Author Topic: Woodward's effect  (Read 417143 times)

Offline Augmentor

  • Member
  • Posts: 66
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 54
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1360 on: 04/07/2018 12:33 AM »
There are two types of phased arrays - emitter array and thrusters arrays.

In the emitter, the RF or other EM wave, even photons and gravitons, a 2D array is the usually limit although so-called parasitic arrays are really antennas.The possibility of using a 2 1/2 D array (units on cards, cards in a box) or a 3D is an issue since the materials, devices and emissions interefer with each other.

Mr. Hansen spoke in 2016 at Estes Park about emitter arrays. The MET is not an emitter array. The mass-energy changes are internal only resulting in macro momentum change.

In contrast, a thrust array especially built of units from MET devices (MET, MEGA, MLT) do not use propulsive emissions; MET's do not emit. In MET devices momentum is changed *without emission*  .

I should note that no space drive variant - MEGA or emDrive - has undergone full EMI testing for a single device let alone the standard tests for two devices. Unit EMI testing would precede any array testing.

The potential of a non-emitting array is the ability to stack in 2 1/2 D or 3 D the thrusters since they do not interfere with each other. This alone is a breakthrough for MET, MEGA and other variants.

When you say METs are not "emitters" - are you simply referring to the fact that they don't expel any propellant? They could be emitters in another sense - in the sense that they emit tiny gravity waves, or tiny amounts of gravitons. If you feel METs don't even do that, then can you explain why? Because something has to be emitted, in order for METs to interact with TheRestOfTheUniverse (or "gravinertial field").

Nextly, if we can agree that tiny gravity waves (or tiny amounts of gravitons) are being emitted, then wouldn't these generate some kind of interference, as all such waves do?

There is no experimental evidence one way or another whether there are any emissions other than thermal photons. This is the first dilemma of space drives; they move, but  what exactly is the gain in momentum due to?

The second dilemma is whether there is any emission. None of the folks at NASA or the other facilities seem interested in EMC testing. Furthermore, one will need to test across the EM spectrum but across the particle spectrum as well. That level of testing will require a cloud chamber and sensitive nuclear testing. Again, not even NASA went that far. Tajmar's lab is fairly well equipped but even that lab may not be sufficient to determine emissions levels at the low nuclear level.

The third dilemma if there are emissions, are these particles or waves. Thermal photons are expected but not enough to contribute significantly to propulsion. However, one has to perform an analysis of the thermal flux across every surface to determine any propulsion contribution, positive or negative.

For particles, we have the graviton (spin 2).; for gravity waves, a quadrupolar field emitter (antenna) is required.

Despite these dilemmas, the Mach Effect Thruster does not currently appear to emit any graviton or gravity wave. Again, experimentally there are not sufficient and extensive tests.

Perhaps at higher energy levels, there will be a need to curve space beyond the boundaries of a Mach effect unit. At the present time, any curvature appears localized  at the atomic and molecular level aka the mesophysics level.


Online RotoSequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 906
  • Liked: 648
  • Likes Given: 829
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1361 on: 04/07/2018 01:39 AM »
Where's the lab data that shows that these devices have a massive scaling property, anyway?

Offline Augmentor

  • Member
  • Posts: 66
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 54
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1362 on: 04/07/2018 03:01 AM »
Well, that question is a bit presumptuous. Where is the theory to support the scalability using arrays. Probably should start with that question before looking to experiments.

And again, there are three possible types of arrays - no emission, emits massless particles (photon, graviton), and emits particles (fermions and bosons).

D

Online RotoSequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 906
  • Liked: 648
  • Likes Given: 829
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1363 on: 04/07/2018 03:19 AM »
Well, that question is a bit presumptuous. Where is the theory to support the scalability using arrays. Probably should start with that question before looking to experiments.

And again, there are three possible types of arrays - no emission, emits massless particles (photon, graviton), and emits particles (fermions and bosons).

D

Woodward's Effect is a bit of a battle between Experimental Physics and Theoretical Physics. Experimental physics suggests there's an effect, theoretical physics suggests amplification, but if lab data supports the existence of the effect at all, I expect lab physics to show effect scaling. Optimistic projections of the effect getting larger reek of optimistic self deception, and similarly giddy outlooks have led to disappointment in the related EM Drive subject.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 851
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 932
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1364 on: 04/07/2018 04:59 AM »
Where's the lab data that shows that these devices have a massive scaling property, anyway?
 

RotoSequence:

The strongest data for MET thrust scaling is the applied dielectric voltage to the 4th power (V^4) data as Woodward and Fearn described in their 2016 Estes Park presentations and have further reinforced since then. 

I also found a limited number of MEGA-drive tests in 2012 by Woodward that demonstrated the omega to the six (w^6) frequency scaling that was expressed when Woodward's SM111 stack started to generate 4th harmonic modulations due to "just-so" stack preload tuning that controls the expression of its electrostrictive response and also the stack's relative humidity history.  This was expressed when the SM111 stack's force output increased from its nominal 2-to-3uN at ~35 kHz drive frequency with its electrostrictive generated 70kHz force rectification signal to over 130 uN when its ~140 kHz 4th harmonic was being generated.  Sadly Woodward could never get this set of 4th harmonic electrostrictive preload and relative humidity circumstances to repeat themselves since then.  That will hopefully change now since his team has won the NIAC Phase-II grant that will permit the acquisition of a complete two channel drive system with a frequency range of from 20 kHz up to 500 kHz.

BTW, Woodward & Fearn's MEGA-Drive thrust scaling equation is defined in the attached 2012 JPC-Templ paper, on page 8, equation 21.

(Added 04/07/2018)

BTW-2, one of the new NIAC Phase-II MEGA-drive collaborators has access to a very good PSV-400 scanning vibrometer, see attached data sheet, that should allow much better analytical measurements of the displacement variable x^3 in Woodward & Fearn's MEGA-drive force equation #21.  However please note that all these variables in this MEGA-drive force equation are NOT independent and they all have variable inter-dependencies dependent on the engineering details of the MEGA-drive build in question.
« Last Edit: 04/07/2018 02:26 PM by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 851
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 932
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1365 on: 04/07/2018 03:02 PM »
There are two types of phased arrays - emitter array and thrusters arrays.

In the emitter, the RF or other EM wave, even photons and gravitons, a 2D array is the usually limit although so-called parasitic arrays are really antennas.The possibility of using a 2 1/2 D array (units on cards, cards in a box) or a 3D is an issue since the materials, devices and emissions interefer with each other.

Mr. Hansen spoke in 2016 at Estes Park about emitter arrays. The MET is not an emitter array. The mass-energy changes are internal only resulting in macro momentum change.

In contrast, a thrust array especially built of units from MET devices (MET, MEGA, MLT) do not use propulsive emissions; MET's do not emit. In MET devices momentum is changed *without emission*  .

I should note that no space drive variant - MEGA or emDrive - has undergone full EMI testing for a single device let alone the standard tests for two devices. Unit EMI testing would precede any array testing.

The potential of a non-emitting array is the ability to stack in 2 1/2 D or 3 D the thrusters since they do not interfere with each other. This alone is a breakthrough for MET, MEGA and other variants.

When you say METs are not "emitters" - are you simply referring to the fact that they don't expel any propellant? They could be emitters in another sense - in the sense that they emit tiny gravity waves, or tiny amounts of gravitons. If you feel METs don't even do that, then can you explain why? Because something has to be emitted, in order for METs to interact with TheRestOfTheUniverse (or "gravinertial field").

Nextly, if we can agree that tiny gravity waves (or tiny amounts of gravitons) are being emitted, then wouldn't these generate some kind of interference, as all such waves do?

Sanman:

The Mach-Effect relies on locally induced transient interactions with the cosmological gravitational field AKA spacetime that gives rise to the origins of inertia, see Bondi's and Woodward's essays on same, of which I've appended two.  So in the end analysis, a Mach-Effect drive of whatever variant, has to generate ripples in spacetime that instantaneously interacts with ALL the mass-energy in the causally connected universe, (all the mass-energy inside the special relativity (SR) light cone since the big bang), that simultaneously back reacts on the locally generated ripple in spacetime.  (Ref Wheeler/Feynman radiation reaction forces and John Cramer's Transactional interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (QM) or TIQM.)  The only way known to me that you can detect and measure such a spherical spacetime distortion wavefront in the lab is to use a second operational Mach-Effect device and look for force beats between the two operating devices.

Best, Paul M
Star-Drive

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1374
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1426
  • Likes Given: 1894
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1366 on: 04/08/2018 02:49 AM »
Where's the lab data that shows that these devices have a massive scaling property, anyway?
 

RotoSequence:

The strongest data for MET thrust scaling is the applied dielectric voltage to the 4th power (V^4) data as Woodward and Fearn described in their 2016 Estes Park presentations and have further reinforced since then. 

I also found a limited number of MEGA-drive tests in 2012 by Woodward that demonstrated the omega to the six (w^6) frequency scaling that was expressed when Woodward's SM111 stack started to generate 4th harmonic modulations due to "just-so" stack preload tuning that controls the expression of its electrostrictive response and also the stack's relative humidity history.  This was expressed when the SM111 stack's force output increased from its nominal 2-to-3uN at ~35 kHz drive frequency with its electrostrictive generated 70kHz force rectification signal to over 130 uN when its ~140 kHz 4th harmonic was being generated.  Sadly Woodward could never get this set of 4th harmonic electrostrictive preload and relative humidity circumstances to repeat themselves since then.  That will hopefully change now since his team has won the NIAC Phase-II grant that will permit the acquisition of a complete two channel drive system with a frequency range of from 20 kHz up to 500 kHz.

BTW, Woodward & Fearn's MEGA-Drive thrust scaling equation is defined in the attached 2012 JPC-Templ paper, on page 8, equation 21.

(Added 04/07/2018)

BTW-2, one of the new NIAC Phase-II MEGA-drive collaborators has access to a very good PSV-400 scanning vibrometer, see attached data sheet, that should allow much better analytical measurements of the displacement variable x^3 in Woodward & Fearn's MEGA-drive force equation #21.  However please note that all these variables in this MEGA-drive force equation are NOT independent and they all have variable inter-dependencies dependent on the engineering details of the MEGA-drive build in question.

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4125
  • Liked: 574
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1367 on: 04/09/2018 03:15 AM »
Sanman:

The Mach-Effect relies on locally induced transient interactions with the cosmological gravitational field AKA spacetime that gives rise to the origins of inertia, see Bondi's and Woodward's essays on same, of which I've appended two.  So in the end analysis, a Mach-Effect drive of whatever variant, has to generate ripples in spacetime that instantaneously interacts with ALL the mass-energy in the causally connected universe, (all the mass-energy inside the special relativity (SR) light cone since the big bang), that simultaneously back reacts on the locally generated ripple in spacetime.  (Ref Wheeler/Feynman radiation reaction forces and John Cramer's Transactional interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (QM) or TIQM.)  The only way known to me that you can detect and measure such a spherical spacetime distortion wavefront in the lab is to use a second operational Mach-Effect device and look for force beats between the two operating devices.

Best, Paul M

Paul,
Thanks for that - it gives some food for thought. I then wonder if 2 or more METs could be used to validate each others' performance. An array of them might be particularly interesting, because if phased array effects were to manifest themselves, then that would be a stronger indication of superpositional waves being generated.


But getting back to comments made @ NIAC Sep-2017 about how Mach Effect coupling would be even stronger at higher velocities - do you have any opinions on the implications/consequences of this? My speculation is that increase in coupling due to increase in velocity means that each oscillation cycle would exert a stronger pull or jerk. This means that as you travel progressively faster, then your ride becomes progressively bumpier or jerkier. Is there a possibility that without any mitigating steps, then at some sufficiently high velocity your spacecraft could be shaken apart?

Offline Augmentor

  • Member
  • Posts: 66
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 54
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1368 on: 04/09/2018 04:18 AM »


The table is theoretical and general that could be applied to any space drive.

One could look at peak thrust potential of every order of magnitude increase in thrust. However, a simpler way is to look at every three orders of magnitude: nN, uN, mN, N, kN, MN and GN.

nN <-- extremely sensitive equipment
uN <-- 2017
mN<-- Most college labs equipped to measure weight, not necessarily thrust
N
kN
MN
GN

Mach effects are currently generated in devices at around 1 uN. To be useful but expensive,  1000 fold amplification to 1 mN is needed.  While one can use other scaling methods, particularly multiplication by array, amplification and tuning, force rectification and other methods are applied first.

However, serious efforts look at certain guiding parameters in the system.

0. Mission: Where is the vehicle going, how fast, and the final destiny. That is,a one way trip, round trip, or a station/orbit
1. SWaP-C: The size, weight and power define the structural and thermodynamic issues. However, this is only the beginning.
2. Thrust: Peak thrust
3. ISP: thrust - seconds
4. Throttability: On/off, pulse, stepwise, incremental, and continuous
5. Gravity assist from moons/planets/stars for steering and speed increase.

To determine the usefulness of a single thrust unit or an array, space  drives require ratios

A. Thrust to Power ratio: N/kWe in particular is the measure
B. Thrust to mass ratio: N/kg is for the ENTIRE VEHICLE, not just the engine. In chemical and electric rockets, fuel is a major factor in the thrust to mass ratio
C. Thrust to volume: Probably the least valuable of the SWAP ratios
D. Thrust to cost: Aka bang for buck

From a cost standpoint, for a particular mission (earth to orbit, land on Moon, orbit to orbit) the cost is measured in dollars per pound ($ per mass). The mission is the third parameter and defines how much fuel is required to accomplish the sum of the delta-V  for each stage, orbit or waypoint.

($/mass)/mission = $/(mission-mass)

One can further breakdown the mission to two parts: cargo and human. The life support requirements for a human in space are significant. Extra safety requirements are required. Food and water must cover mission. Reserves of oxygen, water and food are also required.
« Last Edit: 04/10/2018 04:12 AM by Andy USA »

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 851
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 932
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1369 on: 04/09/2018 03:39 PM »
Sanman:

The Mach-Effect relies on locally induced transient interactions with the cosmological gravitational field AKA spacetime that gives rise to the origins of inertia, see Bondi's and Woodward's essays on same, of which I've appended two.  So in the end analysis, a Mach-Effect drive of whatever variant, has to generate ripples in spacetime that instantaneously interacts with ALL the mass-energy in the causally connected universe, (all the mass-energy inside the special relativity (SR) light cone since the big bang), that simultaneously back reacts on the locally generated ripple in spacetime.  (Ref Wheeler/Feynman radiation reaction forces and John Cramer's Transactional interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (QM) or TIQM.)  The only way known to me that you can detect and measure such a spherical spacetime distortion wavefront in the lab is to use a second operational Mach-Effect device and look for force beats between the two operating devices.

Best, Paul M

Paul,
Thanks for that - it gives some food for thought. I then wonder if 2 or more METs could be used to validate each others' performance. An array of them might be particularly interesting, because if phased array effects were to manifest themselves, then that would be a stronger indication of superpositional waves being generated.


But getting back to comments made @ NIAC Sep-2017 about how Mach Effect coupling would be even stronger at higher velocities - do you have any opinions on the implications/consequences of this? My speculation is that increase in coupling due to increase in velocity means that each oscillation cycle would exert a stronger pull or jerk. This means that as you travel progressively faster, then your ride becomes progressively bumpier or jerkier. Is there a possibility that without any mitigating steps, then at some sufficiently high velocity your spacecraft could be shaken apart?


Sanman:

"But getting back to comments made @ NIAC Sep-2017 about how Mach Effect coupling would be even stronger at higher velocities - do you have any opinions on the implications/consequences of this?"

Sorry but no I don't.  Apparently I missed that meeting, but at first blush how can that occur since the boundary for the cosmological mass-energy shell will always be a semi-fixed ~13.7 billion light-years away from the vehicle no matter what its relative velocity is to your arbitrarily chosen frame of reference. 

Best, Paul M.
Star-Drive

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4125
  • Liked: 574
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1370 on: 04/09/2018 04:26 PM »
Sanman:

"But getting back to comments made @ NIAC Sep-2017 about how Mach Effect coupling would be even stronger at higher velocities - do you have any opinions on the implications/consequences of this?"

Sorry but no I don't.  Apparently I missed that meeting, but at first blush how can that occur since the boundary for the cosmological mass-energy shell will always be a semi-fixed ~13.7 billion light-years away from the vehicle no matter what its relative velocity is to your arbitrarily chosen frame of reference. 

Best, Paul M.


Apologies, I should have included the video for reference - please look at the exchange which occurs between Dr Fearn and questioner @ 17:50 - 19:52




It seems to be said that the faster you travel, the better the Mach Effect coupling between the thruster and the RestOfTheUniverse. What are the consequences of that? Can you have too much of a "good thing"? Can it result in any choppiness or vibrational issues?
« Last Edit: 04/09/2018 04:43 PM by sanman »

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 851
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 932
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1371 on: 04/09/2018 07:01 PM »
Sanman:

"But getting back to comments made @ NIAC Sep-2017 about how Mach Effect coupling would be even stronger at higher velocities - do you have any opinions on the implications/consequences of this?"

Sorry but no I don't.  Apparently I missed that meeting, but at first blush how can that occur since the boundary for the cosmological mass-energy shell will always be a semi-fixed ~13.7 billion light-years away from the vehicle no matter what its relative velocity is to your arbitrarily chosen frame of reference. 

Best, Paul M.


Apologies, I should have included the video for reference - please look at the exchange which occurs between Dr Fearn and questioner @ 17:50 - 19:52




It seems to be said that the faster you travel, the better the Mach Effect coupling between the thruster and the Rest-Of-The-Universe. What are the consequences of that? Can you have too much of a "good thing"? Can it result in any choppiness or vibrational issues?

First off this is my own opinion and does not reflect anybody's else thoughts on this topic including Dr. Fearn's or Dr. Woodward's. 

That said, thanks for the pointer to the NIAC video clip in question where Dr. Fearn and the questioner were discussing the thruster performance metric of vehicle kinetic energy (1/2 m*v^2) divided by the TOTAL input energy needed to get to a specified velocity, relative to some undefined frame of reference.  If we assume that the Mach-Effect Thruster (MET) can produce constant vehicle acceleration with constant local input power, at some time t in the flight, this thruster efficiency metric has to exceed 1.0 and thus apparently becomes over-unity in nature.  However, ALL of the MET drive's developed kinetic energy can only come from the drive's interactions with the cosmological gravitational & inertial (G/I) field, AKA spacetime, with the local vehicle power supply providing only the thermodynamic losses in the MET drive required to establish the G/I field gradient used to accelerate the vehicle.  Given this constraint there is no change in the actual conversion efficiency of the MET space drive over time, because that is governed by the local thermodynamic-losses in the MET drive that are assumed to be constant with time, or perhaps slowing increasing over time due to the wear and tear of its internal components like any engine with cyclically stressed parts.

So let's get back to your original question:

"It seems to be said that the faster you travel, the better the Mach Effect coupling between the thruster and the Rest-Of-The-Universe. What are the consequences of that? Can you have too much of a "good thing"? Can it result in any choppiness or vibrational issues?"

From my previous observations, the basic premise of your question in incorrect because the MET drive's G/I coupling with spacetime is fixed by its design and dynamic operating point that has no bearing on the relative velocity developed by the vehicle to some arbitrary frame of reference.  So in my view this is not a problem.

Best, Paul M.
« Last Edit: 04/09/2018 07:06 PM by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

Offline Jim Davis

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 542
  • Liked: 103
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1372 on: 04/09/2018 07:53 PM »
However, ALL of the MET drive's developed kinetic energy can only come from the drive's interactions with the cosmological gravitational & inertial (G/I) field, AKA spacetime, with the local vehicle power supply providing only the thermodynamic losses in the MET drive required to establish the G/I field gradient used to accelerate the vehicle.

This is the part that baffles me. If an MET drive can extract energy from a "cosmological gravitational & inertial (G/I) field" why aren't Woodward, et al pitching this to utility companies? It is the functional equivalent of a free energy device, is it not?

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4125
  • Liked: 574
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1373 on: 04/09/2018 08:20 PM »
However, ALL of the MET drive's developed kinetic energy can only come from the drive's interactions with the cosmological gravitational & inertial (G/I) field, AKA spacetime, with the local vehicle power supply providing only the thermodynamic losses in the MET drive required to establish the G/I field gradient used to accelerate the vehicle.

This is the part that baffles me. If an MET drive can extract energy from a "cosmological gravitational & inertial (G/I) field" why aren't Woodward, et al pitching this to utility companies? It is the functional equivalent of a free energy device, is it not?

I was thinking about that too - is it possible that the oscillating device can only convert accelerative force into the energy output, rather than merely converting velocity into energy output? (assuming it can operate in an inverse mode)
So if a force is being applied to accelerate the device while its oscillation is going on, then that applied force might result in slightly less acceleration than would occur if the device was not oscillating, and meanwhile some EMF feedback might occur perhaps?

So it's then worth asking if the inverse mode of operation could also be used for testing and validation of the basic Mach Effect. It's hard to measure micro-newtons of force, but maybe it's not as hard to measure micro-volts of EMF feedback while conducting the inverse of the same experiment?



Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1374
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1426
  • Likes Given: 1894
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1374 on: 04/09/2018 08:57 PM »
However, ALL of the MET drive's developed kinetic energy can only come from the drive's interactions with the cosmological gravitational & inertial (G/I) field, AKA spacetime, with the local vehicle power supply providing only the thermodynamic losses in the MET drive required to establish the G/I field gradient used to accelerate the vehicle.

This is the part that baffles me. If an MET drive can extract energy from a "cosmological gravitational & inertial (G/I) field" why aren't Woodward, et al pitching this to utility companies? It is the functional equivalent of a free energy device, is it not?

I was thinking about that too - is it possible that the oscillating device can only convert accelerative force into the energy output, rather than merely converting velocity into energy output? (assuming it can operate in an inverse mode)
So if a force is being applied to accelerate the device while its oscillation is going on, then that applied force might result in slightly less acceleration than would occur if the device was not oscillating, and meanwhile some EMF feedback might occur perhaps?

So it's then worth asking if the inverse mode of operation could also be used for testing and validation of the basic Mach Effect. It's hard to measure micro-newtons of force, but maybe it's not as hard to measure micro-volts of EMF feedback while conducting the inverse of the same experiment?

If you shake a MEGA PZT stack with end caps, yes it will output a signal proportional to the applied compression/expansion of the PZT stack. However, if you apply a constant acceleration to the stack, the instantaneous application of the force will cause a momentary impulse signal as the stack deforms, but then that signal will disappear when a steady-state acceleration is achieved. If it is moving at constant velocity (an inertial frame), then there is no output signal from the PZT. Sanman's original question about velocity has no real meaning since there is no way to measure velocity relative to space-time (AKA vacuum). So therefore, there should not be any difference in the performance of the MEGA as observed from an instantaneous co-moving frame of reference. From external frames, then SR must be applied correctly.

As to whether it really interacts with space-time or just radiates photons, IMO there have not been enough experiments to verify the "average" thrusting force is greater than a photon rocket. As I mentioned before, a thrust balance is a "peak detector". It favors the peak of the thrust not the average. Hence it is possible to measure peak thrust greater than a photon rocket, where as on average that may not be the case. It all depends on the time-averaged momentum radiated away.

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1447
  • Liked: 1095
  • Likes Given: 307
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1375 on: 04/14/2018 02:34 AM »
In this video from today's meeting at Stanford, Prof. Heidi Fearn has two minutes or so beginning at ~2:43:43 where she talks about the Mach Effect drive and uses a simple analogy to describe it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=3GiN-tWAV_k

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4125
  • Liked: 574
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1376 on: 04/14/2018 09:02 PM »
In this video from today's meeting at Stanford, Prof. Heidi Fearn has two minutes or so beginning at ~2:43:43 where she talks about the Mach Effect drive and uses a simple analogy to describe it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=3GiN-tWAV_k

Here's a direct link for people to jump to the spot:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GiN-tWAV_k#t=2h43m44s


(Btw, does her oil drop analogy sound similar to the one made for Pilot Wave theory? Interesting how that was also used for rationalizing EMdrive)
« Last Edit: 04/14/2018 09:05 PM by sanman »

Offline Augmentor

  • Member
  • Posts: 66
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 54
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1377 on: 04/15/2018 08:25 PM »
In this video from today's meeting at Stanford, Prof. Heidi Fearn has two minutes or so beginning at ~2:43:43 where she talks about the Mach Effect drive and uses a simple analogy to describe it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=3GiN-tWAV_k

Here's a direct link for people to jump to the spot:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GiN-tWAV_k#t=2h43m44s


(Btw, does her oil drop analogy sound similar to the one made for Pilot Wave theory? Interesting how that was also used for rationalizing EMdrive)

Her oil drop (silicone) experiment is precisely what Couder et al did in France. it would seem she is laying the groundwork for connecting QM and GR with at least quasiparticles (QFT) and possibly negative vacuum.

Couder Video


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave_theory

See also
Couder
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.154101
https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0466


Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 636
  • Liked: 190
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1378 on: 04/16/2018 12:04 AM »
In this video from today's meeting at Stanford, Prof. Heidi Fearn has two minutes or so beginning at ~2:43:43 where she talks about the Mach Effect drive and uses a simple analogy to describe it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=3GiN-tWAV_k

Here's a direct link for people to jump to the spot:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GiN-tWAV_k#t=2h43m44s


(Btw, does her oil drop analogy sound similar to the one made for Pilot Wave theory? Interesting how that was also used for rationalizing EMdrive)

maybe the video was changed, because there is no talk going on at 2h43m.

next stop starts only 1 hour later, at 3:40, with Dr Sonny White.

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1447
  • Liked: 1095
  • Likes Given: 307
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1379 on: 04/16/2018 01:35 AM »
In this video from today's meeting at Stanford, Prof. Heidi Fearn has two minutes or so beginning at ~2:43:43 where she talks about the Mach Effect drive and uses a simple analogy to describe it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=3GiN-tWAV_k

Here's a direct link for people to jump to the spot:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GiN-tWAV_k#t=2h43m44s


(Btw, does her oil drop analogy sound similar to the one made for Pilot Wave theory? Interesting how that was also used for rationalizing EMdrive)

maybe the video was changed, because there is no talk going on at 2h43m.

next stop starts only 1 hour later, at 3:40, with Dr Sonny White.

The video was updated and thus the time hacks no longer work.

Try: https://www.facebook.com/SpaceStudiesInstitute/posts/948572438645668

Tags: