Author Topic: Woodward's effect  (Read 286795 times)

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 273
  • United States
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #620 on: 12/25/2015 08:48 PM »
...

Can we not revert to calling MET's reactionless because as defined by Woodward/Fearn/Watsners papers they arent. As for EmDrive's I personally dont care. Because there is no working theory of operation for it the only thing available to date are experimental results. Where the experimenters are doing a lot of work to make sure they aren't observing experimental artifacts.  The only potentially viable theory by Dr. White from Eagle Works lab assumes that the Quantum Vacuum is not immutable and that the EmDrive is interacting with it. So from my personal perspective I think if it actually works It will probably end up being yet another propellant-less propulsion device.

As for your question about what is the velocity of the GI Field? That I cannot answer. It isn't obvious to me from any of papers that Woodward/Fearn/Watsner what the answer to that question would be. the only thing that has been established in their theory papers is that it is possible for information about inertia/mass changes to be communicated over vast distances as long as the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

Now I wouldn't be surprised at all if Woodward/Fearn/Watsner have not completely characterized the properties of the Grav Inertial Field. Mainly because all of their recent work has been focused on increasing the repeat-ability of the experiment, Proving why Hoyle Narlikar Theory (HN Theory) of Gravitation is complete and compatible with relativity, then re deriving Woodward's Force equations from HN Theory.

Finally. I have no problem with you or anyone else being a critic. Critique away I just reserve the right to challenge if I think your argument is flawed or lacking. And so far I would have to say your argument is lacking. because at least from my perspective to completely invalidate MET and Woodward Effect you would a complete definition of the properties of the Grav Inertial Field, or carry out a replication attempt and publish your results.

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 273
  • United States
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #621 on: 12/25/2015 09:00 PM »

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.

I agree that is the point of the Essay. And I think everything up to but not including the last paragraph of the essay shows exactly that there is no CoE problem by simply doing a by first principles proof. The last paragraph honestly should never have been included in the Essay because after spending 5 pages showing how a CoE violation isnt allowed in newtonian physics. The next step should have been to show why a MET is a newtonian system. I get the impression he is assuming that the reader has read all or at least most of the recent work. Instead the last paragraph comes across to me as an off hand comment with very little context.

Offline ppnl

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 182
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #622 on: 12/25/2015 10:21 PM »

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.

I agree that is the point of the Essay. And I think everything up to but not including the last paragraph of the essay shows exactly that there is no CoE problem by simply doing a by first principles proof. The last paragraph honestly should never have been included in the Essay because after spending 5 pages showing how a CoE violation isnt allowed in newtonian physics. The next step should have been to show why a MET is a newtonian system. I get the impression he is assuming that the reader has read all or at least most of the recent work. Instead the last paragraph comes across to me as an off hand comment with very little context.

The last paragraph is his entire conclusion without which all the rest is pointless.

Look if Woodward wanted to say "Our drive is reacting against something else out there and so that potentially preserves both conservation of momentum and conservation of energy." Then I would say "Cool!, now lets talk about the properties of this something."  We don't need to talk about other classical systems and figures of merit.

But he didn't. He tried to say there was no violation of conservation of either energy or momentum without even mentioning that something. And constant acceleration with constant power. That will not fly.

So maybe Woodward has other papers that talk about that something out there. If so then cool. But the paper cited does claim constant power with constant acceleration and the reasoning is horribly horribly wrong. Even if his drive works his reasoning is still wrong.

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 273
  • United States
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #623 on: 12/26/2015 01:24 AM »

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.

I agree that is the point of the Essay. And I think everything up to but not including the last paragraph of the essay shows exactly that there is no CoE problem by simply doing a by first principles proof. The last paragraph honestly should never have been included in the Essay because after spending 5 pages showing how a CoE violation isnt allowed in newtonian physics. The next step should have been to show why a MET is a newtonian system. I get the impression he is assuming that the reader has read all or at least most of the recent work. Instead the last paragraph comes across to me as an off hand comment with very little context.

The last paragraph is his entire conclusion without which all the rest is pointless.

Look if Woodward wanted to say "Our drive is reacting against something else out there and so that potentially preserves both conservation of momentum and conservation of energy." Then I would say "Cool!, now lets talk about the properties of this something."  We don't need to talk about other classical systems and figures of merit.

But he didn't. He tried to say there was no violation of conservation of either energy or momentum without even mentioning that something. And constant acceleration with constant power. That will not fly.

So maybe Woodward has other papers that talk about that something out there. If so then cool. But the paper cited does claim constant power with constant acceleration and the reasoning is horribly horribly wrong. Even if his drive works his reasoning is still wrong.
Lets agree to disagree...

That said,  have you read any of the recently published papers?

Offline ppnl

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 182
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #624 on: 12/26/2015 04:18 AM »

Sure we can agree to disagree but it isn't clear what we are agreeing to disagree on. That Woodward did say what he clearly said?

No I have not read any papers by Woodward. I pretty much consider it junk science. If you have a paper in mind I may give it a glance but really if we can't agree on the merit of the simple essay at hand then I'm not sure more complex work is going to add anything.

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 273
  • United States
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #625 on: 12/26/2015 06:11 AM »

Sure we can agree to disagree but it isn't clear what we are agreeing to disagree on. That Woodward did say what he clearly said?

No I have not read any papers by Woodward. I pretty much consider it junk science. If you have a paper in mind I may give it a glance but really if we can't agree on the merit of the simple essay at hand then I'm not sure more complex work is going to add anything.

agreeing to disagree on whether or not the essay has any value if the last paragraph is not included.

How can anyone decree something to be junk science without actually reviewing the work? Basing your judgement on what other people say about the work without doing your own reading on it smacks of cargo cult science to me. Not saying you have to read the work, because one has to find the time to do so in the first place. But I would expect judgement to be delayed until you did that.

Anyway to each their own. Normally I would suggest starting with Woodward's book as it has a summary of the work as of 2012 along with references to the papers that were published. But with the publishing of Theory of Mach Effect Thruster 1 & 2. I would probably start their.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269207998_Theory_of_a_Mach_Effect_Thruster_I
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283007333_Theory_of_a_Mach_Effect_Thruster_II

Offline Paul451

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1290
  • Australia
  • Liked: 631
  • Likes Given: 535
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #626 on: 12/26/2015 01:26 PM »
Can we not revert to calling MET's reactionless

No. Invoking a magic field doesn't change the nature of the device; for reasons I've tried to innumerate. (As have others.)

As for EmDrive's I personally dont care. Because there is no working theory of operation for it the only thing available to date are experimental results.

The experiments were only done because Shawyer/Cannae/etc had their various theories about why the effect should occur.

The only potentially viable theory by Dr. White from Eagle Works lab assumes that the Quantum Vacuum is not immutable and that the EmDrive is interacting with it. So from my personal perspective I think if it actually works It will probably end up being yet another propellant-less propulsion device.

If the quantum vacuum can be given a net velocity, that will completely change QM theory. If it can't, it can't work the way White believes (it becomes a free-energy machine, again.)

the only thing that has been established in their theory papers is that it is possible for information about inertia/mass changes to be communicated over vast distances as long as the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

If the nature of the field is unknown, how can they "establish" anything? It has been claimed, it has not been established.

But again, we can say from very basic physics that their claim, even if correct, does not solve the problem of the reactionless drive. The drive is already travelling too fast, relative to the cosmic background, for that background to be exerting a braking effect.

As I said, and as I and others have tried to explain many times, if you claim the momentum is being exchanged with the deep-background you can't have both that exchange-mechanism preventing overunity and the claimed lab results.

You can't have both. They are mutually exclusive.

Now I wouldn't be surprised at all if Woodward/Fearn/Watsner have not completely characterized the properties of the Grav Inertial Field. [...]
Finally. I have no problem with you or anyone else being a critic. Critique away I just reserve the right to challenge if I think your argument is flawed or lacking. And so far I would have to say your argument is lacking. because at least from my perspective to completely invalidate MET and Woodward Effect you would a complete definition of the properties of the Grav Inertial Field, or carry out a replication attempt and publish your results.

So they haven't "characterised" the field that I don't believe exists, but to be able to point out schoolboy errors in physics, I have to completely characterise the field that I don't believe exists...

Bit of a double standard, don't you think?

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.
I agree that is the point of the Essay. And I think everything up to but not including the last paragraph of the essay shows exactly that there is no CoE problem by simply doing a by first principles proof. The last paragraph [...]

{sigh} You missed that Woodward's entire argument is that the method used by critics to claim overunity for MET/etc can be equally applied to any conventional system. He does this by assuming that the conventional systems also have a constant acceleration/power ratio (his "figure of merit").

He seems to completely fails to understand that it's the constant acceleration/power ratio which is fundamentally different about MET/etc. He didn't just trip in the last paragraph, his entire assumption is wrong.

Offline Povel

  • Member
  • Posts: 26
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #627 on: 12/26/2015 02:21 PM »
I keep seeing a contradiction on Woodward's take on the whole CoE argument.

The bad written - wrong physics overunity paper that is being discussed here it's not even available on his website, only on SSI page.
In fact on the page on his website I linked before he actually says that the device goes overunity by extracting energy and momentum from distant matter in the future. This part I quoted previously is still there, written on his website.

If it's true that the monograph got checked by Fearn and another physic, it seems to me that his peers too cannot understand simple physic...which is weird and really bad.

Anyway, on the whole momentum/energy conservation issue i suggest to check the post of 93143 at page 26 :


Quote
I have already shown elsewhere that a rocket of any type cannot go over unity, whether or not it is mounted on a flywheel.  I have also derived a condition that must apply to the Mach effect thruster if it works the way the equations seem to say it does (ie: no dependence of thrust on velocity) if global conservation of energy is to be respected.

http://talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2215&p=103524#p103524
http://talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2215&p=103729#p103729
http://talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2215&p=105085#p105085

Essentially, the effective mean velocity of the far-off active mass being interacted with must be invariant with respect to the thruster in order for energy to be conserved in all reference frames.  The most plausible-seeming solution that presents itself is that the interaction happens in such a way (relativistic Doppler effect, perhaps?  Something more esoteric?  I need to catch up on the literature) that the effective mean velocity of the far-off active mass is always equal to that of the thruster.

But we can dispense with the nonsense about critics doing the math wrong.  Some do, but the upshot is that if the M-E thruster works as advertised, you can make something that looks exactly like a perpetual motion machine if you ignore the interaction with the rest of the universe.

That interaction with the rest of the causally-connected universe is where the "extra" energy comes from.  In fact it is the entire reason anything happens at all.  The work done by an M-E thruster is largely unrelated to the local energy input, in the same sense in which the work done by the wind on a sailboat is largely unrelated to the energy expended by the crew moving the sails around.  As far as I know there is no theoretical upper limit on the thrust efficiency of a Mach-effect device.


No mechanism by which an interaction of this kind could happen has been suggested so far. Still this is something it would be nice see expanded.

@ppl : Regarding the FTL interaction, it's actually not a true FTL exchange, the device supposedly interact with distant matter in the future inside its lightcone by exchange of retarded and advanced waves, where the latter ones travel back in time from the distant future at the speed of light.
The net effect is that the exchange seems instantaneous. The advanced/retarded waves cannot be separated or detected separately, so you cannot build something like a tachyon telephone with this.

Offline Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1308
  • Liked: 231
  • Likes Given: 86
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #628 on: 12/26/2015 06:02 PM »
Sez You! I'm investing in TT&T. (Tachyon, Telephone and Telegraph company.)  8)
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 273
  • United States
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #629 on: 12/26/2015 06:54 PM »
...
No. Invoking a magic field doesn't change the nature of the device; for reasons I've tried to innumerate. (As have others.)
...

Doesn't matter if you think/believe the field is magic. The description of a MET in Woodward's work is not that of a device that is reaction-less. So continuing to call it that is disingenuous and border line trolling. You are free to disagree on the existence of the field but if you do then the MET simply cannot work. Which is my position. If the interaction with the rest of the mass-energy of the universe via advanced-retarded waves is faulty then either Woodward has an experiment showing something completely different. Or there is still Experimental artifacts in his experiment.

...
The experiments were only done because Shawyer/Cannae/etc had their various theories about why the effect should occur.
...

And no where in the cannon of science has a scientist come up with a hypothesis, carried out an experiment. Got a completely different result? The fact that their initial theory (more hypothesis if you ask me) could be wrong is inconsequential. They have experiments showing something that shouldn't happen as far as accepted physics is concerned. I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that they have tried to the best of their abilities to not deceive themselves. Which means the next step is to seek someone else to attempt a replication which is what has happened. That said, the anomolous thrust measurement remains. Still doesnt make their original hypothesis right, but it does mean the search to completely characterize what is happening in the experiment continues. That said, by your own admission even if after all the rigorous experiments the anomoly still exists. It wont be a reactionless device, We just cannot see and do not understand what it is reacting to.

...
If the quantum vacuum can be given a net velocity, that will completely change QM theory. If it can't, it can't work the way White believes (it becomes a free-energy machine, again.)
...

Agreed, If the QV can be given net velocity it will completely change QM Theory. If it cannot be given a net velocity, then either it doesnt work the way Dr. White believes or their is some other thing it is reacting to. That thing could be experimental error. Or it could be an unknown field. But the one thing it will never be is a free energy machine. Unless solar panels, hydro electric dams, windmills, etc are free energy machines.

...
If the nature of the field is unknown, how can they "establish" anything? It has been claimed, it has not been established.

But again, we can say from very basic physics that their claim, even if correct, does not solve the problem of the reactionless drive. The drive is already travelling too fast, relative to the cosmic background, for that background to be exerting a braking effect.

As I said, and as I and others have tried to explain many times, if you claim the momentum is being exchanged with the deep-background you can't have both that exchange-mechanism preventing overunity and the claimed lab results.

You can't have both. They are mutually exclusive.
...

Agreed, their claim doesn't solve the problem of reaction-less drive. Primarily because no such thing exists and Woodward /Fearn/Wanser published work has never at any point in time claimed that the MET is reaction-less.

As for the MET travelling too fast WRT to the proposed field. I honestly cannot answer that question because their proposal because I do not see a straight forward COMPLETE characterization of the field interaction they are proposing. It could be buried in the equations in the papers, but they are beyond my math level to parse at this time.

...
So they haven't "characterised" the field that I don't believe exists, but to be able to point out schoolboy errors in physics, I have to completely characterise the field that I don't believe exists...

Bit of a double standard, don't you think?
...

Please note that I said COMPLETELY characterized. Doesn't mean they haven't spelled out some properties of the field, just not all. The critique raised about how that field could be imparting momentum is legitimate. I wish I could answer it. However, since I know I do not completely understand the mechanism Woodward/Fearn/Wanser are proposing I am OK with leaving the door open to either their being something I am missing or them being wrong. Still doesn't make the MET a reaction-less device or a free energy machine. If they are wrong it just means that their was some interesting experimental artifact that they and their two positive replications were not aware of.

That said if you are going to be a critic of the work the least you could do is read their published papers on it.

...
{sigh} You missed that Woodward's entire argument is that the method used by critics to claim overunity for MET/etc can be equally applied to any conventional system. He does this by assuming that the conventional systems also have a constant acceleration/power ratio (his "figure of merit").

He seems to completely fails to understand that it's the constant acceleration/power ratio which is fundamentally different about MET/etc. He didn't just trip in the last paragraph, his entire assumption is wrong.
...

Yes Woodwards entire argument is that the method used by critics to claim overunity for MET can be equally applied to any conventional system. However Woodward is not assuming conventional systems also have constant acceleration/power ration. Woodward is saying that if the critique being made is correct that critique can equally be made against conventional systems. Not because conventional systems have a constant acceleration/power ratio. But because a MET is no different from a conventional system. so if a MET has a constant acceleration/power ratio then a conventional system should also have a constant acceleration / power ratio. Eqn's 10-15 is Woodward assuming the critique is correct and showing that it leads to something that cannot occur by definition in Newtonian systems.

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 273
  • United States
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #630 on: 12/26/2015 06:59 PM »
Question for @Paul451 and @ppnl

Are their any disagreements with what woodward says in this part of the Essay

Quote
...

Given the form of Newton’s second law as stated in Equations (1) and (16), even
competent physicists have come to believe that v dM/dt is a force, just as Ma is a force.
But v dM/dt isn’t like an Ma force. This is usually illustrated in elementary physics texts
with problems/examples like: a railway car moves along a smooth, level, straight,
frictionless track with constant velocity. A pile of sand on the bed of the car is allowed to
fall through a hole in the floor of the car. Does the speed of the car relative to the Earth
(which can be taken to have effectively infinite mass) change as the sand falls? A
colleague who monitors the pedagogical literature tells me that people routinely mess this
up – and that at intervals of five to ten years, articles or blog comments addressing this
issue routinely appear. And, alas, that even those attuned to the subtleties of the issue
make mistakes in handling it.
In the case of a rocket motor, the thing to observe is that there is one invariant
velocity involved: that of the exhaust plume with respect to the motor. All observers,
irrespective of their own motions, agree on both the magnitude and direction of this
velocity. And it is the velocity that yields momentum conservation.

...

Offline raketa

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 217
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #631 on: 12/26/2015 08:29 PM »
My understanding of Woodward book is that universe react to any matter that is accelerating, something like universe friction, we call it inertia.
It also explain strange behavior of accelerating vehicle, that is required infinite energy to move to light speed(except photon that has zero weight-this is really strange that something has no weight).
It is really something like whole universe is fighting our accelerating vehicle.
Woodward device generally distorting this gravitonal field and help us to push it through universe.
Something similar to airplane wing make air denser under wing and push it up.
We don't need spent any energy to keep airplane over earth, we spend our energy just fight friction of air.

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 614
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 249
  • Likes Given: 267
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #632 on: 12/27/2015 04:24 AM »
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.

I have been contemplating the nature of a Grav-Inertial field, if it does exist. 

So far the idea goes is that this Grav-Inertial substance should behave like a super fluid.  If you are floating in it and you accelerate it takes time for it to catch up to your velocity and flows through you providing resistance to acceleration.  At constant velocity it coasts with you at no resistance to the surrounding fluid that is not coasting with you.  This gives you your inertial frame of space time with respect to some one else's. 

The other property of it is that the Grav-Inertial fluid flows into matter, which suggest why matter might have drag on the Grav-Inertial super fluid, and it accounts for gravity which may be the Grav-Inertial super-fluid flowing into matter.  The idea is to use a black hole event horizon as a constraint for the velocity of the Grav-Inertial super-fluid that has reached light speed. 

Another property is that, "motion of this Grav-Inertial fluid" with respect to the CMB "cosmic microwave background" slows down light (maybe similar to a dielectric but also different) and contracts distance so that the change in the speed of light isn't detected locally but can be detected non-locally in gravitational lensing.  Clocks also tick slower in faster moving Grav-Inertial fluid because your frame has a difference in velocity w.r.t. the moving frame.  The fluid near the surface of the earth is moving faster than the fluid further from the earth so clocks lower in altitude tick slower.  All motion should in a sense be absolute w.r.t. the beginning of the universe or the Doppler shifting of the CMB.  (the ultimate 3rd observer or God point of view.)
-----
Some problems I am still pondering are if space is flowing into matter than where is it going.  I might guess it is flowing off of our dimensional plane of existence and into another dimension.  Maybe this other dimension is a negative matter dimension that is attracted to space-time flowing out "or Grav-Inertial super-fluid".  Maybe this might explain the existence of dark matter in a sense.  There may be another parallel universe that is gravitationally attracted to our universe because they share space time super-fluid, but not light.  I.e. their stars are sucking in our space time and so appear to be gravitational. 

However, it may be the other way around.  We may be the negative-energy matter and we are the ones increasing in space time.  Could this explain the expansion of the universe?  I don't know. 

Pushing against our super-fluid space time bubble that travels with us, like a road, may give thrust but then our "super-fluid space time bubble" that was traveling with us will be exhausted.  As a result our matter will experience increased drag from the universal space-time fluid till it accelerates to our velocity.  The increased drag may possibly apply mainly to the engine it self and the question becomes if it can provide more propulsion than the drag.  Would this instead be an artificial gravity?   I almost want to think of it as a jet-ski but I am not sure yet. 

Edit: Another mystery is the perimeter of the "local space-time bubble".  Maybe it is very small, atomic.  For instance consider a current carrying wire where the electrons have velocity with respect to the protons but coexist in the same wire.  There is also electro-magnetic inertia.  I think there are a lot of people looking into variations of what might be the case better qualified than I.    https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=quantum+vacuum+falling+near+earth&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C48&as_sdtp=

I found it interesting one of the papers in the link was addressing Woodward, "THE CASE FOR INERTIA AS A VACUUM EFFECT: A REPLY TO WOODWARD AND MAHOOD" by York Dobyns et al.  I can't speak for either yet as it would take some looking into but looks interesting. 
« Last Edit: 12/27/2015 05:42 AM by dustinthewind »

Offline ppnl

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 182
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #633 on: 01/10/2016 10:38 PM »
Question for @Paul451 and @ppnl

Are their any disagreements with what woodward says in this part of the Essay

Quote
...

Given the form of Newton’s second law as stated in Equations (1) and (16), even
competent physicists have come to believe that v dM/dt is a force, just as Ma is a force.
But v dM/dt isn’t like an Ma force. This is usually illustrated in elementary physics texts
with problems/examples like: a railway car moves along a smooth, level, straight,
frictionless track with constant velocity. A pile of sand on the bed of the car is allowed to
fall through a hole in the floor of the car. Does the speed of the car relative to the Earth
(which can be taken to have effectively infinite mass) change as the sand falls? A
colleague who monitors the pedagogical literature tells me that people routinely mess this
up – and that at intervals of five to ten years, articles or blog comments addressing this
issue routinely appear. And, alas, that even those attuned to the subtleties of the issue
make mistakes in handling it.
In the case of a rocket motor, the thing to observe is that there is one invariant
velocity involved: that of the exhaust plume with respect to the motor. All observers,
irrespective of their own motions, agree on both the magnitude and direction of this
velocity. And it is the velocity that yields momentum conservation.

...

I must not be understanding the question because I cannot imagine why the speed of the car would change. That is ignoring the effectively infinitesimal change in velocity of the earth due to the sand hitting it.

And the last sentence I think shows the trouble Woodward is having with the Galilean transform. You do not need one invariant velocity to obtain conservation of momentum. You need to accept that velocity and thus momentum and kinetic energy are frame dependent and do a Galilean transform to translate one into the other. It is true that all observers will agree on the relative speed of the rocket and its exhaust. But all observers will not agree on the momentum or kinetic energy of the rocket or its exhaust. Nor will they agree on how much momentum or kinetic energy the rocket has gained. Momentum will conserve in all frames of reference they will just conserve to different values.

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3893
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #634 on: 01/17/2016 02:51 AM »
I wanted to ask about the possible benefits of using atom interferometry for the purpose of experimental detection of the Mach Effect.

Paul March (Star-Drive) was kind enough to reply to a PM which I sent him, stating that they're aware of the possible uses of atom interferometry, but that the cost of this is beyond their budget.

Nevertheless, it could be useful to discuss how atom interferometry could benefit experimental measurement of a possible Mach Effect, with an eye towards new developments which may even reduce costs.

http://physics.aps.org/articles/v8/22

http://www.techbriefs.com/component/content/article/ntb/tech-briefs/physical-sciences/7932#

So I was imagining that if the Mach Thruster apparatus was producing a regular oscillating signal of its own, that this would then interact with an atom interference pattern to produce discernible/measurable changes (ie. your interference pattern would change over time in rhythm with the Mach Thruster's oscillation)

What would be the best way to set up an atom interferometry experiment in order to give best possible detection of the Mach Effect?




Offline oliverio

  • Member
  • Posts: 86
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #635 on: 01/17/2016 08:49 PM »
@dustinthewind

It seems evident that if spacetime flows into matter in a constant fashion, the rate must be proportional to blackbody radiation.  All objects emit energy in every spectrum at all times.

Offline Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1308
  • Liked: 231
  • Likes Given: 86
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #636 on: 01/17/2016 09:59 PM »
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 614
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 249
  • Likes Given: 267
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #637 on: 02/15/2016 08:28 AM »
I just had an idea that stemmed from an earlier idea [linked] and kind of merges EM Cavities, Dielectrics, and may possibly be related to the Woodward idea but not in an obvious way.  At the moment it seems like a closed system, so far (not saying that it would be a close system or that it would necessarily work). 

We start with a cavity that lets light in one way (cinnamon roll shape) and was suggested by some one in the early EM drive threads. I can not remember where, but am grateful for their suggestion of the cavity shape.  I think I remember rfmwguy commenting on their cavity shape.  The light should travel around one way in a circle. 

The next idea is to fill half this cavity with a dielectric such that when the light enters the dielectric it slows down.  I assumed momentum is conserved so to slow down the light I changed the effective mass of the light by adding "dm".

I then considered the circular path the light takes and assumed a force F = m*a = m*v^2/r which isn't relativistic but the photon doesn't approach infinite mass at light speed anyways.  Maybe I am making the wrong assumption here.  The force around the circular path appears to be different for the photon in the dielectric than for free space. 

...

It is interesting it requires a cavity and it appears the Q of the cavity may enhance the effect.  At the moment it looks like a closed system and possibly related to the Woodward idea based on the light changing in mass.  If the photon changes in relativistic mass upon entering a dielectric then the parallel to the Woodward effect (called by another name by Woodward) then the force of changing the photons path after it changes mass is the parallel.

Edit: When I think about it, there must be some force from speeding up and slowing down of the photon when entering/exiting the dielectric that would work against the estimated thrust.  There is the possibility it could cancel out any thrust altogether. 
« Last Edit: 02/16/2016 08:02 AM by dustinthewind »

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9163
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 611
  • Likes Given: 316
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #638 on: 02/17/2016 01:31 PM »
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.

I just read the "Mach Effect Thrusters (Mets) And 'Over-Unity' Energy Production" paper.

As is known, F=ma, that is, F=dp/dt=Ma=Mdv/dt.

The paper goes on to assume that F is constant, but this cannot be, except within a narrow time frame in a closed system such as a rocket.  In classical rocketry, one carries one's F with them as propellant.  In an MET thruster, one also needs to carry one's F with them, in this case a source of electrical power, which will inevitably run out.

Again, the Force can remain constant, within the limits of the machinery for a certain finite amount of time, but eventually, one runs out of F, that is, electricity.

To my thinking, this means that one never gets to an 'over unity' situation, because one runs out of gas, as it were.

If there were ever to be an MET rocket, it would accelerate to some speed, run out of power, and then it would have a constant velocity, until that velocity was perturbed by another gravitational body.

Hopefully not head on.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Paul451

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1290
  • Australia
  • Liked: 631
  • Likes Given: 535
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #639 on: 02/18/2016 07:02 PM »
In an MET thruster, one also needs to carry one's F with them, in this case a source of electrical power, which will inevitably run out.
Again, the Force can remain constant, within the limits of the machinery for a certain finite amount of time, but eventually, one runs out of F, that is, electricity.
To my thinking, this means that one never gets to an 'over unity' situation, because one runs out of gas, as it were.

Electricity is not like physical propellant.

Think about the oft-used example of a rocket on a rotating arm, with fuel being pumped down the arm. Some have tried to use this to "prove" that chemical rockets can achieve "over-unity" (thus supposedly invalidating the whole over-unity argument). They ignore the momentum-draining effects of needing to increase the angular momentum of the fuel up to the velocity of the tip-rockets. The force provided by the rocket is constant, regardless of tip-velocity, but the braking force produced by accelerating the fuel increases with velocity, thus eventually will equal the rocket thrust and the overall system will stop accelerating. In any real-world system, this will occur at a point much less than "unity".

Now contrast the momentum of electrical energy flowing up the arm, if you put a MET (or EMDrive or whatever) on a similar rotating arm.

See the difference?

Likewise, in open space, its solar panels vs some kind of elaborate propellant harvesting ramjet. Or a nuclear reactor producing electricity, versus the same reactor heating a finite tank of fuel for thrust. The physics is fundamentally different. That's why a reactionless-thruster like MET/etc can (if they exist) achieve over-unity while any reaction-thruster cannot.