Author Topic: Woodward's effect  (Read 803029 times)

Offline Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1729
  • United States
  • Liked: 4389
  • Likes Given: 1407
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1960 on: 08/18/2019 07:09 pm »
This was three days of scientific discussions on interstellar flight, focussed on the themes of (1) Living in Deep Space (2) Advanced Propulsion Technology & Missions (3) Building Architectural Megastructures.  Further details on these sessions below:-

https://www.fisw.space/fisw-2019

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5c751cb03560c34b3b675308/t/5d1d1137fbe7a80001d030f1/1562186083162/14_Fearn_InterstellarUK-TALK.pdf

Dr. Fearn's criticism of the simulation model is misguided. The model I used for the presentation was created specifically so the effect can be seen with the naked eye.   By necessity it had looser spring constant parameters so it could jiggle visibly.  To make it jiggle enough to see, I needed at least 0.5 cm spacing between the parts. It actually took me a while to adjust the parameters from microscopic displacements that could not be seen to the macroscopic ones seen on the presentation.

Again, the purpose of that model was never to exactly duplicate all the physical parameters of the mach effect device (which are not publicly known), but to show how a device with an arrangement of oscillating parts in the same configuration as the mach effect device, could show a false positive artifact.

The fact that the simulated signal had the exact same shape as the Fullerton signal was not something I animated, as she implies. It is something that emerges naturally from that number of objects oscillating - which I also showed.

Also notice how Fearn completely ignores the numerous real world oscillating devices I have built and tested with the same results.
« Last Edit: 08/18/2019 08:35 pm by Monomorphic »

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1926
  • Liked: 316
  • Likes Given: 553
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1961 on: 08/19/2019 01:35 pm »
This was three days of scientific discussions on interstellar flight, focussed on the themes of (1) Living in Deep Space (2) Advanced Propulsion Technology & Missions (3) Building Architectural Megastructures.  Further details on these sessions below:-

https://www.fisw.space/fisw-2019

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5c751cb03560c34b3b675308/t/5d1d1137fbe7a80001d030f1/1562186083162/14_Fearn_InterstellarUK-TALK.pdf


Interesting: so it looks like Dresden detected .05 micronewton at 36300hz 200v
compared to Woodward and Fearn's: maybe .8 micronewtons, 46000 hz and roughly the same voltage. I wonder what the differences where in testing.
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Online Chris Bergin

Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1962 on: 08/21/2019 01:59 am »
Thread back on after a clean (I would stress, the drama was over "personal emails" and it wasn't - it was from a mailing list. They are fair game, but I would still stress copying and pasting them here is probably a step too far based on copyright alone). PS Don't complain about such posts by QUOTING said post as all you're doing is duplicating the post you have a problem with!

Thread 2 will be started over the coming 24 hours by one of the contributors here (as I wouldn't have a clue how to introduce whatever this is all about ;) )

Thread 2:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48855.0
« Last Edit: 08/21/2019 12:17 pm by Chris Bergin »
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0