Author Topic: Woodward's effect  (Read 285902 times)

Offline ppnl

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #940 on: 05/15/2017 07:36 PM »


Just to clarify, I do believe that the MET will result in greater local energy gain than the electrical power input into the device. Consider the following example, used many times before in this discussion.

The device is switched on and accelerates a ship from 0 to 10,000km/h. Then it is switched off. The ship is now traveling at 10,000km/h relative to its starting position. But the device cannot "remember" this.

When it is switched on again, it will not require more input energy to accelerate from 10,000km/h to 20,000km/h than it required to accelerate to 10,000km/h in the first place.

Hence, it does indeed operate as a local energy generator.

Yes exactly. There simply isn't any way around it. You could use the drive to move asteroids and then use the energy to melt down the asteroids to extract the metals needed for massive structures.

But you also have to believe a simple tabletop device is a method for hacking the universe to draining an infinite amount of power from the universe for our use. The experimental evidence is so close to noise that God would need glasses. And the theory for it is... lets just say "inconsistent" so I don't get  nasty messages.

So... good luck with that.

Offline tchernik

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 251
  • Liked: 298
  • Likes Given: 583
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #941 on: 05/15/2017 07:46 PM »
As anything in natural sciences, the proof is in the pudding.

If it works, it works and our models would have to wrap themselves around the facts and not viceversa.
« Last Edit: 05/15/2017 07:48 PM by tchernik »

Offline ppnl

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #942 on: 05/15/2017 07:56 PM »
The device is switched on and accelerates a ship from 0 to 10,000km/h. Then it is switched off. The ship is now traveling at 10,000km/h relative to its starting position. But the device cannot "remember" this.

When it is switched on again, it will not require more input energy to accelerate from 10,000km/h to 20,000km/h than it required to accelerate to 10,000km/h in the first place.

Hence, it does indeed operate as a local energy generator.

This is a common mistake. Take a conventional BFR (Big F… Rocket). Let's accelerate this spaceship to a decent fraction of the speed of light. The more it approaches the speed of light, the more difficult it is for the ship to accelerate, as the mass of the spaceship increases more than the mass lost as exhaust propellant. Now switch the motor off. You can't say "the ship cannot remember its velocity, so just switch the motor on again to accelerate without the previous relativistic drag." Again, this has to do with the inertial reference frame the ship departed from.

Yes this is true but it is important to remember that there is nothing special about the rocket's frame of reference. Fort example if they were to drop a marker satellite out the door they would find that they could add velocity relative to the marker as easily as ever. It is only from the Earth frame that they seem unable to accelerate. From the rocket's frame it is the Earth that seems trapped in glue. It is the Earth that has relativistic mass.

In Galilean relativity all frames are equally valid. Special relativity extends this equality to a case where the speed of light is constant for all observers. In short you cannot tell how fast you are moving by how hard it is to accelerate. Motion is still only relative and does not exist as an absolute.

Offline M.E.T.

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
  • Liked: 190
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #943 on: 05/15/2017 08:20 PM »


Just to clarify, I do believe that the MET will result in greater local energy gain than the electrical power input into the device. Consider the following example, used many times before in this discussion.

The device is switched on and accelerates a ship from 0 to 10,000km/h. Then it is switched off. The ship is now traveling at 10,000km/h relative to its starting position. But the device cannot "remember" this.

When it is switched on again, it will not require more input energy to accelerate from 10,000km/h to 20,000km/h than it required to accelerate to 10,000km/h in the first place.

Hence, it does indeed operate as a local energy generator.

Yes exactly. There simply isn't any way around it. You could use the drive to move asteroids and then use the energy to melt down the asteroids to extract the metals needed for massive structures.

But you also have to believe a simple tabletop device is a method for hacking the universe to draining an infinite amount of power from the universe for our use. The experimental evidence is so close to noise that God would need glasses. And the theory for it is... lets just say "inconsistent" so I don't get  nasty messages.

So... good luck with that.

Well, that's maybe a point of departure. I fully acknowledge that the device should theoretically be able to function as a generator, but see no reason why that makes the effect less likely to be real. Maybe it just means that Dyson spheres, fusion power and anti-matter reactors are superfluous paths to massive energy usage, and that Mach Effect generators can supply all the energy needs that a civilization could ever need.
« Last Edit: 05/15/2017 08:21 PM by M.E.T. »

Offline ppnl

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #944 on: 05/15/2017 09:00 PM »


Just to clarify, I do believe that the MET will result in greater local energy gain than the electrical power input into the device. Consider the following example, used many times before in this discussion.

The device is switched on and accelerates a ship from 0 to 10,000km/h. Then it is switched off. The ship is now traveling at 10,000km/h relative to its starting position. But the device cannot "remember" this.

When it is switched on again, it will not require more input energy to accelerate from 10,000km/h to 20,000km/h than it required to accelerate to 10,000km/h in the first place.

Hence, it does indeed operate as a local energy generator.

Yes exactly. There simply isn't any way around it. You could use the drive to move asteroids and then use the energy to melt down the asteroids to extract the metals needed for massive structures.

But you also have to believe a simple tabletop device is a method for hacking the universe to draining an infinite amount of power from the universe for our use. The experimental evidence is so close to noise that God would need glasses. And the theory for it is... lets just say "inconsistent" so I don't get  nasty messages.

So... good luck with that.

Well, that's maybe a point of departure. I fully acknowledge that the device should theoretically be able to function as a generator, but see no reason why that makes the effect less likely to be real. Maybe it just means that Dyson spheres, fusion power and anti-matter reactors are superfluous paths to massive energy usage, and that Mach Effect generators can supply all the energy needs that a civilization could ever need.

Well we all have our Bayesian priors I guess. I have seen so many of these things come and seemingly never go that I'm just not impressed. Cold fusion, E-cat, anti-gravity from a spinning superconductor, reactionless drives from spinning gyroscopes,  reactionless drives from spinning gyroscopes made from half integer spin materials, big foot...

One thing they seem to have in common is that the inventors seem to have a poor grasp of basic concepts. Roger Shawyer's inability to understand simple Galilean relativity is a prime example.

As someone keeps saying "the proof is in the pudding". True enough. But I once saw an aunt make a pudding so thin that the icing sank. It turns out that such puddings are common while world shattering new technologies that make us masters of time and space but can be demonstrated on a tabletop are rare.

But as I said we all have our Bayesian priors. Good luck with yours.

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 614
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 249
  • Likes Given: 267
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #945 on: 05/16/2017 06:42 AM »
The device is switched on and accelerates a ship from 0 to 10,000km/h. Then it is switched off. The ship is now traveling at 10,000km/h relative to its starting position. But the device cannot "remember" this.

When it is switched on again, it will not require more input energy to accelerate from 10,000km/h to 20,000km/h than it required to accelerate to 10,000km/h in the first place.

Hence, it does indeed operate as a local energy generator.

This is a common mistake. Take a conventional BFR (Big F… Rocket). Let's accelerate this spaceship to a decent fraction of the speed of light. The more it approaches the speed of light, the more difficult it is for the ship to accelerate, as the mass of the spaceship increases more than the mass lost as exhaust propellant. Now switch the motor off. You can't say "the ship cannot remember its velocity, so just switch the motor on again to accelerate without the previous relativistic drag." Again, this has to do with the inertial reference frame the ship departed from.

Yes this is true but it is important to remember that there is nothing special about the rocket's frame of reference. Fort example if they were to drop a marker satellite out the door they would find that they could add velocity relative to the marker as easily as ever. It is only from the Earth frame that they seem unable to accelerate. From the rocket's frame it is the Earth that seems trapped in glue. It is the Earth that has relativistic mass.

In Galilean relativity all frames are equally valid. Special relativity extends this equality to a case where the speed of light is constant for all observers. In short you cannot tell how fast you are moving by how hard it is to accelerate. Motion is still only relative and does not exist as an absolute.

How fast would you say the frame of light is near an event horizion?  Just a little further and the frame of reference is moving so fast that light can not escape.  Further away from a source at a set frequency, light moves in opposite directions defining a set frame of reference but detecting two identical sources on each side, while suspended above a gravity well, would lead to a change in the frame of reference for each source.

Since the rate of clocks and the gravitational potential have the same derivative, they are the same up to a constant. ... The changing rates of clocks allowed Einstein to conclude that light waves change frequency as they move, and the frequency/energy relationship for photons allowed him to see that this was best interpreted as the effect of the gravitational field on the mass–energy of the photon. ...

locally the speed of light may appear to be constant but at the expense of change in wavelength.  Consider that in the case of light instead of a loss in local velocity it is perceived a loss in wavelength.  A loss in wavelength is a loss in energy/(energetic mass) and a loss in energy for a particle with rest mass, velocity is lost.  For an all seeing fame if space is moving in a direction, the velocity of light may appear to be slower in one direction as opposed to the other, as opposed to a local observer moving would instead perceive changes in wavelength at constant velocity c. 

Let us consider the frame dragging effect.  For a rotating black hole that pulls space time around it in a vortex the speed of light one way around the black hole is faster than the other. 

Rotational frame-dragging (the Lense–Thirring effect) appears in the general principle of relativity and similar theories in the vicinity of rotating massive objects. Under the Lense–Thirring effect, the frame of reference in which a clock ticks the fastest is one which is revolving around the object as viewed by a distant observer. This also means that light traveling in the direction of rotation of the object will move past the massive object faster than light moving against the rotation, as seen by a distant observer.

if there is any acceleration going on it should be with respect to the local frame of light. 
« Last Edit: 05/16/2017 07:37 AM by dustinthewind »

Offline ppnl

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #946 on: 05/16/2017 08:32 AM »
The device is switched on and accelerates a ship from 0 to 10,000km/h. Then it is switched off. The ship is now traveling at 10,000km/h relative to its starting position. But the device cannot "remember" this.

When it is switched on again, it will not require more input energy to accelerate from 10,000km/h to 20,000km/h than it required to accelerate to 10,000km/h in the first place.

Hence, it does indeed operate as a local energy generator.

This is a common mistake. Take a conventional BFR (Big F… Rocket). Let's accelerate this spaceship to a decent fraction of the speed of light. The more it approaches the speed of light, the more difficult it is for the ship to accelerate, as the mass of the spaceship increases more than the mass lost as exhaust propellant. Now switch the motor off. You can't say "the ship cannot remember its velocity, so just switch the motor on again to accelerate without the previous relativistic drag." Again, this has to do with the inertial reference frame the ship departed from.

Yes this is true but it is important to remember that there is nothing special about the rocket's frame of reference. Fort example if they were to drop a marker satellite out the door they would find that they could add velocity relative to the marker as easily as ever. It is only from the Earth frame that they seem unable to accelerate. From the rocket's frame it is the Earth that seems trapped in glue. It is the Earth that has relativistic mass.

In Galilean relativity all frames are equally valid. Special relativity extends this equality to a case where the speed of light is constant for all observers. In short you cannot tell how fast you are moving by how hard it is to accelerate. Motion is still only relative and does not exist as an absolute.

How fast would you say the frame of light is near an event horizion?  Just a little further and the frame of reference is moving so fast that light can not escape.  Further away from a source at a set frequency, light moves in opposite directions defining a set frame of reference but detecting two identical sources on each side, while suspended above a gravity well, would lead to a change in the frame of reference for each source.

Since the rate of clocks and the gravitational potential have the same derivative, they are the same up to a constant. ... The changing rates of clocks allowed Einstein to conclude that light waves change frequency as they move, and the frequency/energy relationship for photons allowed him to see that this was best interpreted as the effect of the gravitational field on the mass–energy of the photon. ...

locally the speed of light may appear to be constant but at the expense of change in wavelength.  Consider that in the case of light instead of a loss in local velocity it is perceived a loss in wavelength.  A loss in wavelength is a loss in energy/(energetic mass) and a loss in energy for a particle with rest mass, velocity is lost.  For an all seeing fame if space is moving in a direction, the velocity of light may appear to be slower in one direction as opposed to the other, as opposed to a local observer moving would instead perceive changes in wavelength at constant velocity c. 

Let us consider the frame dragging effect.  For a rotating black hole that pulls space time around it in a vortex the speed of light one way around the black hole is faster than the other. 

Rotational frame-dragging (the Lense–Thirring effect) appears in the general principle of relativity and similar theories in the vicinity of rotating massive objects. Under the Lense–Thirring effect, the frame of reference in which a clock ticks the fastest is one which is revolving around the object as viewed by a distant observer. This also means that light traveling in the direction of rotation of the object will move past the massive object faster than light moving against the rotation, as seen by a distant observer.

if there is any acceleration going on it should be with respect to the local frame of light.

Sorry dusty I have no idea what point you are trying to make. You appear to say some things about general relativity mixed with some word salad. Since I was talking about special relativity in a flat space it seems at best to be a change of subject.

I can't make sense of "how fast is the frame of light". But if you are asking what the speed of light is near a black hole the answer is complicated. Locally the speed of light is always the same. Measuring the speed of light at a distance can give different values because of the warped coordinate system. Also because of this warped coordinate system you can't have a globally valid inertial frame at all.

But over a sufficiently short distance in a sufficiently flat space general relativity reduces to special relativity. Since there are no black holes around I think we can ignore general relativity for the moment.   

Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #947 on: 05/16/2017 11:30 AM »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #948 on: 05/17/2017 09:43 PM »


1) A matter of fact: none (zero) of the electrical input power into the MEGA drive can be converted into kinetic energy of the spaceship: any such conversion is a violation of conservation principles.  Thus it does not make sense to figure the electrical input power into an energy conservation equation for the spaceship or to talk about "overunity", since the electrical input power cannot be converted into acceleration of the center of mass.

2) A matter of definition: gravity cannot be used for continuous energy generation in a closed-cycle.  People are writing about energy generation schemes while ignoring the words "continuous" and "closed-cycle", Thus, a grandfather clock is not considered to be a way to generate energy from gravity because eventually one will have to wind the weight again (not continuous).  Only in an idealized universe where the acceleration of gravity would be constant with unlimited height (otherwise g=M G/ r2).  A hydroelectric powerplant is not considered to be a way to generate energy from gravity because the Sun is the one responsible for the cycle that restores the water to the reservoir.   One cannot generate energy in a continuous closed cycle from a gravity assist. As far as generating energy over finite amounts of time, there are countless ways in which one can mimic perpetual motion over limited amounts of time.

3) A matter of assumptions, relating to the dynamics and of actual material properties as opposed to fictional properties:  a number of people are assuming that a rotating a MEGA drive will continuously generate a constant force.
That assumption cannot be backed by any experiment or theoretical analysis that I know of.  The assumption may be due to a lack of familiarity with how fragile is the state of steady-force generation even in an approximately rectilinear motion and not taking into account the disturbance to the system that results from rotational acceleration.  They are not taking into account the extra forces introduced by rotational acceleration, and the effect of these forces over the rectification of the mass fluctuations, and the energy dissipation involved.   Someone asked: is a constant force possible or not.  My answer to that question is: it should not be possible to generate a rotational constant tangential force continuously with the present piezoelectric-electrostrictive concept.  This difference of opinion could be settled by experiment: an experiment should show rotational angle increasing with the square of time (for bearing having constant friction such that it results in a constant torque), or even better: actual generation of electricity should be demonstrated by experiment.

PS: Some people are also apparently confusing the EM Drive with the MEGA drive.  Nobody to my knowledge has yet successfully explained the EM Drive with a mathematical Woodward-hypothesis model that numerically predicts the claimed EM Drive experimental results.

« Last Edit: 05/18/2017 12:50 AM by Rodal »

Offline M.E.T.

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
  • Liked: 190
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #949 on: 05/17/2017 10:01 PM »


1) A matter of fact: none (zero) of the electrical input power into the MEGA drive can be converted into kinetic energy of the spaceship: any such conversion is a violation of conservation principles.  Thus it does not make sense to figure the electrical input power into an energy conservation equation for the spaceship or to talk about "overunity", since the electrical input power cannot be converted into acceleration of the center of mass.

2) A matter of definition: gravity cannot be used for continuous energy generation in a closed-cycle.  People are writing about energy generation schemes while ignoring the words "continuous" and "closed-cycle", Thus, a grandfather clock is not considered to be a way to generate energy from gravity because eventually one will have to wind the weight again (not continuous).  Only in an idealized universe where the acceleration of gravity would be constant with unlimited height (otherwise g=M G/ r2).  A hydroelectric powerplant is not considered to be a way to generate energy from gravity because the Sun is the one responsible for the cycle that restores the water to the reservoir.   One cannot generate energy in a continuous closed cycle from a gravity assist. As far as generating energy over finite amounts of time, there are countless ways in which one can mimic perpetual motion.

3) A matter of dynamics and of actual material properties as opposed to fictional properties:  a number of people are assuming that a rotating a MEGA drive will continuously generate a constant force.
That assumption cannot be backed by any experiment or theoretical analysis that I know of.  The assumption may be due to a lack of familiarity with how fragile is the state of steady-force generation even in an approximately rectilinear motion and not taking into account the disturbance to the system that results from rotational acceleration.  They are not taking into account the extra forces introduced by rotational acceleration, and the effect of these forces over the rectification of the mass fluctuations, and the energy dissipation involved.   Someone asked: is a constant force possible or not.  My answer to that question is: it should not be possible to generate a rotational constant tangential force continuously with the present piezoelectric-electrostrictive concept.  This difference of opinion could be settled by experiment: an experiment should show rotational angle increasing with the square of time (for bearing having constant friction such that it results in a constant torque), or even better: actual generation of electricity should be demonstrated by experiment.

PS: Some people are also apparently confusing the EM Drive with the MEGA drive.  Nobody to my knowledge has yet successfully explained the EM Drive with a mathematical Woodward-hypothesis model that numerically predicts the claimed EM Drive experimental results.

Thanks, Dr Rodal

Can I ask a question based on your hydroelectric powerplant example.

In the simplest format I can imagine, which would appear to not require continuous force generation, could a series of "buckets" hypothetically be fitted with MET thrusters, which would allow each bucket to scoop up a litre of water at a lower elevation and levitate it to a higher location, where the water is then released into the top of a hydro electric power plant.

The MET device is then replacing the sun in the act of lifting the water to a higher elevation, with gravity then pulling the water down again. This cycle can then continue endlessly, with the MET device using interaction with the distant universe to lift the water up, and the Earth's local gravity pulling the water down to generate electric power in the dynamo.

Each bucket only generates force for the period required to lift the water to the top, after which the MET device is switched off again. Only to be switched on again later.

In this way electricity is generated in a neverending loop, using the MET driven bucket system in one direction and the Earth's gravitational pull in the other.

Would this system be possible in your view?
« Last Edit: 05/17/2017 10:11 PM by M.E.T. »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #950 on: 05/17/2017 10:49 PM »
...
Thanks, Dr Rodal

Can I ask a question based on your hydroelectric powerplant example.

In the simplest format I can imagine, which would appear to not require continuous force generation, could a series of "buckets" hypothetically be fitted with MET thrusters, which would allow each bucket to scoop up a litre of water at a lower elevation and levitate it to a higher location, where the water is then released into the top of a hydro electric power plant.

The MET device is then replacing the sun in the act of lifting the water to a higher elevation, with gravity then pulling the water down again. This cycle can then continue endlessly, with the MET device using interaction with the distant universe to lift the water up, and the Earth's local gravity pulling the water down to generate electric power in the dynamo.

Each bucket only generates force for the period required to lift the water to the top, after which the MET device is switched off again. Only to be switched on again later.

In this way electricity is generated in a neverending loop, using the MET driven bucket system in one direction and the Earth's gravitational pull in the other.

Would this system be possible in your view?
At the moment such a system does not appear to be a practically possible way to generate electricity: experimental results reported in the literature (Fearn and Woodward) are 12 microNewtons per kilowatt.

People are working on it.  Star-Drive is very positive and forward looking

« Last Edit: 05/17/2017 10:58 PM by Rodal »

Offline ppnl

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #951 on: 05/18/2017 02:50 AM »


1) A matter of fact: none (zero) of the electrical input power into the MEGA drive can be converted into kinetic energy of the spaceship: any such conversion is a violation of conservation principles.  Thus it does not make sense to figure the electrical input power into an energy conservation equation for the spaceship or to talk about "overunity", since the electrical input power cannot be converted into acceleration of the center of mass.

2) A matter of definition: gravity cannot be used for continuous energy generation in a closed-cycle.  People are writing about energy generation schemes while ignoring the words "continuous" and "closed-cycle", Thus, a grandfather clock is not considered to be a way to generate energy from gravity because eventually one will have to wind the weight again (not continuous).  Only in an idealized universe where the acceleration of gravity would be constant with unlimited height (otherwise g=M G/ r2).  A hydroelectric powerplant is not considered to be a way to generate energy from gravity because the Sun is the one responsible for the cycle that restores the water to the reservoir.   One cannot generate energy in a continuous closed cycle from a gravity assist. As far as generating energy over finite amounts of time, there are countless ways in which one can mimic perpetual motion over limited amounts of time.

3) A matter of assumptions, relating to the dynamics and of actual material properties as opposed to fictional properties:  a number of people are assuming that a rotating a MEGA drive will continuously generate a constant force.
That assumption cannot be backed by any experiment or theoretical analysis that I know of.  The assumption may be due to a lack of familiarity with how fragile is the state of steady-force generation even in an approximately rectilinear motion and not taking into account the disturbance to the system that results from rotational acceleration.  They are not taking into account the extra forces introduced by rotational acceleration, and the effect of these forces over the rectification of the mass fluctuations, and the energy dissipation involved.   Someone asked: is a constant force possible or not.  My answer to that question is: it should not be possible to generate a rotational constant tangential force continuously with the present piezoelectric-electrostrictive concept.  This difference of opinion could be settled by experiment: an experiment should show rotational angle increasing with the square of time (for bearing having constant friction such that it results in a constant torque), or even better: actual generation of electricity should be demonstrated by experiment.

PS: Some people are also apparently confusing the EM Drive with the MEGA drive.  Nobody to my knowledge has yet successfully explained the EM Drive with a mathematical Woodward-hypothesis model that numerically predicts the claimed EM Drive experimental results.

1) I don't care if any of the input power is part of the output power. I don't care what the source of the output power is. The source could be from the distant universe. It could be an alternate universe. It could be sucking in invisible Djinn and converting their fire into energy.(Think I'm kidding https://sites.google.com/site/brfdictionary/glossary/d/djinn-fizzyks )  Whatever the source of energy locally it will look like a violation of conservation of energy. Unless you explain how that source is limited it will be an actual source od endless energy.

2) Talking about how other systems are limited does not help me understand how your drive is limited. Can it or can it not have constant acceleration with constant power? If it can then you seem to have a source of energy. If it cannot then it may be less useful than a photon drive.

3) I have no idea if it can produce acceleration while going in a circle. I don't see why not but whatever. But it does not matter as there are many many other ways to extract the energy. A linear motor generator for example. Crash into an asteroid and extract thermal energy even. If you can make something move and move very fast then you can extract energy from it.

P.S. I don't care about the difference between EMdrive, MEGA drive, flywheel drive or whatever. I don't care how it works. I care what it looks like when it is working. If feeding it a constant power makes it accelerate at a constant rate up to a high enough velocity then it is a local source of energy. You need to talk about what it can do - not how it does it - only then can I decide if it is a local source of energy.

Please no more hand-waving about properties of materials or entropy or whatever. Tell me what I can do with the thing when I crank it up.

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 272
  • United States
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #952 on: 05/18/2017 04:52 AM »


1) A matter of fact: none (zero) of the electrical input power into the MEGA drive can be converted into kinetic energy of the spaceship: any such conversion is a violation of conservation principles.  Thus it does not make sense to figure the electrical input power into an energy conservation equation for the spaceship or to talk about "overunity", since the electrical input power cannot be converted into acceleration of the center of mass.

2) A matter of definition: gravity cannot be used for continuous energy generation in a closed-cycle.  People are writing about energy generation schemes while ignoring the words "continuous" and "closed-cycle", Thus, a grandfather clock is not considered to be a way to generate energy from gravity because eventually one will have to wind the weight again (not continuous).  Only in an idealized universe where the acceleration of gravity would be constant with unlimited height (otherwise g=M G/ r2).  A hydroelectric powerplant is not considered to be a way to generate energy from gravity because the Sun is the one responsible for the cycle that restores the water to the reservoir.   One cannot generate energy in a continuous closed cycle from a gravity assist. As far as generating energy over finite amounts of time, there are countless ways in which one can mimic perpetual motion over limited amounts of time.

3) A matter of assumptions, relating to the dynamics and of actual material properties as opposed to fictional properties:  a number of people are assuming that a rotating a MEGA drive will continuously generate a constant force.
That assumption cannot be backed by any experiment or theoretical analysis that I know of.  The assumption may be due to a lack of familiarity with how fragile is the state of steady-force generation even in an approximately rectilinear motion and not taking into account the disturbance to the system that results from rotational acceleration.  They are not taking into account the extra forces introduced by rotational acceleration, and the effect of these forces over the rectification of the mass fluctuations, and the energy dissipation involved.   Someone asked: is a constant force possible or not.  My answer to that question is: it should not be possible to generate a rotational constant tangential force continuously with the present piezoelectric-electrostrictive concept.  This difference of opinion could be settled by experiment: an experiment should show rotational angle increasing with the square of time (for bearing having constant friction such that it results in a constant torque), or even better: actual generation of electricity should be demonstrated by experiment.

PS: Some people are also apparently confusing the EM Drive with the MEGA drive.  Nobody to my knowledge has yet successfully explained the EM Drive with a mathematical Woodward-hypothesis model that numerically predicts the claimed EM Drive experimental results.

1) I don't care if any of the input power is part of the output power. I don't care what the source of the output power is. The source could be from the distant universe. It could be an alternate universe. It could be sucking in invisible Djinn and converting their fire into energy.(Think I'm kidding https://sites.google.com/site/brfdictionary/glossary/d/djinn-fizzyks )  Whatever the source of energy locally it will look like a violation of conservation of energy. Unless you explain how that source is limited it will be an actual source od endless energy.

2) Talking about how other systems are limited does not help me understand how your drive is limited. Can it or can it not have constant acceleration with constant power? If it can then you seem to have a source of energy. If it cannot then it may be less useful than a photon drive.

3) I have no idea if it can produce acceleration while going in a circle. I don't see why not but whatever. But it does not matter as there are many many other ways to extract the energy. A linear motor generator for example. Crash into an asteroid and extract thermal energy even. If you can make something move and move very fast then you can extract energy from it.

P.S. I don't care about the difference between EMdrive, MEGA drive, flywheel drive or whatever. I don't care how it works. I care what it looks like when it is working. If feeding it a constant power makes it accelerate at a constant rate up to a high enough velocity then it is a local source of energy. You need to talk about what it can do - not how it does it - only then can I decide if it is a local source of energy.

Please no more hand-waving about properties of materials or entropy or whatever. Tell me what I can do with the thing when I crank it up.

Rodal correct me if I am wrong but it looks like you are limiting your answers to what has been experimentally shown to be true so far.

As a result the material issues are important ppnl. It is entirely plausible that tying a MET to a flywheel wont work not because it is impossible to impart a large amount of kinetic energy but because the current mechanism used for generating kinetic energy  requires some "just so" conditions that could be disturbed when put into a rotational path.

That said, while I apprciate ppnl's slaming into an asteroid example. A much more useful example would be to build two Magnetic catchers Mitts that are  at opposite ends of a sufficiently large enough region of space. Create a ship that has the ability to strongly interact with an applied magnetic field. Then use the MET to accelerate the ship. Assuming the strong magnetic field could affect the just so conditions of the drive then you could set up the mits and the ship to time the toggling on of the field and the drive at the right time. Each mitt would then beam the captured power to whatever station needs it.

That scheme should be pretty efficient and skips the whole rotational material distortion problem rodal raised. The only thing that could possibly forbid this arrangement; would be if the answer to the following question
Quote
...
Someone asked: is a constant force possible or not.  My answer to that question is: it should not be possible to generate a rotational constant tangential force continuously with the present piezoelectric-electrostrictive concept.
...

also, extends to the use case of a ship moving in a linear path.

That said, I think part of the problem is the lack of understanding of the limits of the technology. at this point, we just know that there is something interesting here that could develop into better propulsion technology.

Offline ppnl

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #953 on: 05/18/2017 05:50 AM »
...
Thanks, Dr Rodal

Can I ask a question based on your hydroelectric powerplant example.

In the simplest format I can imagine, which would appear to not require continuous force generation, could a series of "buckets" hypothetically be fitted with MET thrusters, which would allow each bucket to scoop up a litre of water at a lower elevation and levitate it to a higher location, where the water is then released into the top of a hydro electric power plant.

The MET device is then replacing the sun in the act of lifting the water to a higher elevation, with gravity then pulling the water down again. This cycle can then continue endlessly, with the MET device using interaction with the distant universe to lift the water up, and the Earth's local gravity pulling the water down to generate electric power in the dynamo.

Each bucket only generates force for the period required to lift the water to the top, after which the MET device is switched off again. Only to be switched on again later.

In this way electricity is generated in a neverending loop, using the MET driven bucket system in one direction and the Earth's gravitational pull in the other.

Would this system be possible in your view?
At the moment such a system does not appear to be a practically possible way to generate electricity: experimental results reported in the literature (Fearn and Woodward) are 12 microNewtons per kilowatt.

People are working on it.  Star-Drive is very positive and forward looking


Ok this is the kind of information I can use. That is a tiny acceleration with a fairly large energy demand.

Lets say you have a 1kg object accelerating at 10 mN while using 1 kw of power. Nice round numbers. Unless I dropped a decimal point in my head the object will start gaining more kw of kinetic energy every second than kw of electrical energy it uses after less than 600 days.

Now this may be vastly impractical as an energy source but it still looks like a local violation of conservation of energy.

And it gets worse if you look at it from a different frame of reference. From an alien ship passing by at 1% of the speed of light it looks like a vast and inexplicable violation of conservation of energy. Remember kinetic energy is frame dependent while electrical energy is not. That means it is perfectly reasonable for the aliens to see our small violation of conservation of energy as their large violation of conservation of energy.

If you don't conserve both momentum and energy then you can multiply energy with just a Galilean transform. From the point of view of the alien ship the thing was violating conservation of energy on the first day.

Now you can claim that energy and momentum is conserved by connecting it to distant sources. That's fine. But if you don't want to create massive amounts of local energy you will have to show me how to do a Galilean transform without creating that energy.

And I would also like to know exactly what momentum and energy source your particular magic drive connects to. Understand I don't want to know theory. I don't care. I just want to know the source.

People should check my math as I did just bash orders of magnitude out in my head. But even if the numbers have errors the principles are valid.

 

Offline ppnl

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #954 on: 05/18/2017 06:57 AM »


That said, while I apprciate ppnl's slaming into an asteroid example. A much more useful example would be to build two Magnetic catchers Mitts that are  at opposite ends of a sufficiently large enough region of space. Create a ship that has the ability to strongly interact with an applied magnetic field. Then use the MET to accelerate the ship. Assuming the strong magnetic field could affect the just so conditions of the drive then you could set up the mits and the ship to time the toggling on of the field and the drive at the right time. Each mitt would then beam the captured power to whatever station needs it.

That scheme should be pretty efficient and skips the whole rotational material distortion problem rodal raised. The only thing that could possibly forbid this arrangement; would be if the answer to the following question
Quote
...
Someone asked: is a constant force possible or not.  My answer to that question is: it should not be possible to generate a rotational constant tangential force continuously with the present piezoelectric-electrostrictive concept.
...

also, extends to the use case of a ship moving in a linear path.

That said, I think part of the problem is the lack of understanding of the limits of the technology. at this point, we just know that there is something interesting here that could develop into better propulsion technology.

But that is hard to justify since it requires your drive to somehow know how fast it is moving. If it can accelerate from zero to 1 meter per second then it should be able to turn on the drive again and accelerate from 1meter per second to two meters per second. After all all frames of reference are equal and the drive should work the same no matter how fast it is going. Otherwise you create a preferred frame of reference.

Now there is one way around this. Years ago I suggested that if you had a device that could react against the local gravitational gradient then you could have something that looked like a reaction-less drive. Energy and momentum would be balanced because you are actually pushing against the Earth. But there are a few issues.
 
First, the energy needed to accelerate would strongly depend on how fast you are going. To see why imagine a car accelerating along a road. The faster it is going the more power it needs to keep a constant acceleration. It is pushing against the earth just like the magic drive and it needs ever increasing power to continue constant acceleration. The magic drive would work the same or violate conservation of momentum.

Second, the amount of power needed would depend on which direction you were attempting to accelerate. To understand why imagine again a car but this time traveling at a high speed relative to the road. To speed up it needs a huge amount of energy. But to slow down it needs no energy. In fact in principle it could extract large amounts of energy. Regenerative braking does just this.

There is no theory that would support such a device nor do I have any idea how to construct such a theory. And on the very weak experimental evidence I think it a waste of time to go looking for such a theory. It is at best a work of science fiction. But it does conserve energy and momentum.

Offline Ric Capucho

  • Member
  • Posts: 58
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #955 on: 05/18/2017 07:00 AM »
Not much of a perpetual motion machine if you have to put more energy into it than you'll ever get out of it.

Ric

Offline M.E.T.

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
  • Liked: 190
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #956 on: 05/18/2017 08:23 AM »


That said, while I apprciate ppnl's slaming into an asteroid example. A much more useful example would be to build two Magnetic catchers Mitts that are  at opposite ends of a sufficiently large enough region of space. Create a ship that has the ability to strongly interact with an applied magnetic field. Then use the MET to accelerate the ship. Assuming the strong magnetic field could affect the just so conditions of the drive then you could set up the mits and the ship to time the toggling on of the field and the drive at the right time. Each mitt would then beam the captured power to whatever station needs it.

That scheme should be pretty efficient and skips the whole rotational material distortion problem rodal raised. The only thing that could possibly forbid this arrangement; would be if the answer to the following question
Quote
...
Someone asked: is a constant force possible or not.  My answer to that question is: it should not be possible to generate a rotational constant tangential force continuously with the present piezoelectric-electrostrictive concept.
...

also, extends to the use case of a ship moving in a linear path.

That said, I think part of the problem is the lack of understanding of the limits of the technology. at this point, we just know that there is something interesting here that could develop into better propulsion technology.

But that is hard to justify since it requires your drive to somehow know how fast it is moving. If it can accelerate from zero to 1 meter per second then it should be able to turn on the drive again and accelerate from 1meter per second to two meters per second. After all all frames of reference are equal and the drive should work the same no matter how fast it is going. Otherwise you create a preferred frame of reference.

Now there is one way around this. Years ago I suggested that if you had a device that could react against the local gravitational gradient then you could have something that looked like a reaction-less drive. Energy and momentum would be balanced because you are actually pushing against the Earth. But there are a few issues.
 
First, the energy needed to accelerate would strongly depend on how fast you are going. To see why imagine a car accelerating along a road. The faster it is going the more power it needs to keep a constant acceleration. It is pushing against the earth just like the magic drive and it needs ever increasing power to continue constant acceleration. The magic drive would work the same or violate conservation of momentum.

Second, the amount of power needed would depend on which direction you were attempting to accelerate. To understand why imagine again a car but this time traveling at a high speed relative to the road. To speed up it needs a huge amount of energy. But to slow down it needs no energy. In fact in principle it could extract large amounts of energy. Regenerative braking does just this.

There is no theory that would support such a device nor do I have any idea how to construct such a theory. And on the very weak experimental evidence I think it a waste of time to go looking for such a theory. It is at best a work of science fiction. But it does conserve energy and momentum.

But this is what I tried to articulate in an earlier post - though probably not very well.

In MET theory, should you not just substitute the Earth against which you are pushing in your example above, with all the mass in the universe? Then it removes the constraint of having to work harder because you are moving faster in relation to the mass you are pushing against. It also removes the issue of which direction you are travelling in, because there is mass in all directions, if you look far enough.

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2150
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 1017
  • Likes Given: 792
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #957 on: 05/18/2017 01:48 PM »
In MET theory, should you not just substitute the Earth against which you are pushing in your example above, with all the mass in the universe? Then it removes the constraint of having to work harder because you are moving faster in relation to the mass you are pushing against. It also removes the issue of which direction you are travelling in, because there is mass in all directions, if you look far enough.

The problem is constant acceleration. That breaks conservation and physics in general, usually a good sign that the theory is wrong. Why should using the entire mass of the observable universe work differently than using the mass of the Earth? Mach Effect drives would still be an amazing breakthrough even if they didn't provide constant acceleration and operated like any other propulsion system.

Offline M.E.T.

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
  • Liked: 190
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #958 on: 05/18/2017 02:11 PM »
In MET theory, should you not just substitute the Earth against which you are pushing in your example above, with all the mass in the universe? Then it removes the constraint of having to work harder because you are moving faster in relation to the mass you are pushing against. It also removes the issue of which direction you are travelling in, because there is mass in all directions, if you look far enough.

The problem is constant acceleration. That breaks conservation and physics in general, usually a good sign that the theory is wrong. Why should using the entire mass of the observable universe work differently than using the mass of the Earth? Mach Effect drives would still be an amazing breakthrough even if they didn't provide constant acceleration and operated like any other propulsion system.

I was thinking because the speed relative to the Earth will change, but how do you determine whether the speed relative to the entire Universe is changing?

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2150
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 1017
  • Likes Given: 792
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #959 on: 05/18/2017 02:52 PM »
In MET theory, should you not just substitute the Earth against which you are pushing in your example above, with all the mass in the universe? Then it removes the constraint of having to work harder because you are moving faster in relation to the mass you are pushing against. It also removes the issue of which direction you are travelling in, because there is mass in all directions, if you look far enough.

The problem is constant acceleration. That breaks conservation and physics in general, usually a good sign that the theory is wrong. Why should using the entire mass of the observable universe work differently than using the mass of the Earth? Mach Effect drives would still be an amazing breakthrough even if they didn't provide constant acceleration and operated like any other propulsion system.

I was thinking because the speed relative to the Earth will change, but how do you determine whether the speed relative to the entire Universe is changing?

Just like any other rocket. It depends on the frame and in this case what you mean by the Universe. I'd think the observable Universe would be appropriate. Any mass beyond that could not contribute to the effect. Then again, why do we care? If I'm using a MET drive to fly from Earth to Mars, I'm going to be concerned about my speed relative to Earth and Mars. If the theory requires the use of the Universe as a special frame, that might be a problem.

When using some sort of drive to push off from the Earth, the Earth is the reaction mass. If you could use the Mach Effect to push off of all the mass of the Universe opposite of the direction you want move, then that is your reaction mass. Calculating speed and acceleration will use the same math in either case.