Author Topic: Woodward's effect  (Read 284997 times)

Online Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1307
  • Liked: 231
  • Likes Given: 85
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #420 on: 02/08/2014 01:03 AM »
i don't know about the stargate. but i think Dr White's set up* could be crowd funded with ease. maybe woodward could run periodic crowd funding efforts if he isn't already.

*it looks for all the world like the test articles are made in some eccentric home experimenter's garage. i mean hand wound coils and capacitors likely wound on a homemade wooden jig? i could get the plans for that at rex research or information unlimited for pete's sake. not that that's a bad thing at all. I like the fact that it looks like it could have been built by "crazy uncle jay" in his garage as part of his free energy device he is about to become rich on. it's just the giggle factor comes in. :)

really if it's cheap and easy then it makes it likely thousands of people will try it with all the experimental variation and inventiveness that means.
« Last Edit: 02/08/2014 01:12 AM by Stormbringer »
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline IslandPlaya

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 582
  • Outer Hebrides
  • Liked: 163
  • Likes Given: 166
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #421 on: 02/08/2014 01:36 AM »
I really hope the Mach effect as explored by Woodward is true. However, I would expect DARPA and deeper black projects to be all over this.
If true I would expect a grand reveal a-la B2 with a floating drone at some point in the future...

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Liked: 292
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #422 on: 02/08/2014 02:27 AM »
really if it's cheap and easy then it makes it likely thousands of people will try it with all the experimental variation and inventiveness that means.

Well...  it's cheap, yes, but not especially easy.  Lots of people have tried and failed, possibly because they tried to get "inventive".  Even Woodward has only been able to get consistent, repeatable results well above the noise floor relatively recently.

I really hope the Mach effect as explored by Woodward is true. However, I would expect DARPA and deeper black projects to be all over this.

According to both Woodward (pg. 127) and Mahood ("Fun with the National Labs"), the Sandia/Oak Ridge folks behaved very oddly after testing the idea themselves...
« Last Edit: 02/08/2014 02:34 AM by 93143 »

Offline SteveKelsey

Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #423 on: 02/08/2014 02:27 PM »
Thanks for that  HMXHMX and please pass on my thanks to Dr Woodward for taking the time to answer my question, I am sure he has better things to do  :)

I found his  JPC 2012 conference paper http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/JPC2012.pdf  and it contains examples of longer power durations of ten seconds which show  thrust traces of longer duration. The signal is a lot clearer than the one used in the NIAC 2014 presentation and the thrust signal is very obvious, it is shown reversed too!

You can still see the resonance decay from the torsion balance but it no longer dominates the signal.

I have added an image with the power and temperature traces removed using Photoshop below the original.

« Last Edit: 02/08/2014 02:50 PM by SteveKelsey »
2001 is running a little late, but we are getting there.

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1379
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 272
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #424 on: 02/08/2014 03:04 PM »
Thanks for that  HMXHMX and please pass on my thanks to Dr Woodward for taking the time to answer my question, I am sure he has better things to do  :)

I found his  JPC 2012 conference paper http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/JPC2012.pdf  and it contains examples of longer power durations of ten seconds which show  thrust traces of longer duration. The signal is a lot clearer than the one used in the NIAC 2014 presentation and the thrust signal is very obvious, it is shown reversed too!

You can still see the resonance decay from the torsion balance but it no longer dominates the signal.

I have added an image with the power and temperature traces removed using Photoshop below the original.



I should also add it was I who selected the image used in the NIAC talk, from the same paper, so any confusion is my fault and not Professor Woodward's.

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 800
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 148
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #425 on: 02/08/2014 06:06 PM »
Thanks Mr Hudson for getting engaged in this! Most people are afraid to handle the topic fairly for fear they'll be laughed at. Best of luck with the SSI! BTW, is it a non-profit you can claim on tax as charity?

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1379
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 272
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #426 on: 02/08/2014 06:28 PM »
Thanks Mr Hudson for getting engaged in this! Most people are afraid to handle the topic fairly for fear they'll be laughed at. Best of luck with the SSI! BTW, is it a non-profit you can claim on tax as charity?

SSI is a US 501(c)3, so donations are fully tax-deductible.  Essentially 100% of contributions go to SSI's exempt purpose; no one associated with it takes a salary.

Offline IslandPlaya

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 582
  • Outer Hebrides
  • Liked: 163
  • Likes Given: 166
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #427 on: 02/09/2014 02:16 AM »
Any thrust obtained is game-changing and Nobel prize stuff..
What am I missing here?

Offline Cinder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 562
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 189
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #428 on: 02/09/2014 04:16 AM »
Unequivocal magnitude.
The pork must flow.

Offline IslandPlaya

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 582
  • Outer Hebrides
  • Liked: 163
  • Likes Given: 166
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #429 on: 02/09/2014 04:57 AM »
Yes. Woodward reports a signal above the noise floor. How much above this would you consider unequivocal?

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Liked: 292
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #430 on: 02/09/2014 06:05 AM »
A lot of people find it difficult to completely trust a measurement that small (micronewtons) when such significant electromagnetic activity is present.  Woodward has been trying his best to eliminate potential sources of spurious thrust, but it's like LENR - you can't just show an effect that probably shouldn't have happened according to conventional theory; you have to show an effect that's large enough that it couldn't possibly have been due to conventional sources, because there could still be something you missed.

It helps to show specific agreement with your hypothesis that doesn't align with the conventional explanation.  Proper scaling of the effect with input parameters and quantitative agreement with theoretical predictions (both of which Woodward has apparently observed) would strengthen your claims, because they are unlikely to be the result of experimental error.  But when you're working this far out of the mainstream, people still tend to be suspicious.

EDIT:  I will not be adding back the contentious part of this post at this time.  Things have gotten plenty fun without additional fuel.
« Last Edit: 02/09/2014 09:35 PM by 93143 »

Offline Cinder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 562
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 189
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #431 on: 02/09/2014 07:19 AM »
people seem to be actively pessimistic about this stuff.  It's like they don't want it to be true.  The Morris-Thorne wormhole metric only got published by masquerading as a purely hypothetical pedagogical tool rather than a method for rapid starflight.  And people seem to respond the same way to Woodward's stuff, as though the mere fact that it could result in a really nice practical application or two means it can't be true.  (The argument that Woodward's work is untrustworthy because he himself is avowedly trying to create a space drive is somewhat more defensible, but still unscientific.)

Even stuff like hot fusion and Skylon get this - people artificially exaggerate the obstacles, perhaps because they think everything must have been tried already and have prematurely given up, and as I said before no one really likes to be proven wrong...
It's the same elsewhere.  E.G. extension of healthy life aka not-immortality..  It upsets people's conveniently settled moral foundations and outlook (e.g. "death trance", "illusion of control").  The mind bendingly vast possibilities beyond the little territory of beaten paths that homo sapiens c.2000 A.D. has fenced itself into, are just too much for most people -- they not only don't ponder them, they dismiss them outright.

Does this sound off-topic because outside of the scope of this discussion?  It's not: this is the reason there has not been the - by all accounts - small amount of $$$ it would take to once and for all rule out the effect, or prove its practical viability.  And that, even by mundane contemporary standards, is what keeps us from the proper scientific treatment that this conjecture deserves, and what potentially could right here (Earth; specifically the bottom of its gravity well) and now keep from our grasp the stars... Literally (!). 
Even the more modest projections of ME thrusters would open up the solar system, almost overnight(!).  The wormhole conjecture goes yet further up the scale of orders of magnitude.

That reason for this Space Flight calamity isn't rockety nor really sciency and definitely not particular to NASA, but it is one of, if not the main reason.  So I hope that satisfies the rules for staying on topic. 
« Last Edit: 02/09/2014 07:21 AM by Cinder »
The pork must flow.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3534
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2101
  • Likes Given: 2477
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #432 on: 02/09/2014 08:13 AM »
It's the same elsewhere.  E.G. extension of healthy life aka not-immortality..  It upsets people's conveniently settled moral foundations and outlook (e.g. "death trance", "illusion of control").  The mind bendingly vast possibilities beyond the little territory of beaten paths that homo sapiens c.2000 A.D. has fenced itself into, are just too much for most people -- they not only don't ponder them, they dismiss them outright.

That's awfully insulting to anyone who is skeptical.  You're claiming anyone who doesn't have your fringe beliefs holds those opinions because they are small minded and it upsets them to consider the possibility.

Have you considered the alternative -- that the skeptics have good reason to be skeptical and that it's the fringe theorists who are mistaken?

Those in the mainstream of scientific thought have been bringing us amazing leaps of technology year after year that continue to have huge effects in the real world for the last century and before.  Those with fringe anti-conventional-science views -- not so much.
« Last Edit: 02/09/2014 08:13 AM by ChrisWilson68 »

Offline a_langwich

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 211
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #433 on: 02/09/2014 09:36 AM »
It's the same elsewhere.  E.G. extension of healthy life aka not-immortality..  It upsets people's conveniently settled moral foundations and outlook (e.g. "death trance", "illusion of control").  The mind bendingly vast possibilities beyond the little territory of beaten paths that homo sapiens c.2000 A.D. has fenced itself into, are just too much for most people -- they not only don't ponder them, they dismiss them outright.

That's awfully insulting to anyone who is skeptical.  You're claiming anyone who doesn't have your fringe beliefs holds those opinions because they are small minded and it upsets them to consider the possibility.

Have you considered the alternative -- that the skeptics have good reason to be skeptical and that it's the fringe theorists who are mistaken?

Agreed.  It's not that people don't want them to be true.  I think there's a Feynman quote about how you need to be extra-skeptical about the things you want to be true, because it's so easy to fool ourselves in those situations.

People don't "trust" micronewton forces when massive electromagnetic fields are present, because they are properly humble about the myriad ways those fields, or fly farts, or miniscule temperature variations, or sensor circuit noise, or too many other things to enumerate, can produce micronewton forces.  Not only that, but observing from a distance, there is certainly no way to know how rigorous a claimant is about designing and constructing a test environment, whether they are reporting things honestly and fully, or whether they are even capable of applying the necessary amount of skepticism to their own results or are they prone to wishful thinking and selective vision.

In this case, who needs to prejudge, other than a potential investor or grant selection committee?  Micronewtons will do nothing, so come back when the effect starts to produce results closer to the usable range:  that takes care of both proving/disproving, and scale-up difficulties.

Are you really upset about people "dismissing" their ideas, or about not giving them money, which is utterly different?

(I'm quite skeptical about life extension, but since it's off topic I'll stay focused for once.)

Offline MikeAtkinson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1684
  • Bracknell, England
  • Liked: 455
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #434 on: 02/09/2014 09:59 AM »
Proper scaling of the effect with input parameters and quantitative agreement with theoretical predictions (both of which Woodward has apparently observed) would strengthen your claims, because they are unlikely to be the result of experimental error. 

My understanding is that the experiments observe an effect much smaller (an order of magnitude?) than predicted. Have I got that wrong?

Offline Cinder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 562
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 189
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #435 on: 02/09/2014 10:18 AM »
That's awfully insulting to anyone who is skeptical.  You're claiming anyone who doesn't have your fringe beliefs holds those opinions because they are small minded and it upsets them to consider the possibility.
It's not insulting.  It's human nature to prefer static to perpetually fluid circumstances.. Look around you at just about anyone. I don't see why calling a human, human, is insulting.
And my beliefs aren't fringe but that's off topic.
Quote
Are you really upset about people "dismissing" their ideas, or about not giving them money, which is utterly different?
I'm not one bit upset.  Just puzzled by, very strictly, one aspect of it all:
Woodward/Mach Effect conjecture is fringe?  Conceded for argument's sake.  Does the signal look dubious? Debatable but IMHO it sure looks like either a bug to squash or yet another tool to add to space propulsion toolbox.  In former case we squelch a distraction, latter case we have at very least something on par with Hall Effect thrusters.  Really, skepticism needs to be balanced: not just skepticism of something so unexpected being real, but skepticism that a single lab (Woodward's since White's is reportedly something different) IE a single data point is supposed to be enough.
Quote
I think there's a Feynman quote about how you need to be extra-skeptical about the things you want to be true, because it's so easy to fool ourselves in those situations.
Just what about (for instance) Woodward's methodology is inadequate in this respect?
« Last Edit: 02/09/2014 10:25 AM by Cinder »
The pork must flow.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3534
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2101
  • Likes Given: 2477
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #436 on: 02/09/2014 10:57 AM »
That's awfully insulting to anyone who is skeptical.  You're claiming anyone who doesn't have your fringe beliefs holds those opinions because they are small minded and it upsets them to consider the possibility.
It's not insulting.  It's human nature to prefer static to perpetually fluid circumstances.. Look around you at just about anyone. I don't see why calling a human, human, is insulting.
And my beliefs aren't fringe but that's off topic.

Just because you claim something is human nature doesn't mean it's not insulting.  Your claims about people who disagree with you, which you consider to be the vast majority of people, are not only insulting, but without any evidence to back them up.

Offline SteveKelsey

Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #437 on: 02/09/2014 11:57 AM »
Unequivocal magnitude.

I agree this would be definitive.

There is a high bar for proof for proposals that fall outside the mainstream and there can be a cultural bias that has to be overcome. Skylon is a case in point. REL's Mark Hempsel stated very clearly in the presentation recently posted by t43562  in the Skylon thread  that  that the challenges that Skylon faces are manufacturing ones. There is nothing new about the technology employed, its making the critical components that requires new thinking and development. However, the Skylon SSTO claim is a big one, and it has attracted a lot of criticism. Some of it has been uninformed, some of it has been skepticism without logic.

A high degree of scepticism for a breakthrough is to be expected, but I would have thought scepticism has to be based on fact and logic to be valid and helpful.
2001 is running a little late, but we are getting there.

Offline flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • France
  • Liked: 679
  • Likes Given: 927
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #438 on: 02/09/2014 01:28 PM »
The path to increase power and thrust is still going on. For the past few years, Pr. Woodward tried to 1/ replicate the effect repeatedly, and 2/ eliminate any spurious cause for the measured thrust. It wasn't that easy but they now both seem to be quite mastered.

An important thing to note is the ceramic used in Mach-effect thruster test articles for years, PZT (lead zirconate titanate) could soon be replaced by another material, PMN (lead magnesium niobate). Yet it is extremely difficult to lay hands on any sample of this new and expensive high-k material. It's been more than one year that Pr. Woodward hunts for a small amount of raw PMN powder, contacting labs worldwide. Those act as if they were OK to sell finished products, but don't want to sell their raw material.

And after you get this, you have to carefully press and sinter this powder, trying your best to not contaminating it, building thin disks stacks for MET test articles. Once it's done, the electric circuit could be tuned to account for the different features exhibited by this material (it's more difficult to tune the circuit for PMN because it is electrostrictive, whereas PZT is piezoelectric) and finally you can increase the power and operating frequency. We'll then see if the thrust signatures are also increased or not.

Offline grondilu

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • France
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #439 on: 02/09/2014 04:37 PM »
If his research depends on a material that takes years to obtain, then he's doing it wrong.

We want an experiment that would be reasonably easy to reproduce.

PS.  Well, unless of course the result he gets are spectacular enough to motivate others into overcoming the difficulties of getting the material.
« Last Edit: 02/09/2014 04:41 PM by grondilu »
Space is pretty much literally an astronomically-high hanging fruit.