Author Topic: Woodward's effect  (Read 285929 times)

Offline Paul451

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1289
  • Australia
  • Liked: 631
  • Likes Given: 535
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #600 on: 12/25/2015 12:09 PM »
Now lets assume we are dealing with a Rocket with a near inexhaustible supply of fuel and oxidizer.

I'm always puzzled how people can write things like this without alarm bells going off in their heads.

You want to show that mundane systems are equivalent to reactionless thrusters, but in order to do so, you have to add some magical effect (like unlimited fuel).

Yes, if you can somehow magically insert new propellant in the tanks, without having to pay for it by carrying it with you or collecting it from an outside medium, then a simple rocket becomes a CoE-violating free-energy machine.

But it's not the rocket violating CoE, it's the mechanism that teleports propellent into the tanks.

Otherwise, if you are throwing mass away, then you are throwing Ek away. Imagine a "perfect" rocket, where propellant is 100% of the mass of the rocket (eg, a solid fuel rocket where the nozzle/case/etc is somehow made of fuel.) When it finishes burning, there's nothing left, mass is zero, therefore Ek is zero; all the energy you've accumulated by acceleration has been thrown out the back. You started with V=0, hence Ek=0, and you end with M=0, hence Ek=0.

Your Ek during the acceleration is therefore more like a bell curve over time, the area under the curve is the total energy gained. And in no actual rocket (even a "perfect" one) can that total Ek exceed the total energy content stored in the fuel. Unless you allow magic. Such as allowing extra or even unlimited fuel without having to "pay" for it by accelerating it up to the velocity of the rocket.

[...] Because if MET's cannot provide constant acceleration for constant input power. Wouldn't the simple answer to the critique be to say they can't.

You can't just say it. The MET has no inherent mechanism for altering the force/power ratio. Unlike any conventional system.

It has no internal limit (it isn't throwing away mass like a rocket), and it isn't "aware" of its relative velocity (it isn't interacting with an external road/air/magnetic field/laser/etc) only its acceleration.

Proposed mechanisms to limit reactionless thrusters to less than "unity" require them to somehow be aware of their velocity. But relative to what? The skeptics' overunity argument doesn't have a preferred frame of reference (as long as the measuring frame is non-accelerating and consistent.) So defenders/advocates propose some kind of pseudo-absolute frame of reference, such as your "inertial field", or average momentum of the deep universe or some other universal background effect.

But proposed "absolute" frames don't solve the overunity problem for any device that has allegedly worked on Earth (or can be tested here or in orbit) because the velocity required for overunity in any device we can measure in a lab is generally less than Earth's orbital velocity, certainly less than the sun's orbital velocity around the Milky Way. For example, any device exceeding 5mN/kW (5uN/W), reaches unity at 200km/s. Any device that produces more than 30mN of force per kW reaches unity at 30km/s.

The magic unity-countering background field should have already stopped the devices from working.

I am forced to ask the question how would any mechanical system absent friction or gravitational interaction know that it isnt supposed to go any faster.

No conventional system (except a photon drive) has constant force/power. Therefore overunity cannot arise. There is no critical velocity that it needs to avoid, the limit is inherent in being a reaction engine.

That's what makes reactionless thrusters fundamentally different, they lack that limit.

(In a photon drive, the minimum velocity for unity is the speed of light. And thrust is below 3.3 newtons per gigawatt.)

Offline flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • France
  • Liked: 679
  • Likes Given: 927
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #601 on: 12/25/2015 12:20 PM »
Now lets assume we are dealing with a Rocket with a near inexhaustible supply of fuel and oxidizer.
Yes, if you can somehow magically insert new propellant in the tanks, without having to pay for it by carrying it with you or collecting it from an outside medium, then a simple rocket becomes a CoE-violating free-energy machine.

Paul451, can you please precise your thought because according to your sentence you are implying that a little rocket model on the edge of a spinning wheel, with a tube feeding propellant from the outside (connected at the wheel axis and going through a radius hollow arm to the rocket mode) does become a CoE-violating free-energy machine. In this example the propellant is not limited and stored inside the rocket, it is "unlimited" (well, stored within a huge tank) outside of the system.

Offline Paul451

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1289
  • Australia
  • Liked: 631
  • Likes Given: 535
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #602 on: 12/25/2015 03:25 PM »
Now lets assume we are dealing with a Rocket with a near inexhaustible supply of fuel and oxidizer.
Yes, if you can somehow magically insert new propellant in the tanks, without having to pay for it by carrying it with you or collecting it from an outside medium, then a simple rocket becomes a CoE-violating free-energy machine.
Paul451, can you please precise your thought because according to your sentence you are implying that a little rocket model on the edge of a spinning wheel, with a tube feeding propellant from the outside (connected at the wheel axis and going through a radius hollow arm to the rocket mode) does become a CoE-violating free-energy machine. In this example the propellant is not limited and stored inside the rocket, it is "unlimited" (well, stored within a huge tank) outside of the system.

Didn't you bring this idea up on the EMDrive thread? If that was you, I've already answered it.

[ edit: it was you, on this thread. Did you even read the replies? ]

Basically you're ignoring the momentum of the fuel.

The fuel starts at the centre of the wheel/arm/whatever where it has no rotational velocity, therefore no angular momentum.

As it moves down the tube/arm to the rocket, increasing its distance from the hub, it must gain angular momentum until its velocity matches the rocket on the edge of the wheel/arm/whatever.

This increase in angular momentum must come from something else. Since the easiest way to move the fuel is to allow centripetal force to draw the fuel outwards, the wheel loses the same amount of angular momentum.

Although the fuel is unlimited, your setup means that the efficiency of the rocket is now velocity sensitive. The energy lost by accelerating the fuel up to the rocket's velocity is proportional to the rocket's velocity. Therefore the rocket still does not have a constant force/power ratio necessary for overunity.

The same is true of any system that is powered externally, or pushes against an external medium (road/water/air/magnetic fields/etc.)
« Last Edit: 12/25/2015 03:28 PM by Paul451 »

Offline flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • France
  • Liked: 679
  • Likes Given: 927
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #603 on: 12/25/2015 03:34 PM »
Yes, I already pointed that out (actually, not my idea but Woodward's). To explain my thought this second time I wonder if this would be the same if the required energy used to accelerate the propellant was not due to the wheel rotation but say, from a pump in the external tank (water being pumped in the wheel from a pump outside so the energy (pressure) pushing the water is way beyond the centripetal acceleration of the water due to the rotation of the wheel). Thanks for clarifying BTW, I really appreciate your explanation.

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 272
  • United States
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #604 on: 12/25/2015 04:46 PM »
Now lets assume we are dealing with a Rocket with a near inexhaustible supply of fuel and oxidizer.

I'm always puzzled how people can write things like this without alarm bells going off in their heads.
...



No alarm bells go off because building such a rocket isnt impossible. Which is why I also included in the example fusion rockets and antimatter rockets. I guess it depends on how you envision a "near inexhaustible supply of fuel and oxidizer" for my purposes I was just thinking about a chemical rocket that could burn from cape canaveral to at least moon orbit. Just couldnt find a better way to say it. Though changing the example from a chemical rocket to an ion rocket burning from GEO to Mars GEO would probably serve the same purpose.

That purpose being. That while the rocket is not at terminal velocity it will continue to accelerate. That said I do agree that conventional systems do have an inherent limit and I admitted exactly that in my post so not sure why you think there is magical thinking going on in my response to you.


...
I am forced to ask the question how would any mechanical system absent friction or gravitational interaction know that it isnt supposed to go any faster.

No conventional system (except a photon drive) has constant force/power. Therefore overunity cannot arise. There is no critical velocity that it needs to avoid, the limit is inherent in being a reaction engine.

That's what makes reactionless thrusters fundamentally different, they lack that limit.

(In a photon drive, the minimum velocity for unity is the speed of light. And thrust is below 3.3 newtons per gigawatt.)

Maybe this is a definition thing. But from my perspective I think it is completely legitimate to say something experiences constant acceleration for constant input as long as you define how long that situation exists for and explain why the system transitions from that regime to terminal velocity regime. I mostly dont have a problem with the statement that "No conventional system (except a photon drive) has constant force/power". However for the sake of being absolutely clear It makes more sense to me in a forum setting to explain the assumptions.

...
[...] Because if MET's cannot provide constant acceleration for constant input power. Wouldn't the simple answer to the critique be to say they can't.

You can't just say it. The MET has no inherent mechanism for altering the force/power ratio. Unlike any conventional system.

It has no internal limit (it isn't throwing away mass like a rocket), and it isn't "aware" of its relative velocity (it isn't interacting with an external road/air/magnetic field/laser/etc) only its acceleration.

Proposed mechanisms to limit reactionless thrusters to less than "unity" require them to somehow be aware of their velocity. But relative to what? The skeptics' overunity argument doesn't have a preferred frame of reference (as long as the measuring frame is non-accelerating and consistent.) So defenders/advocates propose some kind of pseudo-absolute frame of reference, such as your "inertial field", or average momentum of the deep universe or some other universal background effect.

But proposed "absolute" frames don't solve the overunity problem for any device that has allegedly worked on Earth (or can be tested here or in orbit) because the velocity required for overunity in any device we can measure in a lab is generally less than Earth's orbital velocity, certainly less than the sun's orbital velocity around the Milky Way. For example, any device exceeding 5mN/kW (5uN/W), reaches unity at 200km/s. Any device that produces more than 30mN of force per kW reaches unity at 30km/s.

The magic unity-countering background field should have already stopped the devices from working.
...
That said, I think I can get to the what I think is the primary point of your current argument. The examples I used in the proposed thought experiment are all examples of reaction mass based propulsion devices. Which are inherently limited to a terminal velocity based on the maximum energy of the reaction mass.

In the case of a chemical rocket it is the energy released when fuel and oxidizer is combined.

In the case of a ion rocket it is the energy imparted to the ions by an electric field generated in the engine.

In the case of a fusion rocket it is the energy released when atoms are fused.

In the case of an antimatter rocket it is the energy released with matter + anti matter is combined.

Now given the point your trying to make. I feel the best question to ask next...

Is a Mach Effect Thruster a Reaction-less propulsion device?

Personally I think in the strictest sense of the term "Reaction-less" the answer would have to be no. Though I can see why anyone taking a casual look at Woodward's device might think it is. There is no glaringly obvious ejected propellant stream and as far as the casual on looker is concerned physics has proved so far that none of the fields we know about are useful enough to do what Woodward is arguing for. But that is where the critique falls flat. Just because the reaction that is occurring is not obvious to you at this point in time doesn't mean that the device has to be reaction less. From reading most of the published papers Woodward\Fearn\Watsner have released the one thing that is glaringly obvious is that they do believe that their exists a field responsible for all the gravity and inertia that we experience, they some time refer to it as a Grav-Inertial Field. And it is this field that their device interacts with. So the answer to your critique is as I said in my previous comment.


...

Bringing this back to the essay. From my perspective after re-reading the essay and thinking about the proposed thought experiment. I think Woodward believes that MET's undergo constant acceleration for constant input. However, he doesn't believe that the constant acceleration occurs for as long as the MET is turned on. which is why I believe the argument he makes towards the end of the paper should really be read "there is a value for t beyond which you will no longer be accelerating". Because there is a limiting factor which will prevent it. Which is why I think the essay is more of a proof that there must be some limiting factor. Instead of an answer to the really interesting question, WHAT is that limiting factor.

<Random Speculation>
Personally I think the limiting factor is inertia, or more specifically the force inertia applies to a physical object. Now while there is no accepted theory on what the hell inertia is. We do know that it acts on a physical object to resist any change in its state of motion. To do this it must at all times be applying a force to the physical object or at the least apply that force when the object attempts to change is state of motion. Now a MET works by applying a voltage to a device to cause its Inertial Mass to oscillate from heavier to lighter. While at the same time applying a force to that same object in just the right way, so that it is pushed on in one direction when it is lighter and pushed on in the opposite direction when it is heavier; this results in a net directional force. Now if inertia is always applying a force to an object that is proportional to its inertial mass. Then the magnitude of that force when you push on the object while its inertial mass is reduced will be Flighter. When you push on the object while its inertial mass is increased it will be Fheavier. Which means by definition you should end up with

Fheavier - Flighter = Fnet

Where Fnet is greater than zero.

That means the total energy being fed into a MET device is the electrical energy used to trigger the controlled mass fluctuations and apply the external force which is pushing on the mass while it is lighter in one direction and pushing on the mass while it is heavier in the opposite direction. Plus Fnet which is the generated by inertia.
</Random Speculation>

My speculation only works if you can argue that inertia is a radiating field permeating the universe. Which is why I suspect Woodward/Fearn/Watsner have spent time updating Hoyle and Narlikar theory. Since it is a Machian version of Einsteins relativity. Which provides a mechanism for mass interactions in the local environment to communicate with the mass that is far away. This mechanism works so long as the expansion of the Universe is accelerating, which all observations seem to support.

The MET is pushing off of this so called Grav-Inertial Field, and it is the energy derived from this field interaction that would limit the terminal velocity of a MET.

This solves the Over-Unity debate because the core problem with it as I see. Is the assumption that the user is the one responsible for providing all the input energy into the device. If a MET works by interacting with a field then that is not true. It also means that yes a MET could be an electrical energy generator, where the energy being generated is mostly from the field being interacted with.

Now no where in this comment have I offered acceptable proof that this field exists. For that you would have to read Woodward\Fearn\Watsners papers. So feel free to argue with me about the existence of a Grav-Inertial field and how the hell such a field works. But I think it is fair to say that the argument that a MET is Reaction-less is false. Because as far as I am concerned either it works by interacting with some field that has not been fully characterized by main stream physics or Their experimental proof contains an experimental artifact. Since they have two other labs publishing positive replications (one of which had previously shown that an older design actually doesn't work). I think it is safe to say the probability is low that this is experimental artifact.

P.S. For anyone reading this when you use the term Reaction-less and or Propellant-less to describe a MET or EmDrive please be very careful to state your definition of these terms. I think the more accurate term to describe a MET would be propellant-less, where propellant-less means a MET propelled ship does not need to tote around a reservoir of mass to accelerate out its tail end. Instead you need to either tote around a reservoir of fuel for a power supply to drive the MET or design a battery storage system that can start up the MET power generator.

Offline ppnl

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #605 on: 12/25/2015 05:05 PM »
flux_capacitor,


Quote
Now lets assume we are dealing with a Rocket with a near inexhaustible supply of fuel...

You simply cannot do that. If the rocket has near inexhaustible fuel then it has near inexhaustible mass and needs near infinite energy to accelerate even a little.

Forget air resistance. Forget gravity. Say you have a rocket in space with some normal amount of fuel. You turn on the rocket and it uses fuel at a constant rate. Since the chemical energy of the fuel is a constant then it would seem that the rocket is giving constant power and accelerating at a greater than constant rate as it loses fuel mass. So what gives?

The answer is that the rocket is accelerating its fuel with it and so is injecting massive amounts of kinetic energy into its unused fuel.

Woodward does claim that his drive will give a constant acceleration with constant power for a limited time interval. After that he resets the speed to zero and allows the same to happen again. Nothing can fix this level of +stupid. Even if his drive works by taping into some hidden power source his analysis is still silly. 

Offline ppnl

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #606 on: 12/25/2015 05:13 PM »
birchoff,

How fast are you moving with respect to that grav-inertial field? It matters because a car accelerates by reacting against the "earth-dirt" field and it can't accelerate constantly with constant power. What makes Woodwards drive different?

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2150
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 1017
  • Likes Given: 792
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #607 on: 12/25/2015 05:43 PM »
birchoff,

How fast are you moving with respect to that grav-inertial field? It matters because a car accelerates by reacting against the "earth-dirt" field and it can't accelerate constantly with constant power. What makes Woodwards drive different?

That sums up the issue. If the MET is propellent-less, then it is reacting with some sort of field and it can't accelerate constantly with constant power. Even if Woodward is on to something, his theory doesn't add up.

If the MET is supposedly inertialess, then it is a perpetual motion machine and it won't work at all.

Hopefully, the MET or EM drive are actually reacting with a field, similar to electromagnetic propulsion. Either that or we are dealing with experimental error and they don't work.

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 272
  • United States
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #608 on: 12/25/2015 05:47 PM »
flux_capacitor,


Quote
Now lets assume we are dealing with a Rocket with a near inexhaustible supply of fuel...

You simply cannot do that. If the rocket has near inexhaustible fuel then it has near inexhaustible mass and needs near infinite energy to accelerate even a little.

Forget air resistance. Forget gravity. Say you have a rocket in space with some normal amount of fuel. You turn on the rocket and it uses fuel at a constant rate. Since the chemical energy of the fuel is a constant then it would seem that the rocket is giving constant power and accelerating at a greater than constant rate as it loses fuel mass. So what gives?

The answer is that the rocket is accelerating its fuel with it and so is injecting massive amounts of kinetic energy into its unused fuel.

Woodward does claim that his drive will give a constant acceleration with constant power for a limited time interval. After that he resets the speed to zero and allows the same to happen again. Nothing can fix this level of +stupid. Even if his drive works by taping into some hidden power source his analysis is still silly.

I got a little loose with my terms and definitions. As clarified in my last comment the situation I was imagining was enough fuel+oxidizer to burn past the point which air friction was an issue. That said changing the example for a fusion rocket, antimatter rocket, or a simple ion rocket moving from Earth GEO to Mars GEO still shows a period of constant acceleration for constant power as the rocket approaches its terminal velocity. Which is determined by the maximum amount of energy released by the rockets power source + the increasing effects of inertia.

As far as that essay is concerned Woodward doesn't claim what your saying. From my interpretation he is doing a by definition justification that a boundary must exist beyond which a MET cannot accelerate any longer.What is missing is an explanation of what is the physical process that reduces acceleration as you approach this time boundary.

Offline ppnl

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #609 on: 12/25/2015 06:21 PM »
flux_capacitor,


Quote
Now lets assume we are dealing with a Rocket with a near inexhaustible supply of fuel...

You simply cannot do that. If the rocket has near inexhaustible fuel then it has near inexhaustible mass and needs near infinite energy to accelerate even a little.

Forget air resistance. Forget gravity. Say you have a rocket in space with some normal amount of fuel. You turn on the rocket and it uses fuel at a constant rate. Since the chemical energy of the fuel is a constant then it would seem that the rocket is giving constant power and accelerating at a greater than constant rate as it loses fuel mass. So what gives?

The answer is that the rocket is accelerating its fuel with it and so is injecting massive amounts of kinetic energy into its unused fuel.

Woodward does claim that his drive will give a constant acceleration with constant power for a limited time interval. After that he resets the speed to zero and allows the same to happen again. Nothing can fix this level of +stupid. Even if his drive works by taping into some hidden power source his analysis is still silly.

I got a little loose with my terms and definitions. As clarified in my last comment the situation I was imagining was enough fuel+oxidizer to burn past the point which air friction was an issue. That said changing the example for a fusion rocket, antimatter rocket, or a simple ion rocket moving from Earth GEO to Mars GEO still shows a period of constant acceleration for constant power as the rocket approaches its terminal velocity. Which is determined by the maximum amount of energy released by the rockets power source + the increasing effects of inertia.

As far as that essay is concerned Woodward doesn't claim what your saying. From my interpretation he is doing a by definition justification that a boundary must exist beyond which a MET cannot accelerate any longer.What is missing is an explanation of what is the physical process that reduces acceleration as you approach this time boundary.

But Woodward is claiming that if you turn the drive off you get to reset your speed to zero and do it again and get exactly the same acceleration. Otherwise why is he talking about different intervals giving the same performance ratios? In the end the effect is the same. Summed over different discrete intervals you get the effect of constant acceleration with constant power just step-wise.

And no rocket will give constant acceleration with constant power. With fuel that has high enough performance it can look constant but it is not.

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 272
  • United States
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #610 on: 12/25/2015 06:23 PM »
birchoff,

How fast are you moving with respect to that grav-inertial field? It matters because a car accelerates by reacting against the "earth-dirt" field and it can't accelerate constantly with constant power. What makes Woodwards drive different?

...
 it can't accelerate constantly with constant power.
...

So a couple of you have said this now and I think I need to take a step back and ask a few questions.

What do you or other critics currently here mean when you say accelerate constantly with constant power?

Devoid of knowledge of any assumptions you are making my interpretation is that if I provide constant input power to a MET or any mechanical system, AT NO TIME can it constantly accelerate. Instead from t=0 the moment I turn on my power supply which provides constant input power. The MET or other simple mechanical system will either instantaneously attain terminal velocity, or acceleration will start at maximum possible and continuously decrease from that point forward until terminal velocity is achieved.

Offline ppnl

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #611 on: 12/25/2015 06:51 PM »
birchoff,

How fast are you moving with respect to that grav-inertial field? It matters because a car accelerates by reacting against the "earth-dirt" field and it can't accelerate constantly with constant power. What makes Woodwards drive different?

...
 it can't accelerate constantly with constant power.
...

So a couple of you have said this now and I think I need to take a step back and ask a few questions.

What do you or other critics currently here mean when you say accelerate constantly with constant power?

Devoid of knowledge of any assumptions you are making my interpretation is that if I provide constant input power to a MET or any mechanical system, AT NO TIME can it constantly accelerate. Instead from t=0 the moment I turn on my power supply which provides constant input power. The MET or other simple mechanical system will either instantaneously attain terminal velocity, or acceleration will start at maximum possible and continuously decrease from that point forward until terminal velocity is achieved.

If you are reacting against something like with a rocket and its fuel or a car and the road then constant power can only deliver constantly *decreasing* acceleration. Viewed from the starting frame of reference there is an interval of time where that constant power for constant acceleration would not appear to violate conservation of energy. But the length of that interval is frame dependent. From another frame of reference it would still be violating conservation of energy. The idea that you can have constant power for constant acceleration for even an instant is an illusion created by your choice of inertial frames.

There are many illusions that will hide this fact. Changing efficiency in converting power into kinetic energy. Changing fuel weight in a rocket. Changing kinetic energy content of the remaining fuel. Ignore all these and just assume 100% efficiency in converting power to kinetic energy and no change of weight of the vehicle and you cannot have constant power for constant acceleration for even an instant.

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 272
  • United States
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #612 on: 12/25/2015 06:51 PM »
flux_capacitor,


Quote
Now lets assume we are dealing with a Rocket with a near inexhaustible supply of fuel...

You simply cannot do that. If the rocket has near inexhaustible fuel then it has near inexhaustible mass and needs near infinite energy to accelerate even a little.

Forget air resistance. Forget gravity. Say you have a rocket in space with some normal amount of fuel. You turn on the rocket and it uses fuel at a constant rate. Since the chemical energy of the fuel is a constant then it would seem that the rocket is giving constant power and accelerating at a greater than constant rate as it loses fuel mass. So what gives?

The answer is that the rocket is accelerating its fuel with it and so is injecting massive amounts of kinetic energy into its unused fuel.

Woodward does claim that his drive will give a constant acceleration with constant power for a limited time interval. After that he resets the speed to zero and allows the same to happen again. Nothing can fix this level of +stupid. Even if his drive works by taping into some hidden power source his analysis is still silly.

I got a little loose with my terms and definitions. As clarified in my last comment the situation I was imagining was enough fuel+oxidizer to burn past the point which air friction was an issue. That said changing the example for a fusion rocket, antimatter rocket, or a simple ion rocket moving from Earth GEO to Mars GEO still shows a period of constant acceleration for constant power as the rocket approaches its terminal velocity. Which is determined by the maximum amount of energy released by the rockets power source + the increasing effects of inertia.

As far as that essay is concerned Woodward doesn't claim what your saying. From my interpretation he is doing a by definition justification that a boundary must exist beyond which a MET cannot accelerate any longer.What is missing is an explanation of what is the physical process that reduces acceleration as you approach this time boundary.

But Woodward is claiming that if you turn the drive off you get to reset your speed to zero and do it again and get exactly the same acceleration. Otherwise why is he talking about different intervals giving the same performance ratios? In the end the effect is the same. Summed over different discrete intervals you get the effect of constant acceleration with constant power just step-wise.

And no rocket will give constant acceleration with constant power. With fuel that has high enough performance it can look constant but it is not.

Where in the essay is he claiming you can turn the drive off and reset speed to zero? I dont see that direct claim anywhere in the essay. Do you mean it is implied by his deduction? If so which part of the deduction implies what you say he is claiming.

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 272
  • United States
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #613 on: 12/25/2015 07:12 PM »
birchoff,

How fast are you moving with respect to that grav-inertial field? It matters because a car accelerates by reacting against the "earth-dirt" field and it can't accelerate constantly with constant power. What makes Woodwards drive different?

...
 it can't accelerate constantly with constant power.
...

So a couple of you have said this now and I think I need to take a step back and ask a few questions.

What do you or other critics currently here mean when you say accelerate constantly with constant power?

Devoid of knowledge of any assumptions you are making my interpretation is that if I provide constant input power to a MET or any mechanical system, AT NO TIME can it constantly accelerate. Instead from t=0 the moment I turn on my power supply which provides constant input power. The MET or other simple mechanical system will either instantaneously attain terminal velocity, or acceleration will start at maximum possible and continuously decrease from that point forward until terminal velocity is achieved.

If you are reacting against something like with a rocket and its fuel or a car and the road then constant power can only deliver constantly *decreasing* acceleration. Viewed from the starting frame of reference there is an interval of time where that constant power for constant acceleration would not appear to violate conservation of energy. But the length of that interval is frame dependent. From another frame of reference it would still be violating conservation of energy. The idea that you can have constant power for constant acceleration for even an instant is an illusion created by your choice of inertial frames.

There are many illusions that will hide this fact. Changing efficiency in converting power into kinetic energy. Changing fuel weight in a rocket. Changing kinetic energy content of the remaining fuel. Ignore all these and just assume 100% efficiency in converting power to kinetic energy and no change of weight of the vehicle and you cannot have constant power for constant acceleration for even an instant.

Thanks for the clarification. not sure I completely understand everything said. But I am willing for now to accept that there is no constant acceleration for constant input power.

That said would it be fair to say that instead what we have is constantly decreasing acceleration for constant input power? If so what is component responsible for this decreasing acceleration even though the power provided at each time interval remains the same (I am assuming that the point of contention isn't over if it is possible to provide constant power to a mechanical system or rocket).

Offline M.E.T.

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
  • Liked: 190
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #614 on: 12/25/2015 07:32 PM »
From reading the musings of prominent Mach Effect proponents, it seems to me that they freely accept that a Mach Effect device will act as a net energy generator in addition to being a propulsion system.

Therefore it would appear to me that it indeed draws more and more energy as it continues to accelerate, and not a constant amount of energy at all. The electric energy going into the device is constant, but the " "gravinertial" energy it unlocks from the rest of the universe keeps growing as it increases its velocity. Hence the ability to use it as a power generator.

That is why some see the Mach Effect as far more monumental a discovery than a mere propulsion breakthrough. It will remove energy constraints for the human race and change the nature of our existence fundamentally.

And given the above, the terminal velocity of such a device would appear to be the speed of light.


Offline ppnl

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #615 on: 12/25/2015 07:32 PM »

Where in the essay is he claiming you can turn the drive off and reset speed to zero? I dont see that direct claim anywhere in the essay. Do you mean it is implied by his deduction? If so which part of the deduction implies what you say he is claiming.

Once again...

Quote
That is, we note what should be obvious physics for this situation: the energies added to the two sums in every differential time interval are always in the same ratio as they are in the very first interval because the only invariant velocity that exists in this case is the one of instantaneous rest at the outset of each interval.

What do you think he is saying when he talks about different intervals with the same ratios?

Look, start with speed = 0 in some reference frame. Turn the drive on for some interval t. How much energy did you feed in? Lets call it E. How much speed did you gain? Lets call it S. How much kinetic energy did it gain? Lets call it K.

Ok lets do it again. You are at rest in some frame of reference. It is a different frame of reference than in the first interval but "...the only invariant velocity that exists in this case is the one of instantaneous rest at the outset of each interval." So we are still allowed to say speed = 0. We again feed in E  amount of energy. How much speed did we gain? Well the ratios must be the same as in the first interval so again we get S gain in speed. How much kinetic energy did we gain? again the ratio must be the same so again we seem to have gained K kinetic energy.

Interval after interval you add energy and gain speed with the same ratio. Constant power - although delivered discreetly - gives constant acceleration - although delivered discretely.

Only the kinetic energy isn't adding up right.   

Offline ppnl

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #616 on: 12/25/2015 07:59 PM »


That said would it be fair to say that instead what we have is constantly decreasing acceleration for constant input power? If so what is component responsible for this decreasing acceleration even though the power provided at each time interval remains the same (I am assuming that the point of contention isn't over if it is possible to provide constant power to a mechanical system or rocket).

Well what are you pushing on to get acceleration?

If you say nothing then you are violating conservation of momentum. You may be ok with that but it creates real problems with physics. The easiest to see is the violation of relativity. How much power does it take to accelerate at one gravity? It depends on how fast you are already traveling. But speed is only relative to some frame of reference. If the drive requires different amounts of power to accelerate depending on what frame of reference it is in then you have created a special frame in violation of relativity.

Well maybe there is something that it is pushing against. But what is our speed with respect to this thing? It makes a difference because the greater the speed the harder it is to accelerate against it. For example we are in motion with respect to the cosmic microwave background at like 10% of the speed of light. Trying to accelerate in one direction would require megawatts of power to get undetectable acceleration. Accelerating in the other direction would not only be free but could deliver endless amounts of energy.

I can make up an answer that would make everyone happy. For example if the drive is pushing against the local gravitational gradient - think standing on a hill and pushing sideways against the hill - then the drive is useful without violating anything.

Trouble is I just made this up and no theory supports such a thing. Also this isn't what the designers are claiming. 

Offline Paul451

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1289
  • Australia
  • Liked: 631
  • Likes Given: 535
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #617 on: 12/25/2015 08:07 PM »
or a simple ion rocket moving from Earth GEO to Mars GEO still shows a period of constant acceleration for constant power as the rocket approaches its terminal velocity.

Actually it doesn't.

An ion drive might have constant force per unit power until the fuel runs out, but because it's throwing away mass it does not have a constant acceleration per unit power. Therefore will not gain velocity linearly.

And because it's throwing away mass, it will not be gaining Ek in proportion to velocity-squared.

With MET/EMDrive and other proposed reactionless thrusters, the mass of the system is constant, therefore if you have constant force-per-unit-power-input you will see constant acceleration per unit power, hence linearly increasing velocity per unit time, and Ek increasing in direct proportion to the velocity-squared. Those last two are where the overunity problem occurs.

The MET is pushing off of this so called Grav-Inertial Field, and it is the energy derived from this field interaction that would limit the terminal velocity of a MET.
This solves the Over-Unity debate because the core problem with it as I see.

Unfortunately it doesn't.

What is the underlying velocity of the GI field? Is it stationary WRT Earth? Is it stationary WRT to sun's rotation around the galaxy, or perhaps the average momentum of the galaxy? Or is it stationary WRT the some kind of average background momentum of the universe?

If it is anything other than stationary WRT Earth, the MET/EMDrive/Magic-box is already travelling above its overunity velocity, and therefore if this GI field somehow causes the device to lose thrust as it approaches the critical unity-velocity, then none of these devices can be producing a measurable force in the lab.

Catch-22, you can't have "produces a measurable force on Earth" and "can't go overunity because of the universal magic energy field".

If the field is somehow associated with the Earth, does it rotate with the Earth? If not then there should be a diurnal variation in force produced per unit power. (And I believe some of the testers have tried to find that, and failed.)

And what does the reaction of the field do? If it's not a reactionless thruster because it "reacts" with the field, then what is the reaction of the field? What's the other side of the equation?

Because...

The MET is pushing off of this so called Grav-Inertial Field

...you can't "push off" a field. You interact with a field to swap momentum with something else.

Eg, you don't "push off" a magnetic field, you use a magnetic field to exchange momentum between two objects interacting via magnetic fields. The field itself has no momentum to give you, it's just the currency, not the trade.

So is "pushing off" the GI field actually pushing against the Earth? If not, it can't work the way you want it to.

(And it can't be "pushing against the rest of the universe" for the reason explained above, the velocity is already too high, already overunity WRT the "background".)

So you've got a field that is caused by the Earth, rotates with the Earth, and somehow interacts with cycled capacitors and maybe also with RF bouncing in an asymmetrical copper pot in a way that allows them to push against the Earth... horizontally. And which was accidentally discovered by someone who misunderstood physics (or possibly two or three completely independent groups misunderstanding physics in different ways.)

Can I be skeptical now?

Where in the essay is he claiming you can turn the drive off and reset speed to zero?

In the second half of his essay, when he talks of using a period of acceleration (an interval) short enough that ∆Ek (power out) doesn't exceed power in. In essence, he is "resetting" the device after each interval, moving the frame of reference to the devices new velocity (resetting the speed to zero), then repeating the short period of acceleration.

In effect, he is creating an accelerating frame of reference, but treating it as a non-acceleration non-relativistic frame.

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 272
  • United States
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #618 on: 12/25/2015 08:15 PM »

Where in the essay is he claiming you can turn the drive off and reset speed to zero? I dont see that direct claim anywhere in the essay. Do you mean it is implied by his deduction? If so which part of the deduction implies what you say he is claiming.

Once again...

Quote
That is, we note what should be obvious physics for this situation: the energies added to the two sums in every differential time interval are always in the same ratio as they are in the very first interval because the only invariant velocity that exists in this case is the one of instantaneous rest at the outset of each interval.

What do you think he is saying when he talks about different intervals with the same ratios?

Look, start with speed = 0 in some reference frame. Turn the drive on for some interval t. How much energy did you feed in? Lets call it E. How much speed did you gain? Lets call it S. How much kinetic energy did it gain? Lets call it K.

Ok lets do it again. You are at rest in some frame of reference. It is a different frame of reference than in the first interval but "...the only invariant velocity that exists in this case is the one of instantaneous rest at the outset of each interval." So we are still allowed to say speed = 0. We again feed in E  amount of energy. How much speed did we gain? Well the ratios must be the same as in the first interval so again we get S gain in speed. How much kinetic energy did we gain? again the ratio must be the same so again we seem to have gained K kinetic energy.

Interval after interval you add energy and gain speed with the same ratio. Constant power - although delivered discreetly - gives constant acceleration - although delivered discretely.

Only the kinetic energy isn't adding up right.

Thanks for responding. But whether or not this is an issue is determined by how the Energy accounting is done. is the E added limited to just the electrical energy provided by the user of the MET. Or does it include the energy contributed by the Grav-Inertial Field.

Which is why my only critique of the essay is that Woodward has not spelled out where all the energy is coming from. Along with what are the bounds on how much energy can be provided by the Grav-Inertial Field. I don't particularly believe this is sloppy science because it seems like their focus so far has been on building a highly replicatable experiment and coming up with a theory of operation that predicts experimental results while at the same time agree's with Relativity.

That said the one thing that does bother me a bit is why would the energy contributed via the interaction between the thruster and the Field increase over time? The force that inertia is applying to an object in motion gets stronger the faster that object is moving. So on the surface it looks like Flighter and Fheavier

from

...

Bringing this back to the essay. From my perspective after re-reading the essay and thinking about the proposed thought experiment. I think Woodward believes that MET's undergo constant acceleration for constant input. However, he doesn't believe that the constant acceleration occurs for as long as the MET is turned on. which is why I believe the argument he makes towards the end of the paper should really be read "there is a value for t beyond which you will no longer be accelerating". Because there is a limiting factor which will prevent it. Which is why I think the essay is more of a proof that there must be some limiting factor. Instead of an answer to the really interesting question, WHAT is that limiting factor.

<Random Speculation>
Personally I think the limiting factor is inertia, or more specifically the force inertia applies to a physical object. Now while there is no accepted theory on what the hell inertia is. We do know that it acts on a physical object to resist any change in its state of motion. To do this it must at all times be applying a force to the physical object or at the least apply that force when the object attempts to change is state of motion. Now a MET works by applying a voltage to a device to cause its Inertial Mass to oscillate from heavier to lighter. While at the same time applying a force to that same object in just the right way, so that it is pushed on in one direction when it is lighter and pushed on in the opposite direction when it is heavier; this results in a net directional force. Now if inertia is always applying a force to an object that is proportional to its inertial mass. Then the magnitude of that force when you push on the object while its inertial mass is reduced will be Flighter. When you push on the object while its inertial mass is increased it will be Fheavier. Which means by definition you should end up with

Fheavier - Flighter = Fnet

Where Fnet is greater than zero.

That means the total energy being fed into a MET device is the electrical energy used to trigger the controlled mass fluctuations and apply the external force which is pushing on the mass while it is lighter in one direction and pushing on the mass while it is heavier in the opposite direction. Plus Fnet which is the generated by inertia.
</Random Speculation>

My speculation only works if you can argue that inertia is a radiating field permeating the universe. Which is why I suspect Woodward/Fearn/Watsner have spent time updating Hoyle and Narlikar theory. Since it is a Machian version of Einsteins relativity. Which provides a mechanism for mass interactions in the local environment to communicate with the mass that is far away. This mechanism works so long as the expansion of the Universe is accelerating, which all observations seem to support.

would get larger the faster the MET is moving. However, I would also expect the increase in Flighter and Fheavier to be the same. Which means the difference between them should be the same. So unless I am missing something I am included to believe that no matter the definition of Energy in it would still be constant. so you shouldn't end up with constant acceleration, unless there is some other reaction not being accounted for.

Offline ppnl

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #619 on: 12/25/2015 08:30 PM »

Where in the essay is he claiming you can turn the drive off and reset speed to zero? I dont see that direct claim anywhere in the essay. Do you mean it is implied by his deduction? If so which part of the deduction implies what you say he is claiming.

Once again...

Quote
That is, we note what should be obvious physics for this situation: the energies added to the two sums in every differential time interval are always in the same ratio as they are in the very first interval because the only invariant velocity that exists in this case is the one of instantaneous rest at the outset of each interval.

What do you think he is saying when he talks about different intervals with the same ratios?

Look, start with speed = 0 in some reference frame. Turn the drive on for some interval t. How much energy did you feed in? Lets call it E. How much speed did you gain? Lets call it S. How much kinetic energy did it gain? Lets call it K.

Ok lets do it again. You are at rest in some frame of reference. It is a different frame of reference than in the first interval but "...the only invariant velocity that exists in this case is the one of instantaneous rest at the outset of each interval." So we are still allowed to say speed = 0. We again feed in E  amount of energy. How much speed did we gain? Well the ratios must be the same as in the first interval so again we get S gain in speed. How much kinetic energy did we gain? again the ratio must be the same so again we seem to have gained K kinetic energy.

Interval after interval you add energy and gain speed with the same ratio. Constant power - although delivered discreetly - gives constant acceleration - although delivered discretely.

Only the kinetic energy isn't adding up right.

Thanks for responding. But whether or not this is an issue is determined by how the Energy accounting is done. is the E added limited to just the electrical energy provided by the user of the MET. Or does it include the energy contributed by the Grav-Inertial Field.

Which is why my only critique of the essay is that Woodward has not spelled out where all the energy is coming from. Along with what are the bounds on how much energy can be provided by the Grav-Inertial Field. I don't particularly believe this is sloppy science because it seems like their focus so far has been on building a highly replicatable experiment and coming up with a theory of operation that predicts experimental results while at the same time agree's with Relativity.

That said the one thing that does bother me a bit is why would the energy contributed via the interaction between the thruster and the Field increase over time? The force that inertia is applying to an object in motion gets stronger the faster that object is moving. So on the surface it looks like Flighter and Fheavier

from

...

Bringing this back to the essay. From my perspective after re-reading the essay and thinking about the proposed thought experiment. I think Woodward believes that MET's undergo constant acceleration for constant input. However, he doesn't believe that the constant acceleration occurs for as long as the MET is turned on. which is why I believe the argument he makes towards the end of the paper should really be read "there is a value for t beyond which you will no longer be accelerating". Because there is a limiting factor which will prevent it. Which is why I think the essay is more of a proof that there must be some limiting factor. Instead of an answer to the really interesting question, WHAT is that limiting factor.

<Random Speculation>
Personally I think the limiting factor is inertia, or more specifically the force inertia applies to a physical object. Now while there is no accepted theory on what the hell inertia is. We do know that it acts on a physical object to resist any change in its state of motion. To do this it must at all times be applying a force to the physical object or at the least apply that force when the object attempts to change is state of motion. Now a MET works by applying a voltage to a device to cause its Inertial Mass to oscillate from heavier to lighter. While at the same time applying a force to that same object in just the right way, so that it is pushed on in one direction when it is lighter and pushed on in the opposite direction when it is heavier; this results in a net directional force. Now if inertia is always applying a force to an object that is proportional to its inertial mass. Then the magnitude of that force when you push on the object while its inertial mass is reduced will be Flighter. When you push on the object while its inertial mass is increased it will be Fheavier. Which means by definition you should end up with

Fheavier - Flighter = Fnet

Where Fnet is greater than zero.

That means the total energy being fed into a MET device is the electrical energy used to trigger the controlled mass fluctuations and apply the external force which is pushing on the mass while it is lighter in one direction and pushing on the mass while it is heavier in the opposite direction. Plus Fnet which is the generated by inertia.
</Random Speculation>

My speculation only works if you can argue that inertia is a radiating field permeating the universe. Which is why I suspect Woodward/Fearn/Watsner have spent time updating Hoyle and Narlikar theory. Since it is a Machian version of Einsteins relativity. Which provides a mechanism for mass interactions in the local environment to communicate with the mass that is far away. This mechanism works so long as the expansion of the Universe is accelerating, which all observations seem to support.

would get larger the faster the MET is moving. However, I would also expect the increase in Flighter and Fheavier to be the same. Which means the difference between them should be the same. So unless I am missing something I am included to believe that no matter the definition of Energy in it would still be constant. so you shouldn't end up with constant acceleration, unless there is some other reaction not being accounted for.


The whole point of this essay is that Woodward is claiming that there is no problem with conservation of energy and so no reason to sneak in energy from some hypothetical Grav-Inertial Field. If there is a Grav-Inertial Field that the drive is reacting against then the entire essay is not only just as horribly wrong but entirely moot.

And even if there were a Grav-Inertial Field you still have some hard questions about our relative velocity with it.