Author Topic: Woodward's effect  (Read 288313 times)

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1379
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 272
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #560 on: 11/17/2015 04:39 PM »
Woodward Lab update at http://www.ssi.org includes a monograph on "over-unity" controversy as it relates to propellantless propulsion.

It answers the question raised by Mezzenile a few pages ago. I attach Woodward's document "Over-Unity Argument & Mach Effect Thrusters" to this message for more convenience.

It is worth noting besides that Woodward & Fearn are also currently working on a theoretical explanation for EmDrive's thrust.

They are working on a refutation of the quantum vacuum explanation for any putative EMdrive thrust, not a theoretical explanation of EMdrive, just to be clear.

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 273
  • United States
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #561 on: 11/17/2015 05:32 PM »
Woodward Lab update at http://www.ssi.org includes a monograph on "over-unity" controversy as it relates to propellantless propulsion.

It answers the question raised by Mezzenile a few pages ago. I attach Woodward's document "Over-Unity Argument & Mach Effect Thrusters" to this message for more convenience.

It is worth noting besides that Woodward & Fearn are also currently working on a theoretical explanation for EmDrive's thrust.

They are working on a refutation of the quantum vacuum explanation for any putative EMdrive thrust, not a theoretical explanation of EMdrive, just to be clear.

Ok that makes a WHOLE lot more sense.

Since you wrote the update on SSI any predictions on when we will see any additional information from Woodward and Fearn? to my knowledge the next thing to look forward to would be the replication results from Austria and Canada. But it sounds like Woodward and Fearn are already way into testing new devices. Is that accurate?

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1379
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 272
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #562 on: 11/17/2015 06:05 PM »
Woodward Lab update at http://www.ssi.org includes a monograph on "over-unity" controversy as it relates to propellantless propulsion.

It answers the question raised by Mezzenile a few pages ago. I attach Woodward's document "Over-Unity Argument & Mach Effect Thrusters" to this message for more convenience.

It is worth noting besides that Woodward & Fearn are also currently working on a theoretical explanation for EmDrive's thrust.

They are working on a refutation of the quantum vacuum explanation for any putative EMdrive thrust, not a theoretical explanation of EMdrive, just to be clear.

Ok that makes a WHOLE lot more sense.

Since you wrote the update on SSI any predictions on when we will see any additional information from Woodward and Fearn? to my knowledge the next thing to look forward to would be the replication results from Austria and Canada. But it sounds like Woodward and Fearn are already way into testing new devices. Is that accurate?

The Woodward Lab doesn't control the data release from the replications, so I can only speculate that it might be anywhere from a few months to perhaps the next Joint Propulsion Conference in summer 2016. By the way, SSI will facilitate access to test devices for competent labs that wish to perform a replication.

The devices under test are essentially the ones that were used in the last year's worth of data runs.  The lab has limitations on both equipment (power amps, etc.) and individual's time, so they haven't been able to move in the direction of more power or more thrust yet.

They inform me that we should have a paper or at least a monograph out on the quantum vacuum experiment in the first quarter of 2016.  When available, links will be posted at ssi.org and I will mention the post here.

Offline gargoyle99

  • Member
  • Posts: 28
  • USA
  • Liked: 75
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #563 on: 11/17/2015 08:21 PM »
Woodward Lab update at http://www.ssi.org includes a monograph on "over-unity" controversy as it relates to propellantless propulsion.

That paper: http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf, shows an embarrassing lack of understanding of classical Newtonian physics.  It's difficult to have respect for any more advanced physics derivations (which I haven't spent much time looking into), if he is promoting basic Newtonian physics equations that are flawed at a very fundamental level.  He says, "Now we have done something stupid and wrong," but it isn't in the place he attempts to demonstrate.  The physics mistake is when he DEFINES the physics "figure of merit" (ratio of force to input power) as something that is time invariant and assumes that non-physical condition for his calculations. 

Having a constant force for a given input power in a closed system guarantees problems according to Newtonian physics (in any reference frame), and, of course that eventually results in a violation of conservation of energy.  It doesn't occur in any known physical machine.  That doesn't mean the calculations of input or output energy are wrong.  It means you can't talk about a constant ratio of force to input power in a time invariant fashion for a closed system if you want to respect conservation of energy over time, which the Mach Effect Thruster papers purport to do.  His arguments regarding varying reference frames once again show profound ignorance of conservation of energy under special relativity and his pointing to the definition of velocity as the "likely source of the error," is both alarmingly vague and dangerously misleading.

At this point, he seems so confident of his results as to be completely impervious to well-intentioned criticism and peer review, because any physicist trained in classical mechanics would shake their heads at those arguments and clearly some people have brought the correct derivations to his attention.  His arguments are something I worked through both in my freshman physics class and later on in mechanics classes many years ago.  He would be better off to not address the over-unity argument at all than to point at that paper.




Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1379
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 272
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #564 on: 11/17/2015 11:16 PM »
Woodward Lab update at http://www.ssi.org includes a monograph on "over-unity" controversy as it relates to propellantless propulsion.

That paper: http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf, shows an embarrassing lack of understanding of classical Newtonian physics.  It's difficult to have respect for any more advanced physics derivations (which I haven't spent much time looking into), if he is promoting basic Newtonian physics equations that are flawed at a very fundamental level.  He says, "Now we have done something stupid and wrong," but it isn't in the place he attempts to demonstrate.  The physics mistake is when he DEFINES the physics "figure of merit" (ratio of force to input power) as something that is time invariant and assumes that non-physical condition for his calculations. 

Having a constant force for a given input power in a closed system guarantees problems according to Newtonian physics (in any reference frame), and, of course that eventually results in a violation of conservation of energy.  It doesn't occur in any known physical machine.  That doesn't mean the calculations of input or output energy are wrong.  It means you can't talk about a constant ratio of force to input power in a time invariant fashion for a closed system if you want to respect conservation of energy over time, which the Mach Effect Thruster papers purport to do.  His arguments regarding varying reference frames once again show profound ignorance of conservation of energy under special relativity and his pointing to the definition of velocity as the "likely source of the error," is both alarmingly vague and dangerously misleading.

At this point, he seems so confident of his results as to be completely impervious to well-intentioned criticism and peer review, because any physicist trained in classical mechanics would shake their heads at those arguments and clearly some people have brought the correct derivations to his attention.  His arguments are something I worked through both in my freshman physics class and later on in mechanics classes many years ago.  He would be better off to not address the over-unity argument at all than to point at that paper.


Professor Woodward has shown us all his math; I'm sure everyone will be gratified to see your mathematical analysis as well, including Professor Fearn, who reviewed the monograph prior to publication.  Fearn took her PhD under Rodney Loudon (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_Loudon) and post-doc under Peter Milonni (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_W._Milonni). She has also been teaching mechanics at lower, upper and graduate levels for 25 years.  If there is an obvious error, presumably she'd have caught it, but if you can point it out you'd be doing everyone a service.  Additionally, at least one other physicist of note reviewed the paper prior to posting, and that individual has been a general critic of Woodward's work, but signed off on this paper to me personally.

I'd add that the over-unity argument is meant to stand alone from any ME test results, so putative bias on the part of Woodward regarding his ME results can't be used as justification for overlooking a fundamental error, if such error exists.  Also, the over-unity argument has been used to attack several forms of propellantless propulsion, the EMdrive being only the most recent and obvious example.

Edit: Professor Fearn's bio.
« Last Edit: 11/18/2015 04:07 AM by HMXHMX »

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 273
  • United States
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #565 on: 11/18/2015 12:21 AM »
Woodward Lab update at http://www.ssi.org includes a monograph on "over-unity" controversy as it relates to propellantless propulsion.

That paper: http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf, shows an embarrassing lack of understanding of classical Newtonian physics.  It's difficult to have respect for any more advanced physics derivations (which I haven't spent much time looking into), if he is promoting basic Newtonian physics equations that are flawed at a very fundamental level.  He says, "Now we have done something stupid and wrong," but it isn't in the place he attempts to demonstrate.  The physics mistake is when he DEFINES the physics "figure of merit" (ratio of force to input power) as something that is time invariant and assumes that non-physical condition for his calculations. 

Having a constant force for a given input power in a closed system guarantees problems according to Newtonian physics (in any reference frame), and, of course that eventually results in a violation of conservation of energy.  It doesn't occur in any known physical machine.  That doesn't mean the calculations of input or output energy are wrong.  It means you can't talk about a constant ratio of force to input power in a time invariant fashion for a closed system if you want to respect conservation of energy over time, which the Mach Effect Thruster papers purport to do.  His arguments regarding varying reference frames once again show profound ignorance of conservation of energy under special relativity and his pointing to the definition of velocity as the "likely source of the error," is both alarmingly vague and dangerously misleading.

At this point, he seems so confident of his results as to be completely impervious to well-intentioned criticism and peer review, because any physicist trained in classical mechanics would shake their heads at those arguments and clearly some people have brought the correct derivations to his attention.  His arguments are something I worked through both in my freshman physics class and later on in mechanics classes many years ago.  He would be better off to not address the over-unity argument at all than to point at that paper.

So Woodward takes the time and effort to put together a complete write up arguing against COE violations math included and the the best criticism you have to offer is personal ad hominem attacks, with vague points thrown in? I mean either give a well reasoned critique of what is said in the monograph or don't bother saying anything at all.

Offline gargoyle99

  • Member
  • Posts: 28
  • USA
  • Liked: 75
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #566 on: 11/18/2015 12:12 PM »
Woodward Lab update at http://www.ssi.org includes a monograph on "over-unity" controversy as it relates to propellantless propulsion.

That paper: http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf, shows an embarrassing lack of understanding of classical Newtonian physics.

So Woodward takes the time and effort to put together a complete write up arguing against COE violations math included and the the best criticism you have to offer is personal ad hominem attacks, with vague points thrown in? I mean either give a well reasoned critique of what is said in the monograph or don't bother saying anything at all.

In between the ad hominem and personal attacks, I pointed out what was wrong with the physics.  But, if that was not sufficiently clear, I can go into more detail.

(Also, I see that at the beginning of this thread, other people have brought up the correct physics and provided references, but I can review.)

Professor Woodward considers a Newtonian system with constant thrust F and constant input power P.

Total Input Energy = P t
Total Output Energy = Kinetic Energy = 1/2 mv2 = 1/2 ma2t2

So far, Woodward's derivation is correct.  Here he points out, correctly, that this system appears to violate conservation of energy, because input energy scales with time t and output energy scales with t2, so for ANY such system, there is a time after which the output energy exceeds the input energy.

This derivation applies to not only the alleged Mach Effect Thruster (MET), but any system with constant thrust and constant input power.  Next he makes the first elementary mistake.  He claims that because other systems with constant thrust and constant input power besides the MET also follow Newtonian physics and everybody knows that they observe the conservation of energy, therefore there must be some mistake in this calculation and really, the MET also follows conservation of energy, despite the glaring error demonstrated in the above equations.

After discussing with a dismissive tone how this is all elementary and basic physics, he goes on to state vaguely that the mistake "likely" is in the definition of "velocity."

Actually, the mistake is in the original conjecture.  There are NO closed Newtonian systems that have constant acceleration and constant input power.  They would all violate conservation of energy.

If there is constant acceleration (consider an ideal weight hanging from a pulley accelerating another mass across a frictionless table), then the input power will scale linearly with time (the falling weight increases in speed as it falls).

Likewise, consider the Newtonian system of the car you drive to work.  If you accelerate at a constant rate, the engine consumes more gasoline to go from 50 mph to 60mph than it did to go from 0 mph to 10 mph, even though the delta-V is the same.

Alternatively, if you have a system with constant power input, then the acceleration drops off over time.  For example, a model RC electric car with a small battery will accelerate very fast from an initial stop, but then quickly slow its acceleration after a few seconds.  This is without regard to any friction losses.

To summarize, in a Newtonian world, there are NO physical closed systems with a constant acceleration and a constant input power and so his argument that dragons must exist because they are no more illogical than unicorns is badly flawed.  A closed system can either have constant acceleration, or constant input power, but not both without violating conservation of energy.  (An open system also follows conservation of energy, but you also have to take into account what is being added or removed from the system.)

Then Woodward attempts to work around the issue by arbitrarily limiting the amount of time that the system can run:

We know that, starting from t = 0, if we let the integration interval t get very large, the work equation integral will first equal and then exceed the energy calculated by the figure of merit equation.  So we require that t be sufficiently small that this obvious violation of energy conservation does not happen. 

You can't work around this problem by arbitrarily limiting the time that the system runs.  What happens when that much time actually passes?  The problem is with the initial conjecture, not with the physics equations and it is an elementary error.

This is a forum for professionals and serious space flight enthusiasts.  Participants regularly calculate bi-elliptic and Hohmann orbital transfers and that math is just Newtonian physics but it's a lot harder than this!

Nobody who has passed a Newtonian mechanics college course could read that paper without wincing at the naive physics.  I hope that Professor Woodward gets some peer review from somebody knowledgeable and straightens out his misconceptions, because otherwise he will have considerable difficulty getting credibility from any physicist who reads that paper, whether or not the Mach Effect Thruster generates thrust.


« Last Edit: 11/18/2015 03:23 PM by gargoyle99 »

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 273
  • United States
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #567 on: 11/18/2015 05:02 PM »
Woodward Lab update at http://www.ssi.org includes a monograph on "over-unity" controversy as it relates to propellantless propulsion.

That paper: http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf, shows an embarrassing lack of understanding of classical Newtonian physics.

So Woodward takes the time and effort to put together a complete write up arguing against COE violations math included and the the best criticism you have to offer is personal ad hominem attacks, with vague points thrown in? I mean either give a well reasoned critique of what is said in the monograph or don't bother saying anything at all.

In between the ad hominem and personal attacks, I pointed out what was wrong with the physics.  But, if that was not sufficiently clear, I can go into more detail.

(Also, I see that at the beginning of this thread, other people have brought up the correct physics and provided references, but I can review.)

Professor Woodward considers a Newtonian system with constant thrust F and constant input power P.

Total Input Energy = P t
Total Output Energy = Kinetic Energy = 1/2 mv2 = 1/2 ma2t2

So far, Woodward's derivation is correct.  Here he points out, correctly, that this system appears to violate conservation of energy, because input energy scales with time t and output energy scales with t2, so for ANY such system, there is a time after which the output energy exceeds the input energy.

This derivation applies to not only the alleged Mach Effect Thruster (MET), but any system with constant thrust and constant input power.  Next he makes the first elementary mistake.  He claims that because other systems with constant thrust and constant input power besides the MET also follow Newtonian physics and everybody knows that they observe the conservation of energy, therefore there must be some mistake in this calculation and really, the MET also follows conservation of energy, despite the glaring error demonstrated in the above equations.

After discussing with a dismissive tone how this is all elementary and basic physics, he goes on to state vaguely that the mistake "likely" is in the definition of "velocity."

Actually, the mistake is in the original conjecture.  There are NO closed Newtonian systems that have constant acceleration and constant input power.  They would all violate conservation of energy.

If there is constant acceleration (consider an ideal weight hanging from a pulley accelerating another mass across a frictionless table), then the input power will scale linearly with time (the falling weight increases in speed as it falls).

Likewise, consider the Newtonian system of the car you drive to work.  If you accelerate at a constant rate, the engine consumes more gasoline to go from 50 mph to 60mph than it did to go from 0 mph to 10 mph, even though the delta-V is the same.

Alternatively, if you have a system with constant power input, then the acceleration drops off over time.  For example, a model RC electric car with a small battery will accelerate very fast from an initial stop, but then quickly slow its acceleration after a few seconds.  This is without regard to any friction losses.

To summarize, in a Newtonian world, there are NO physical closed systems with a constant acceleration and a constant input power and so his argument that dragons must exist because they are no more illogical than unicorns is badly flawed.  A closed system can either have constant acceleration, or constant input power, but not both without violating conservation of energy.  (An open system also follows conservation of energy, but you also have to take into account what is being added or removed from the system.)

Then Woodward attempts to work around the issue by arbitrarily limiting the amount of time that the system can run:

We know that, starting from t = 0, if we let the integration interval t get very large, the work equation integral will first equal and then exceed the energy calculated by the figure of merit equation.  So we require that t be sufficiently small that this obvious violation of energy conservation does not happen. 

You can't work around this problem by arbitrarily limiting the time that the system runs.  What happens when that much time actually passes?  The problem is with the initial conjecture, not with the physics equations and it is an elementary error.

This is a forum for professionals and serious space flight enthusiasts.  Participants regularly calculate bi-elliptic and Hohmann orbital transfers and that math is just Newtonian physics but it's a lot harder than this!

Nobody who has passed a Newtonian mechanics college course could read that paper without wincing at the naive physics.  I hope that Professor Woodward gets some peer review from somebody knowledgeable and straightens out his misconceptions, because otherwise he will have considerable difficulty getting credibility from any physicist who reads that paper, whether or not the Mach Effect Thruster generates thrust.

Before I say anything else. Thanks for putting much more effort into the critique.

That said I am not sure we are reading the same paper. Because I do not see anywhere in the paper where woodward says anything to the effect of the "first elementary mistake" you pointed to.

I re read the monograph this morning and my interpretation is that Woodwards argument is an attempt of proof by definition.

paraphrasing....
Given all newtonian systems obey conservation of energy, and the figure of merit equation describes a newtonion system.  the equation derived from the stated Figure of Merit equation cannot be valid for all values of t. Otherwise a newtonian system would violate conservation of energy.

Now towards the end he seems to arbitrarily limit final t in the integral and my suspicion is he believes that the limit on t isn't arbitrary because of the boundaries placed on t from the definition of a newtonian system.

Now I dont know if I completely agree with the argument made in the monograph because upon second reading the first question that jumped out at me after seeing the last critique you made is that I dont see where he proved that a MET is a newtonian device (granted he is probably depending on the work Fearn and Watsner did to show that HN Theory of Gravitation is a super set of GR).

P.S. please be aware my physics neurons are severely rusted and  my interpretations and word choice may be very poor.

Offline gargoyle99

  • Member
  • Posts: 28
  • USA
  • Liked: 75
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #568 on: 11/18/2015 06:05 PM »
Woodward Lab update at http://www.ssi.org includes a monograph on "over-unity" controversy as it relates to propellantless propulsion.

That paper: http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf, shows an embarrassing lack of understanding of classical Newtonian physics.

So Woodward takes the time and effort to put together a complete write up arguing against COE violations math included and the the best criticism you have to offer is personal ad hominem attacks, with vague points thrown in? I mean either give a well reasoned critique of what is said in the monograph or don't bother saying anything at all.

In between the ad hominem and personal attacks, I pointed out what was wrong with the physics.  But, if that was not sufficiently clear, I can go into more detail.

(Also, I see that at the beginning of this thread, other people have brought up the correct physics and provided references, but I can review.)

Professor Woodward considers a Newtonian system with constant thrust F and constant input power P.

Total Input Energy = P t
Total Output Energy = Kinetic Energy = 1/2 mv2 = 1/2 ma2t2

So far, Woodward's derivation is correct.  Here he points out, correctly, that this system appears to violate conservation of energy, because input energy scales with time t and output energy scales with t2, so for ANY such system, there is a time after which the output energy exceeds the input energy.

This derivation applies to not only the alleged Mach Effect Thruster (MET), but any system with constant thrust and constant input power.  Next he makes the first elementary mistake.  He claims that because other systems with constant thrust and constant input power besides the MET also follow Newtonian physics and everybody knows that they observe the conservation of energy, therefore there must be some mistake in this calculation and really, the MET also follows conservation of energy, despite the glaring error demonstrated in the above equations.

After discussing with a dismissive tone how this is all elementary and basic physics, he goes on to state vaguely that the mistake "likely" is in the definition of "velocity."

Actually, the mistake is in the original conjecture.  There are NO closed Newtonian systems that have constant acceleration and constant input power.  They would all violate conservation of energy.

If there is constant acceleration (consider an ideal weight hanging from a pulley accelerating another mass across a frictionless table), then the input power will scale linearly with time (the falling weight increases in speed as it falls).

Likewise, consider the Newtonian system of the car you drive to work.  If you accelerate at a constant rate, the engine consumes more gasoline to go from 50 mph to 60mph than it did to go from 0 mph to 10 mph, even though the delta-V is the same.

Alternatively, if you have a system with constant power input, then the acceleration drops off over time.  For example, a model RC electric car with a small battery will accelerate very fast from an initial stop, but then quickly slow its acceleration after a few seconds.  This is without regard to any friction losses.

To summarize, in a Newtonian world, there are NO physical closed systems with a constant acceleration and a constant input power and so his argument that dragons must exist because they are no more illogical than unicorns is badly flawed.  A closed system can either have constant acceleration, or constant input power, but not both without violating conservation of energy.  (An open system also follows conservation of energy, but you also have to take into account what is being added or removed from the system.)

Then Woodward attempts to work around the issue by arbitrarily limiting the amount of time that the system can run:

We know that, starting from t = 0, if we let the integration interval t get very large, the work equation integral will first equal and then exceed the energy calculated by the figure of merit equation.  So we require that t be sufficiently small that this obvious violation of energy conservation does not happen. 

You can't work around this problem by arbitrarily limiting the time that the system runs.  What happens when that much time actually passes?  The problem is with the initial conjecture, not with the physics equations and it is an elementary error.

This is a forum for professionals and serious space flight enthusiasts.  Participants regularly calculate bi-elliptic and Hohmann orbital transfers and that math is just Newtonian physics but it's a lot harder than this!

Nobody who has passed a Newtonian mechanics college course could read that paper without wincing at the naive physics.  I hope that Professor Woodward gets some peer review from somebody knowledgeable and straightens out his misconceptions, because otherwise he will have considerable difficulty getting credibility from any physicist who reads that paper, whether or not the Mach Effect Thruster generates thrust.

Before I say anything else. Thanks for putting much more effort into the critique.

That said I am not sure we are reading the same paper. Because I do not see anywhere in the paper where woodward says anything to the effect of the "first elementary mistake" you pointed to.

I re read the monograph this morning and my interpretation is that Woodwards argument is an attempt of proof by definition.

paraphrasing....
Given all newtonian systems obey conservation of energy, and the figure of merit equation describes a newtonion system.  the equation derived from the stated Figure of Merit equation cannot be valid for all values of t. Otherwise a newtonian system would violate conservation of energy.

Now towards the end he seems to arbitrarily limit final t in the integral and my suspicion is he believes that the limit on t isn't arbitrary because of the boundaries placed on t from the definition of a newtonian system.

Now I dont know if I completely agree with the argument made in the monograph because upon second reading the first question that jumped out at me after seeing the last critique you made is that I dont see where he proved that a MET is a newtonian device (granted he is probably depending on the work Fearn and Watsner did to show that HN Theory of Gravitation is a super set of GR).

P.S. please be aware my physics neurons are severely rusted and  my interpretations and word choice may be very poor.

paraphrasing....
Given all newtonian systems obey conservation of energy, and the figure of merit equation describes a newtonion system.  the equation derived from the stated Figure of Merit equation cannot be valid for all values of t. Otherwise a newtonian system would violate conservation of energy.


That is an excellent paraphrase.  One of the given axioms is not correct and that leads to the contradiction.  The problem is that the figure of merit equation as he used it does NOT describe a Newtonian system, because the force of merit equation describes the measured force per input power ONLY at a specific point in time and he is assuming that the force will be invariant over all time for a constant input energy.  Such a system will not be Newtonian, as demonstrated above.

Of course, the hope of the MET is that it might accelerate a spacecraft for long journeys.  That's why understanding and resolving the conservation of energy question is important.  Is conservation of energy violated?  Otherwise, how does the force change over time and what mechanism, if any, does the system use to interact with the external Universe?  The Mach conjecture is very interesting to me and I, admittedly, don't understand all the ways it could affect General Relativity theory.  However, the math for GR is so much more sophisticated that I will be very skeptical of anyone's GR interpretation if they don't demonstrate knowledge of the simpler (though not trivial!) conservation of energy in a strictly Newtonian system.  As a space enthusiast, I strongly support research into exotic space propulsion systems, but I think you should understand Newtonian physics if you're going to show how you can bypass it.

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 273
  • United States
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #569 on: 11/18/2015 08:49 PM »
...

paraphrasing....
Given all newtonian systems obey conservation of energy, and the figure of merit equation describes a newtonion system.  the equation derived from the stated Figure of Merit equation cannot be valid for all values of t. Otherwise a newtonian system would violate conservation of energy.


That is an excellent paraphrase.  One of the given axioms is not correct and that leads to the contradiction.  The problem is that the figure of merit equation as he used it does NOT describe a Newtonian system, because the force of merit equation describes the measured force per input power ONLY at a specific point in time and he is assuming that the force will be invariant over all time for a constant input energy.  Such a system will not be Newtonian, as demonstrated above.

Of course, the hope of the MET is that it might accelerate a spacecraft for long journeys.  That's why understanding and resolving the conservation of energy question is important.  Is conservation of energy violated?  Otherwise, how does the force change over time and what mechanism, if any, does the system use to interact with the external Universe?  The Mach conjecture is very interesting to me and I, admittedly, don't understand all the ways it could affect General Relativity theory.  However, the math for GR is so much more sophisticated that I will be very skeptical of anyone's GR interpretation if they don't demonstrate knowledge of the simpler (though not trivial!) conservation of energy in a strictly Newtonian system.  As a space enthusiast, I strongly support research into exotic space propulsion systems, but I think you should understand Newtonian physics if you're going to show how you can bypass it.

So unless I am missing something I think I see what I believe to be the misunderstanding here. From your critique I think its fair to say that you agree with everything Woodward said in the monograph up to page 3 not including the two paragraph just before eqn 10.

If that is the case then I think the misunderstanding is what is being said in those two paragraph just before eqn 10.

Quote from: Mach Effect Thrusters (Mets) And “Over-Unity” Energy Production(http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf)
...

So far this is all just elementary mechanics. We have not yet done anything stupid or wrong (or both). As long as we don’t mess with the math, we’re OK (and energy conservation is not violated). How then do some argue that in this simple system – and METs in particular – energy conservation is violated?

Simple. By [Some, where some are the critics arguing that MET's violate COE because it provides constant thrust for constant power] doing something stupid and wrong. In particular, by [the over unity critics] taking the “figure of merit” of a thrust (force) generator – by definition, the number of Newtons of thrust produced per watt of input power to the thrust generator – and treating it as a dynamical equation that can be used to calculate the energy input to a motor that acts for some length of time; that is:

Fm = F / P  (10)

where Fm is the figure of merit and P the input power to the motor that produces the thrust F.

...

As I understand it. Woodward isn't the one claiming that the Figue of merit equation represents a newtonian system. He is claiming that the critics arguing that constant thrust for constant power propulsion devices are over unity devices are the ones incorrectly treating the Figure of merit equation as if it represents a newtonian system. But instead of simply stating that is the problem. He takes the reader through the problem with the incorrect assumption starting with eqn 10 all the way through to eqn 15 finally concluding the following:

Quote from: Mach Effect Thrusters (Mets) And “Over-Unity” Energy Production(http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf)
...

t = (Fma / 2)t2   (15)

which is obviously wrong. For some values of t, the coefficient of t2 on the right hand side of Equation (15) (a constant by the way) may make this equation valid. [That is, it can be treated as a simple quadratic equation and solved by the usual techniques.] As a continuous evolution equation, however, it is nonsense. But this is the mathematics of those who make the “over unity” energy conservation violation argument about the operation of METs. The real question here is how could anyone, having done this calculation or its equivalent, think that they had made a profound discovery about anything? [Or METs in particular?] After all, it is universally known that energy conservation is not violated in classical mechanics.

...

As a result

paraphrasing....

Given all Newtonian systems obey conservation of energy, and the figure of merit equation describes a Newtonian system.  the equation derived from the stated Figure of Merit equation cannot be valid for all values of t. Otherwise a Newtonian system would violate conservation of energy.

should have been

Given all Newtonian systems obey conservation of energy and the figure of merit equation does not describe a Newtonian system; since equation (15), which was derived from the figure of merit equation, cannot be valid for all values of t. Then the assertion that constant thrust for constant power results in over unity for a MET cannot be valid. Since an MET is a valid Newtonian device.
« Last Edit: 11/18/2015 09:11 PM by birchoff »

Offline gargoyle99

  • Member
  • Posts: 28
  • USA
  • Liked: 75
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #570 on: 11/18/2015 09:54 PM »

As I understand it. Woodward isn't the one claiming that the Figue of merit equation represents a newtonian system. He is claiming that the critics arguing that constant thrust for constant power propulsion devices are over unity devices are the ones incorrectly treating the Figure of merit equation as if it represents a newtonian system. But instead of simply stating that is the problem. He takes the reader through the problem with the incorrect assumption starting with eqn 10 all the way through to eqn 15 finally concluding the following:

Quote from: Mach Effect Thrusters (Mets) And “Over-Unity” Energy Production(http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf)
...

t = (Fma / 2)t2   (15)

which is obviously wrong. For some values of t, the coefficient of t2 on the right hand side of Equation (15) (a constant by the way) may make this equation valid. [That is, it can be treated as a simple quadratic equation and solved by the usual techniques.] As a continuous evolution equation, however, it is nonsense. But this is the mathematics of those who make the “over unity” energy conservation violation argument about the operation of METs. The real question here is how could anyone, having done this calculation or its equivalent, think that they had made a profound discovery about anything? [Or METs in particular?] After all, it is universally known that energy conservation is not violated in classical mechanics.

...

As a result

paraphrasing....

Given all Newtonian systems obey conservation of energy, and the figure of merit equation describes a Newtonian system.  the equation derived from the stated Figure of Merit equation cannot be valid for all values of t. Otherwise a Newtonian system would violate conservation of energy.

should have been

Given all Newtonian systems obey conservation of energy and the figure of merit equation does not describe a Newtonian system; since equation (15), which was derived from the figure of merit equation, cannot be valid for all values of t. Then the assertion that constant thrust for constant power results in over unity for a MET cannot be valid. Since an MET is a valid Newtonian device.

Umm.  That still isn't quite right.  You've changed the logic to be circular.  Rather, MET (or any other device) is not a valid Newtonian device if it claims to have constant force for constant power (i.e. obeys the figure of merit equation over time), because that is what leads to the violation of CoE.

Are you suggesting the Professor Woodward is claiming that the MET force is not a constant for a given input power?  If so, he should state that explicitly, because that could solve the question immediately.  I haven't seen that, but maybe I missed it somewhere.  Also, as I read Professor Woodward's final derived equations, they contain no terms that are non-local and they have terms for constant power and constant acceleration and appear to be time-invariant.  That certainly implies that a figure of merit equation DOES apply to the MET.  If the author thinks that it does not, I suggest he state so clearly as well as explain how it doesn't. 

I just came across this in one of his early papers:

http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/nasa-pap/

The appearance of momentum conservation violation in our impulse engine doesn't mean that momentum isn't conserved. It means that we can't treat the impulse engine as an isolated system. Since the effect responsible for the apparent violation of the conservation principle is inertial/gravitational, this should come as no surprise at all. As Mach's principle makes plain, anytime a process involves gravity/inertia, the only meaningful isolated system is the entire universe. Since inertial reaction forces appear instantaneous [see Woodward, 1996a and Cramer, 1997 in this connection], evidently our impulse engine is engaging in some "non-local" momentum transfer with the distant matter in the universe. With suitable choice of gauge, this momentum transfer can be envisaged as transpiring via retarded and advanced disturbances in the gravitational field that propagate with speed c.


As previously noted, having a non-isolated system is another way to get out of the conservation of energy conundrum.  If that's the ace he wants to play, he should make that clear right away, because the example he chose in the paper we are discussing was an isolated system.  (Also, it's not at all clear to me how the MET would be interacting with external gravitational fields/waves to maintain conservation of energy, but I'm willing to listen to ideas.)

Even more helpful would be a description of what the time dependent force on the MET should be according to his theory.  If it isn't constant acceleration for constant power, then WHAT IS IT?

Most helpful of all, would be to demonstrate an MET accelerating for a significant period of time in an environment free of other experimental errors and measure what it does, although I am aware of the experimental challenges in measuring such low levels of thrust over time.

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 273
  • United States
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #571 on: 11/18/2015 11:55 PM »

As I understand it. Woodward isn't the one claiming that the Figue of merit equation represents a newtonian system. He is claiming that the critics arguing that constant thrust for constant power propulsion devices are over unity devices are the ones incorrectly treating the Figure of merit equation as if it represents a newtonian system. But instead of simply stating that is the problem. He takes the reader through the problem with the incorrect assumption starting with eqn 10 all the way through to eqn 15 finally concluding the following:

Quote from: Mach Effect Thrusters (Mets) And “Over-Unity” Energy Production(http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf)
...

t = (Fma / 2)t2   (15)

which is obviously wrong. For some values of t, the coefficient of t2 on the right hand side of Equation (15) (a constant by the way) may make this equation valid. [That is, it can be treated as a simple quadratic equation and solved by the usual techniques.] As a continuous evolution equation, however, it is nonsense. But this is the mathematics of those who make the “over unity” energy conservation violation argument about the operation of METs. The real question here is how could anyone, having done this calculation or its equivalent, think that they had made a profound discovery about anything? [Or METs in particular?] After all, it is universally known that energy conservation is not violated in classical mechanics.

...

As a result

paraphrasing....

Given all Newtonian systems obey conservation of energy, and the figure of merit equation describes a Newtonian system.  the equation derived from the stated Figure of Merit equation cannot be valid for all values of t. Otherwise a Newtonian system would violate conservation of energy.

should have been

Given all Newtonian systems obey conservation of energy and the figure of merit equation does not describe a Newtonian system; since equation (15), which was derived from the figure of merit equation, cannot be valid for all values of t. Then the assertion that constant thrust for constant power results in over unity for a MET cannot be valid. Since an MET is a valid Newtonian device.

Umm.  That still isn't quite right.  You've changed the logic to be circular.  Rather, MET (or any other device) is not a valid Newtonian device if it claims to have constant force for constant power (i.e. obeys the figure of merit equation over time), because that is what leads to the violation of CoE.

Are you suggesting the Professor Woodward is claiming that the MET force is not a constant for a given input power?  If so, he should state that explicitly, because that could solve the question immediately.  I haven't seen that, but maybe I missed it somewhere.  Also, as I read Professor Woodward's final derived equations, they contain no terms that are non-local and they have terms for constant power and constant acceleration and appear to be time-invariant.  That certainly implies that a figure of merit equation DOES apply to the MET.  If the author thinks that it does not, I suggest he state so clearly as well as explain how it doesn't. 

I just came across this in one of his early papers:

http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/nasa-pap/

The appearance of momentum conservation violation in our impulse engine doesn't mean that momentum isn't conserved. It means that we can't treat the impulse engine as an isolated system. Since the effect responsible for the apparent violation of the conservation principle is inertial/gravitational, this should come as no surprise at all. As Mach's principle makes plain, anytime a process involves gravity/inertia, the only meaningful isolated system is the entire universe. Since inertial reaction forces appear instantaneous [see Woodward, 1996a and Cramer, 1997 in this connection], evidently our impulse engine is engaging in some "non-local" momentum transfer with the distant matter in the universe. With suitable choice of gauge, this momentum transfer can be envisaged as transpiring via retarded and advanced disturbances in the gravitational field that propagate with speed c.


As previously noted, having a non-isolated system is another way to get out of the conservation of energy conundrum.  If that's the ace he wants to play, he should make that clear right away, because the example he chose in the paper we are discussing was an isolated system.  (Also, it's not at all clear to me how the MET would be interacting with external gravitational fields/waves to maintain conservation of energy, but I'm willing to listen to ideas.)

Even more helpful would be a description of what the time dependent force on the MET should be according to his theory.  If it isn't constant acceleration for constant power, then WHAT IS IT?

Most helpful of all, would be to demonstrate an MET accelerating for a significant period of time in an environment free of other experimental errors and measure what it does, although I am aware of the experimental challenges in measuring such low levels of thrust over time.

First off, just another space fan who would love nothing other than to see humanity gain the ability to build a working space drive. I am not the author, and what I have stated so far is merely my interpretation of the monograph nothing more.

I do agree though that the paraphrased interpretation appears circular but that is the interpretation I am left with after reading the monograph a couple of times now. No where in the monograph does Woodward show why a MET should be considered to be Newtonian. I get the distinct impression that the goal of the monograph was more to show that Over Unity cannot happen to newtonian systems and less  to show that a MET is not overunity. If that is the case that the monograph didn't need to be written since the statement that a Newtonian system cannot be over unity is always true and doesn't require 5.25 pages to justify.

Having followed Woodward's work for a few years now. I agree with your interpretation that the physical MET itself plus power system is not a closed system. The MET is extracting additional energy from the inertial/gravitational field through out the whole universe. At least that is the claim being made by Woodward via his published papers.

As for your other questions the best I could do is refer you to the work that has been published so far. I think Theory of Mach Effect Thruster I & II are a good starting point for references. In addition I believe with those two papers they have completed the work to show how Hoyle & Narlikar's Theory of Gravitation is a valid Theory of Gravitation that can be used to derive General Relativity. The importance of that work being that General Relativity does not have a core part of what is needed to explain Mach Effects, the ability for mass here to instantly communicate with the mass out their when it under goes acceleration. Since this instantaneous communication is needed to prove that inertia is caused by gravity.

Online Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1309
  • Liked: 231
  • Likes Given: 86
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #572 on: 11/19/2015 02:24 AM »
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline Admiral_Ritt

  • Member
  • Posts: 26
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #573 on: 11/20/2015 07:59 PM »
Regarding the article on quantum  - gravity connection, and entanglement.

    The Mach Effect, central postulate relies on transactional interpretation of QM, from past and future as the source of inertia.

With wormholes  in providing the scaffolding for the space-time  it seems to me that the very definition of past present and future becomes illusory.    How would this affect Machian inertial postulate?   
For example consider a molecule of Methanol.  If we try to apply motion to it, where is the inertia that resists(albeit tiny) such motion coming from?  It might be coming from all the other states the molecule/elementary particles have been in and will be, simultaneously, and instead of relying on advance or retarded waves the effect is a structural facet of space-time.
 

Online Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1309
  • Liked: 231
  • Likes Given: 86
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #574 on: 11/20/2015 09:15 PM »
Woodward, E.T. Al; currently use the advanced/retarded wave mechanism to model how information appears to be FTL without violating the restrictions of FTL. The above article may suggest either an alternative mechanism or a elaboration on how that part would be possible? Anyway that is why I posted it as possibly topical.
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1379
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 272
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #575 on: 11/20/2015 10:03 PM »
this may be topical:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/11/theory-and-experiments-suggest-space.html

I raised this very issue with Professors Woodward and Fearn yesterday, after reading this part:

"A successful unification of quantum mechanics and gravity has eluded physicists for nearly a century. Quantum mechanics governs the world of the small — the weird realm in which an atom or particle can be in many places at the same time, and can simultaneously spin both clockwise and anticlockwise. Gravity governs the Universe at large — from the fall of an apple to the motion of planets, stars and galaxies — and is described by Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity, announced 100 years ago this month. The theory holds that gravity is geometry: particles are deflected when they pass near a massive object not because they feel a force, said Einstein, but because space and time around the object are curved.

Both theories have been abundantly verified through experiment, yet the realities they describe seem utterly incompatible. And from the editors’ standpoint, Van Raamsdonk’s approach to resolving this incompatibility was  strange. All that’s needed, he asserted, is ‘entanglement’: the phenomenon that many physicists believe to be the ultimate in quantum weirdness. Entanglement lets the measurement of one particle instantaneously determine the state of a partner particle, no matter how far away it may be — even on the other side of the Milky Way. [emphasis mine]"


There is certainly interest on our part in determining if there is a connection, but as Jim Woodward told me this morning, the trick is in how to craft an experiment that proves the connection.  That will take some serious thought.

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #576 on: 11/21/2015 01:38 AM »
HMXHMX : has you forwarded Gargoyle's criticism to Woodward, particularly post #570?

Online Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1309
  • Liked: 231
  • Likes Given: 86
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #577 on: 11/21/2015 01:38 AM »
in other gravity inertia news that SLAC fellow who connected Gravity to the strong force via unitarity in N=8 Super Gravity (for which he andZvi Levi and others share the Sakurai Prize for Theoretical Physics) is talking more about Gravity and inertia again:  http://phys.org/news/2015-11-slac-theorist-quantum-gravity.html

and in other gravity news:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/11/theory-and-experiments-suggest-space.html

Space iz made of woimholes! :)

When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 616
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 249
  • Likes Given: 267
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #578 on: 11/21/2015 01:45 AM »
this may be topical:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/11/theory-and-experiments-suggest-space.html

I would speculate from time to time that gravity was the flow of a fluid dragging us.  When he illustrated that two spaces where you get quantum de-coherence (that the space separates like pulled bubblegum) it immediately made me think of the fluid analogy.  Basically gravity induces a time gradient so that clocks closer to the earth move slower than ones higher.  This difference in the passage of time will de-cohere quantum states if I remember correctly.  I remember reading it some where but can't remember but this article supports it I think: http://physics.aps.org/articles/v6/78?goback=.gde_1892648_member_261507786

You can imagine space as being pulled apart by gravity like bubblegum or like a flowing fluid being stretched into the earth as it de-coheres?  There is also the pilot wave theory which goes way back,

"The idea that pilot waves might explain the peculiarities of particles dates back to the early days of quantum mechanics. The French physicist Louis de Broglie presented the earliest version of pilot-wave theory at the 1927" link: http://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-new-quantum-reality/

it envisions the wave as a fluid and a bouncing droplet. 

One problem is this implies a time gradient to de-cohere the space to induce gravity but it is a time gradient that is induced by gravity.  I guess it appears more correct to suggest that it is entropy that induces this. 
« Last Edit: 11/21/2015 01:53 AM by dustinthewind »

Online Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1309
  • Liked: 231
  • Likes Given: 86
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #579 on: 11/21/2015 01:52 AM »
Wild random thought: the reason the universe is expanding is that there is a region beyond the observable universe with a lower vacuum state than that inside the universe. The universe is like a balloon or bubble expanding as it ascends up into the atmosphere as the gas pressure inside overcomes the outside gas pressure.
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.