the close correlation with the power pulses) couldn't be ruled out without close attention to spacecraft design and pre-launch handling...

Also, a space mission is a bit steep for Woodward's budget (he's self-funded, as I recall, and won't accept donations).
« Last Edit: 06/17/2013 08:15 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 #311 on: 06/17/2013 10:43 PM »
what the problem is? [with soon flying one of these things in LEO.

Too much magnetic field and whatnot in LEO.  You'd need to go to deep space, and even then there are things that could go wrong (electrical interaction with an offgassing component could produce an accidental ion drive or some such).

If the thruster lifetimes haven't gotten any better, straight offgassing (perhaps thermally driven, to explain the close correlation with the power pulses) couldn't be ruled out without close attention to spacecraft design and pre-launch handling...

Also, a space mission is a bit steep for Woodward's budget (he's self-funded, as I recall, and won't accept donations).

Hold up, there, kemosabe.  Me not savvy.

If this device can produce, free and clear of all resistive, and I forgot to add, magnetic shielding loads, and other loads that I don't know enough about, and still generate 0.4 N/kWe (about 1 1/2 ounces of force per thousand watts of electricity, then it should be able to be used in a LEO experiment of some sort.  I say "should" as an opinion.

If the thrust is thwarted by magnetic fields, then it doesn't seem to be all that powerful.  Either that, or there are some other problems with scaling that have not been discussed yet.

The other thread discussed and found questionable the motivation to actively not seek funding for these efforts.  An idea that cannot be made into a flyable artifact has little pragmatic value.

I realize that the example of Nicola Tesla still has some people nervous regarding the government and really good ideas.

Fortunately, and as an aside, my idea that we should build a lunar base is safe from tht kind of possible government obstruction.

As another aside, I have an idea that with training, an arms manufacturer from the revolutionary war period, could make a serviceable AR-15, by hand, with the technology of that time.  I'm quite eccentric enought to posit the idea, but nowhere near rich enough to implement the idea.  Point being, I know how lack of funds can limit good ideation into the physical world.

Backing up to the "questionable motivation".  Questionable, in that, why wouldn't one attempt to get funding for a good idea based upon a sound theory?

Backing up further:

The device is not as efficient at generating thrust as it needs to be.
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 #312 on: 06/18/2013 12:05 AM »
If the thrust is thwarted by magnetic fields, then it doesn't seem to be all that powerful.

No no no.  What I meant is that people who think this device violates the laws of physics won't be convinced by a demo in an environment where a simple current loop could generate the same thrust.

It's not a question of the device not working due to the magnetic field; it's a question of whether an observed thrust signature could be due to anything other than a Mach effect.  Just putting the thruster in space doesn't necessarily solve all of the experimental control problems.

...

We're very far from reaching the limits of what can be done on the ground.  Jumping from shoestring garage work to deep space isn't necessary right now IMO.  Worse, if the thing failed for some trivial reason - an imperfectly understood design change, a ground handling goof, maybe something that wouldn't have happened if the lab work had progressed further before going for broke -  we might never find that out.  As matters stand now, a failed in-space test might simply cement M-E's reputation as pseudoscience.
« Last Edit: 06/18/2013 12:27 AM 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 #313 on: 06/18/2013 01:00 PM »
If the thrust is thwarted by magnetic fields, then it doesn't seem to be all that powerful.

No no no.  What I meant is that people who think this device violates the laws of physics won't be convinced by a demo in an environment where a simple current loop could generate the same thrust.

It's not a question of the device not working due to the magnetic field; it's a question of whether an observed thrust signature could be due to anything other than a Mach effect.  Just putting the thruster in space doesn't necessarily solve all of the experimental control problems.

Ahhhh.  I see.  Thanks, kemosabe.

Then that ties into my continued questions about "efficiency".  The thrust levels cannot be "efficiently" generated at 0.4 N/kWe (about 1 1/2 ounces of force per thousand watts of electricity) AND difficult to distinguish from background effects simulataneously.

It's not the problem that I'm not asking the questions, well, efficiently.  It's that the answers are not complete and that the attempts at answering, as most of the erm, scientists, on this site do, appear to be wrapped in "correct" terminology, thwarting the understanding of the questions asked.

Ipso fatso:

The device cannot be efficient and inefficient simultaneously.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline cordwainer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #314 on: 06/18/2013 08:40 PM »
So what you are saying is that you need an environment outside of magnetic fields to verify whether the thruster actually produces work due to Machian effects or some other Lorentzian effect like giganto-magneto resistance or plasma shockwaves. Seems to me John that "ME thrusters" are worth looking at whether the effect is the result of ME or some other effect, the real question is whether such devices produce a discernibly large enough thrust to energy potential. Even if your only getting thrust a magnitude larger than a hall thruster that still means less electrical energy needed and less or no fuel needed for propulsive force.   

Online hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3237
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 737
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #315 on: 06/18/2013 09:10 PM »
Even if your only getting thrust a magnitude larger than a hall thruster that still means less electrical energy needed and less or no fuel needed for propulsive force.   
Also notable that a force judged too small to provide conclusive detection could be a magnitude larger than that produced by systems in routine use.

GEO comsats routinely use Hall thrusters for station keeping. If you could provide the same performance with zero propellant, that would indeed be a big deal regardless of the underlying mechanism. Particularly in cases where you needed to make up for a shortfall in lower stage performance!

The performance of IKAROS solar sail was conclusively measured around 1.12 mN for ~300kg spacecraft (albeit in deep space).
« Last Edit: 06/18/2013 09:10 PM by hop »

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Liked: 292
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #316 on: 06/18/2013 11:50 PM »
The thrust levels cannot be "efficiently" generated at 0.4 N/kWe (about 1 1/2 ounces of force per thousand watts of electricity) AND difficult to distinguish from background effects simulataneously.

Well, yes - yes they can.

A one-ampere current in a loop a foot wide could produce a few micronewtons of thrust in LEO without expending any power at all beyond making up resistive losses (magnets are like that).  Of course, the exact effect depends on the angle of the loop with respect to the geomagnetic field lines, so in principle it shouldn't be hard to distinguish it - but if you've got currents being induced (either by device operation or by ambient fields) in a part of the structure that wasn't expected to carry them and thus wasn't instrumented, well...

It's probably possible to design an experiment that would be effectively immune to these sorts of effects, and/or run it in such a way as to rule them out.  My point is simply that a space demo is not automatically ironclad proof of principle, even given a reliable thruster that doesn't die off after fifteen minutes of operation...
« Last Edit: 06/18/2013 11:54 PM by 93143 »

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #317 on: 06/19/2013 12:45 AM »
Backing up to the "questionable motivation".  Questionable, in that, why wouldn't one attempt to get funding for a good idea based upon a sound theory?

imho its exactly the opposite. Like Andre Rossi trying to get money to his e-cat.

the fact YOU think its a good idea based on a sound theory doesnt change anything. There are tons of people who say its pseudoscience, etc.

Woodward NOT WANTING donations shows exactly the opposite. He is only interested about the science, not about the money.

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #318 on: 06/19/2013 01:55 AM »

Most of the test results from various labs working on these types of RF and shuttler like devices save one indicate that 0.1-to-1.0 N/kWe is the current norm for the 1st generation experimental devices, and yes that includes all the resistive losses in the system. The lab with the exception to this current rule of thumb performance range uses high voltage, low currents, and they are reporting specific force numbers in the 1.0-to-20.0 N/kWe range with possibilities of going up to well over 100.0 N/kWe.  And no I’m not at liberty to say who is doing this or how far along they are in making a reliable thruster that works every time.  NDAs etc.  As to the thrust output range they go from Woodword's single digit micro-Newtons (uN), which is a tribute to Woodward's torque pendulum design and sensitivity, up to just over 10 milli-Newton (mN).   

Best, P.M.



No need to. Its quite obvious. They have talked they are investigating warp drives and they are pretty sure they will colonize Mars. And will only go public after starting Mars colonization.

it seems they are sure they can do that before 2030, and to be sure they can do that before 2030, they must really believe they have the tech to do it.

also, few companies are so interested in new processes and in space, and have the time and money to invest in research ME thrusters achieving such disparate results compared to everybody else.

however they still need to reach orbit with reusable rockets since even those very good results are not enough for it... and they are close to doing that with chemical rockets.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8224
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2991
  • Likes Given: 721
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #319 on: 06/19/2013 02:12 AM »
No need to. Its quite obvious. They have talked they are investigating warp drives and they are pretty sure they will colonize Mars. And will only go public after starting Mars colonization.

lol. Don't cross the streams!!
Jeff Bezos has billions to spend on rockets and can go at whatever pace he likes! Wow! What pace is he going at? Well... have you heard of Zeno's paradox?