NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

General Discussion => New Physics for Space Technology => Topic started by: grondilu on 02/06/2013 12:16 am

Title: Woodward's effect
Post by: grondilu on 02/06/2013 12:16 am
So, as suggested here (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13020.msg1009301), I open this thread about Woodward's effect.

I try to understand his paper called Recent Results of an Investigation of Mach Effect Thrusters (http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/JPC2012.pdf), and there are already some details I don't get in the first equations.

Here is a mathbin:  http://mathbin.net/154127

I'm not sure this 3/2 factor really matters or what but already it nags me.  Funny thing is that if the test particle was "outside" of the universe, then sure, one could use the gauss theorem or stuff like that and the universe would provide a potentiel just as if it was ponctual.  But if I assume the test particle is in the middle of a universe, then there is this 3/2 factor.  That's weird.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: D_Dom on 02/06/2013 05:07 pm
I know the previous thread runs long. Wish I understood more of the theory. Here is a link to some of Dr Woodwards research.
 
http://physics.fullerton.edu/component/zoo/item/dr-james-f-woodward







edited to update the link
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: grondilu on 02/06/2013 06:12 pm
As far as I'm concerned, I'm not troubled by the missing 3/2 factor any more.  It doesn't matter as long as in the end we end up with the potential as it would be if it was static.  That's what Woodward use instead of GM/R anyway so that's fine.

But in the following step in the same doc (http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/JPC2012.pdf), I don't get the mathematical path from the fourth-divergence of the force to what he describes as the wave equation for the scalar potential.  In other words, I don't get how he goes from equation (5) to equation (6).  It seems to be a classical calculation in electromagnetism so he's very quick about that, but I don't have this much background.

Anyone would be welcome to explain.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: GeeGee on 02/07/2013 05:17 pm
Anyone well-versed in physics care to comment on this criticism?

"If you break conservation of momentum, you break the 1st law. If you manage to magically nonlocally transfer momentum with the rest of the universe that happens to be in your exact reference frame you break the second law (and quite a lot that we assume about how the universe works with respect to nonlocal interaction.) If you have a drive that reacts with the average reference frame of the rest of the universe and has an 'efficiency' that is relative to the difference in that reference frame, you have a preferred reference frame and break the principle of relativity.
If this experiment isn't in error (and it almost certainly is) then one of those has to go."

I've heard this claim quite often -- that mach effects break the laws of thermodynamics, but this is the first I've heard that it violates the principle of relativity. However, I have a hard time believing Dr. Woodward would waste his time on something that so obviously breaks fundamental laws of physics, or that this massive implication wouldn't have been caught in the peer-review process, or by anyone over the last decade.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ScottL on 02/07/2013 06:47 pm
Chrismb did a write up on how it may not violate any of the laws here:
http://talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?t=4228 (http://talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?t=4228)

In which he goes through the math, however; Chris is not a proponent of the purposed effect, but merely stating that the possibility exists based on the maths.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: LegendCJS on 02/07/2013 07:15 pm
... caught in the peer-review process...
First, you can get almost anything published, just look at the journal of Cosmology.  With the internet you can distribute anything as well.

Reporting on experiments saying "Here is what we built, here is what we did, and these are the signals we got" is also pretty easy to publish because its is presumably true, and they have themselves "covered" because it is stated in that way.

However, you do not see publications on the topic in reputable journals because the peer review process is doing its job.

And you have to understand something about academia/science: its history is littered with revolutionary concepts that violated previously established ideas, and whose advancement were resisted at first.  That is why tenure exists, and that is why scientists don't mind working on anything, and you never know how it will pay off.

Even if it is all bunk and all the evidence so far is the effect of some obscure kind of measurement or experimental error, it is still worthwhile to continue Woodward's search for ever more sensitive tests and instruments and procedures to put the particular kind of error to bed, and possibly provide a valuable instrumentation advance to science. 

Think of the FTL neutrino episode, it was bunk, but you can be sure every experimental physicists everywhere is making sure that their fiber optic cables are properly secured into their instruments now, and that leads to better science results and makes scientists more careful in the future and these are good things.

In Woodward's case the marginal cost/money required for his experiments and hardware seems (to me at a distance) to be insignificant compared to his and his assistant's salaries, so there really is no strong argument to be made that he is wasting resources.  He is a history professor after all, what else would he do if we wasn't fussing with vacuum chambers and coils of wire and signal generators and oscilloscopes and force balances etc.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: antiquark on 02/07/2013 08:04 pm
I looked around a bit for a more "intuitive" explanation as to why it's like a perpetual motion machine. Found one on wikipedia!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect

Quote
If allowed to accelerate horizontally on a frictionless plane, the kinetic energy would grow as the square of the elapsed time, while the input energy grows linearly with time. Thus, after a characteristic time T, "free" energy would appear to be continuously available in ever-increasing amounts

Wiki says Woodward doesn't deny this, but says that the energy comes from the rest of the universe. Sounds like perpetual motion to me!
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: strangequark on 02/07/2013 08:36 pm
I looked around a bit for a more "intuitive" explanation as to why it's like a perpetual motion machine. Found one on wikipedia!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect

Quote
If allowed to accelerate horizontally on a frictionless plane, the kinetic energy would grow as the square of the elapsed time, while the input energy grows linearly with time. Thus, after a characteristic time T, "free" energy would appear to be continuously available in ever-increasing amounts

Wiki says Woodward doesn't deny this, but says that the energy comes from the rest of the universe. Sounds like perpetual motion to me!

Not that I'm defending the Mach Effect, but the appearances can be deceiving. Unpowered planetary slingshots look pretty suspect at first from an energy conservation standpoint, but that's because your gut reaction goes against using an entire planet as reaction mass.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: grondilu on 02/07/2013 08:59 pm
I looked around a bit for a more "intuitive" explanation as to why it's like a perpetual motion machine. Found one on wikipedia!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect

Quote
If allowed to accelerate horizontally on a frictionless plane, the kinetic energy would grow as the square of the elapsed time, while the input energy grows linearly with time. Thus, after a characteristic time T, "free" energy would appear to be continuously available in ever-increasing amounts

Wiki says Woodward doesn't deny this, but says that the energy comes from the rest of the universe. Sounds like perpetual motion to me!

Imagine you're in interstellar space, with almost no speed compared to the closest star, and you slowly fell towards it.  Is it perpetual motion to you?  Of course not.

To me there is suspicion of perpetual motion whenever a process claims it fuels itself.  I still don't understand Woodward's effect but so far it really does not seem to be anything like that.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: antiquark on 02/07/2013 09:24 pm
Has Woodward ever specified the maximum efficiency of his drive? For example, if you had a 1kg mass, and you powered his system with a 1 watt power supply, how fast would the mass accelerate?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: grondilu on 02/07/2013 09:29 pm
Has Woodward ever specified the maximum efficiency of his drive? For example, if you had a 1kg mass, and you powered his system with a 1 watt power supply, how fast would the mass accelerate?

The efficiency would not be related to this kilogram in any way, as the device would release a kind of energy due to the existence of surrounding celestial bodies.

Kind of when we discovered nuclear fission in chain reaction.  The output energy was not related in anyway to whatever energy you needed to enrich uranium.

Edit.

I'll try not to avoid your question anyway.  As I understand it, the Woodward effect is supposed to alter the mass.   So you can actually increase your speed while keeping  the same kinetic energy, since you had reduced your mass.  This makes your reasoning with an energy supply and one kilogram mass quite not appropriated.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: 93143 on 02/08/2013 12:59 am
As I understand it, the Woodward effect is supposed to alter the mass.   So you can actually increase your speed while keeping  the same kinetic energy, since you had reduced your mass.

No, that's not how that works.  First off, the mass fluctuations are transient, and you still have to explain the difference in velocity between the states before the drive was turned on and after it was turned off (= difference in kinetic energy, because m1 = m2).

Second, your proposed scenario breaks Galilean invariance.  Momentum and kinetic energy (at least, translational kinetic energy calculated for a single body, which is not a real energy) are frame-dependent.  You can't accelerate just by changing your mass.  You have to say where the mass went, and how fast, and then you're back to a conventional rocket.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: grondilu on 02/08/2013 01:21 am
No, that's not how that works.  First off, the mass fluctuations are transient, and you still have to explain the difference in velocity between the states before the drive was turned on and after it was turned off (= difference in kinetic energy, because m1 = m2).

There is not necessarily a difference of velocity.

Quote
Momentum and kinetic energy (at least, translational kinetic energy calculated for a single body, which is not a real energy) are frame-dependent.  You can't accelerate just by changing your mass.

That's no what I was trying to say anyway.  I'm not sure I understand exactly how from Woodward's effect you get acceleration.  It seems there are several possibilities, including antigravity, according to John Cramer:

« The question of burning interest to SF readers and writers is whether the weight reduction effect can be made large enough to produce actual lift against gravity. The answer appears to be yes. The weight reduction magnitude depends on the product of the mass variation and the acceleration applied to the varying mass by the piezoelectric motion device. The size of the mass variation depends on the amount of electric power flowing to the capacitor and on the frequency f of its charging current. The magnitude of the applied acceleration depends on the distance "stroke" of the piezoelectric motion device and on the square of the frequency (f2) at which it is operated. This means that the overall size of the weight reduction should grow as the third power of the driving frequency (f3).

Woodward's measurements at a frequency of about 10 kHz (a rather modest audio frequency) observed a weight change of about 1 part in 1000. Increasing the frequency by a factor of 20 to 200 kHz while holding the other variables fixed (if that is possible) should make the weight reduction considerably larger than the weight itself, therefore achieving lift. In other words, Woodward's effect, if it is real, should be usable as an antigravity device or a space drive, in the sense that these terms are normally used in science fiction. »

http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw83.html

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: cuddihy on 02/08/2013 05:38 am
I don't understand your focus on the weight or apparent weight of the active mass.  Nothing terribly interesting happening there, the amount of mass actually experiencing the effect is very small, and it's a transient. It's the apparent change in inertia that really matters, because with the push that is what provides the useful force.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/08/2013 05:49 am
Anyone well-versed in physics care to comment on this criticism?

"If you break conservation of momentum, you break the 1st law. If you manage to magically nonlocally transfer momentum with the rest of the universe that happens to be in your exact reference frame you break the second law (and quite a lot that we assume about how the universe works with respect to nonlocal interaction.) If you have a drive that reacts with the average reference frame of the rest of the universe and has an 'efficiency' that is relative to the difference in that reference frame, you have a preferred reference frame and break the principle of relativity.
If this experiment isn't in error (and it almost certainly is) then one of those has to go."

I've heard this claim quite often -- that mach effects break the laws of thermodynamics, but this is the first I've heard that it violates the principle of relativity. However, I have a hard time believing Dr. Woodward would waste his time on something that so obviously breaks fundamental laws of physics, or that this massive implication wouldn't have been caught in the peer-review process, or by anyone over the last decade.
Everything about it obviously breaks the fundamental laws of physics, starting with (local) conservation of momentum.

Of all these fancy propellant-less propulsion ideas relying on new physics, they have these things in common:
1) Relying on wishful thinking as the impetus.
2) Using a veil of mathematics (pulled out of who-knows-where) to keep otherwise reasonable people from being able to quickly shoot down the result. But really, if it violates the more well-accepted laws of physics, that's good enough for it to be invalid. And if not, it should be noble prize worthy. But of course, they pursue the funding-for-advanced-propulsion route because they're primarily motivated by my first point (1), not by necessarily trying to develop a coherent and empirically verifiable view of the world.


Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. --Richard Feynman


Also: http://xkcd.com/1166/
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: grondilu on 02/08/2013 11:41 am
Everything about it obviously breaks the fundamental laws of physics, starting with (local) conservation of momentum.

Are you even sure about that?  It really does not seem obvious to me.

Woodward derives his formula from the special relativistic version of Newton's second law.  In other words, he makes sure the four-force acting on the system is equal to the proper time derivative of the four-momentum.  So it is not supposed to violate momentum conservation.  Not even locally.

The only thing new compared to mainstream physics is the origin of inertial forces:

« Inertial reaction forces in objects subjected to accelera-
tions are produced by the interaction of the accelerated ob-
jects with a field - they are not the immediate consequence
only of some inherent property of the object - and they are
real, not fictitious. »

http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/MUSH.pdf

Which is a model of Mach's principle.   From an epistemologic point of view, it seems totally legit to me:  Woodward (and Sciala) try to put some maths behind a physical principle, so they can deduce an effect and then determine experimentally if it is real or not.

Do you have a better idea on how to test Mach's principle?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: grondilu on 02/08/2013 11:47 am
I don't understand your focus on the weight or apparent weight of the active mass.  Nothing terribly interesting happening there, the amount of mass actually experiencing the effect is very small, and it's a transient. It's the apparent change in inertia that really matters, because with the push that is what provides the useful force.

You say you don't understand the focus on weight and then you say that what matters is  change of inertia.  Well, according to general relativity, isn't there an exact correspondence between gravitational mass (aka. weight) and inertial mass (the tendency to resist to an external force)?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: KelvinZero on 02/08/2013 12:34 pm
I looked around a bit for a more "intuitive" explanation as to why it's like a perpetual motion machine. Found one on wikipedia!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect

Quote
If allowed to accelerate horizontally on a frictionless plane, the kinetic energy would grow as the square of the elapsed time, while the input energy grows linearly with time. Thus, after a characteristic time T, "free" energy would appear to be continuously available in ever-increasing amounts

Wiki says Woodward doesn't deny this, but says that the energy comes from the rest of the universe. Sounds like perpetual motion to me!

Btw there was a discussion of this back here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13020.msg977623#msg977623
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/08/2013 12:38 pm
It clearly violates local conservation of momentum in any practical, testable sense.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: grondilu on 02/08/2013 12:50 pm
It clearly violates local conservation of momentum in any practical, testable sense.

Why?   Momentum is conserved only if there is no external force.  That's why when you fell off the ground, you don't say gravity violates conservation of momentum.  Because you know earth applies a force on you.

Woodward claims inertial forces come from a field.   So if you look at a device using Woodward's effect and you see what you interpret as a change of momentum, it is just the effect of the inertial force.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/08/2013 02:10 pm
Yeah, he's invented a field (which hasn't been measured before) in order to make propellantless propulsion work. This is the same thing as violating local conservation of momentum. You can't just invent fields because you want them to be true then after-the-fact invent mathematics that obfuscates what you've just done.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: grondilu on 02/08/2013 02:20 pm
Yeah, he's invented a field (which hasn't been measured before) in order to make propellantless propulsion work. This is the same thing as violating local conservation of momentum. You can't just invent fields because you want them to be true then after-the-fact invent mathematics that obfuscates what you've just done.

How do you know he had propellantless propulsion in mind right from the start??

It seems quite unlikely by the way, considering the mathematical path from the field to the effect is far from obvious.

I don't see why he couldn't have just been studying Mach's principle and Sciama's formulation of it until he found the effect, and then deduced the possibility of propellentless propulsion.

I don't know the english for that, but it seems to me that you're doing what is called a "procès d'intention" in french.

Edit:  and yes, the field was measured.  Or more precisely the force that derives from it, since it is actually the inertial force.  It's just that we did not considered it as a real force before.   One direct consequence of Mach's principle is that this force has to be real, meaning that it derives from a field emanating from actual physical objects, chiefly the stars in the universe.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/08/2013 02:22 pm
The mathematical path is non-obvious because it's not a real effect. I'll bet however much money anyone wants to.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: D_Dom on 02/08/2013 03:50 pm
Define real...
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/08/2013 03:55 pm
Define real...
There's no Mach effect. This device wouldn't produce a net thrust (other than something like photon pressure) in space. And I'll put my money where my mouth is.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: R7 on 02/08/2013 04:06 pm
Certainly looks more credible than "vibrating ferrite ring moved my lego car an inch -> Inertial Control!!1" but I fear it falls to the same category. Kinda wish it would work though. Why don't these ever work outside original developer's lab? Stupid momentum, so conservative.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: grondilu on 02/08/2013 04:11 pm
Here is the relevant quote from Woodward about this:

« If we produce a fluctuating mass in an object, we can, at least in principle, use it to produce a stationary force on
the object, thereby producing a propulsive force thereon without having to expel propellant from the object. We
simply push on the object whose mass is fluctuating when it is more massive, and pull back when it is less massive.
The reaction forces during the two parts of the cycle will not be the same due to the mass fluctuation, so a time-
averaged net force will be produced. This may seem to be a violation of momentum conservation. But the Lorentz
invariance of the theory guarantees that no conservation law is broken. Local momentum conservation is preserved
by the flux of momentum in the gravity field that is exchanged with the chiefly distant matter in the universe. »
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/08/2013 04:41 pm
Baloney.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: R7 on 02/08/2013 04:42 pm
I don't even understand why you guys focus on the conservation of momentum that much.

Because it seems to break it, and the established physics isn't happy about that.

If I have understood correctly a mach effect engine should work like this:

1. You vibrate a driver mass back and forth, preferable along axis that runs through your vehicle's center of mass (unless you want torque too).
2. EM field fluctuates in said driver mass, in unison with vibration.
3. Unestablished magic happens, causing the driver mass be more massive while it's pushed backward, and less massive while pulled forward.
4. Net effect is propulsive force accelerating vehicle forward.

The 'average' mass of driver mass stays the same. Nothing is getting permanently less (or more) massive while the engine is on.

The problem is concept seems to break the conservation of momentum, because the vehicle is gaining momentum while designated donor is unknown. I guess the mach field is supposed to explain somehow ("the entire rest of the universe gives because of X").

If this down to earth description is faulty please correct!

[edit: tried to improve wording adding push/pull to step 3.]
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: grondilu on 02/08/2013 04:49 pm
The problem is concept seems to break the conservation of momentum, because the vehicle is gaining momentum while designated donor is unknown. I guess the mach field is supposed to explain somehow ("the entire rest of the universe gives because of X").

If this down to earth description is faulty please correct!

Yeah, the entire rest of the universe gives it.  Are you offended by the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory as well?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: R7 on 02/08/2013 04:52 pm
Are you offended by the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory as well?

Not unless they insulted my mother.

Well now, the mach field and related effects just have to be proven to exists. As said earlier, I'm happy if this works  ;D

[edit: Ah Feynman, him I have heard, read even a bio, dunno who the Wheeler fellow is)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: D_Dom on 02/08/2013 04:54 pm
It clearly violates local conservation of momentum in any practical, testable sense.
Studying electronics I learned to use imaginary numbers in what is to my way of thinking a "non-obvious" way. I use this knowledge in a very practical manner although I will be the first to admit I cannot explain the theory. Einstein famously said that imagination is more important than knowledge so again I ask you, "define real".
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/08/2013 04:58 pm
It clearly violates local conservation of momentum in any practical, testable sense.
Studying electronics I learned to use imaginary numbers in what is to my way of thinking a "non-obvious" way. I use this knowledge in a very practical manner although I will be the first to admit I cannot explain the theory. Einstein famously said that imagination is more important than knowledge so again I ask you, "define real".
You're confusing mathematical terminology with everyday terminology. And besides, observables in a quantum mechanical system have to be real (in the mathematical sense, i.e. it is equal to its complex conjugate) anyway.

There is no effect.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: grondilu on 02/08/2013 05:04 pm
There is no effect.

Just to be sure:  what's your take on Mach's principle?  (the idea that inertia results from an interaction with surrounding matter)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/08/2013 05:53 pm
There is no effect.

Just to be sure:  what's your take on Mach's principle?  (the idea that inertia results from an interaction with surrounding matter)
The effect is distinct from Mach's hypothesis.

The "Mach Effect" is a misnomer... (Mach didn't come up with it, Woodward did.) It's the Woodward Effect, and it's conjecture.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: grondilu on 02/08/2013 06:15 pm
There is no effect.

Just to be sure:  what's your take on Mach's principle?  (the idea that inertia results from an interaction with surrounding matter)
The effect is distinct from Mach's hypothesis.

The "Mach Effect" is a misnomer... (Mach didn't come up with it, Woodward did.) It's the Woodward Effect, and it's conjecture.

You're avoiding the question.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/08/2013 06:57 pm
No, I'm not. The Mach principle is a somewhat philosophical question that fits entirely within our laws of physics and seeks to gain better perspective on them, while the Woodward Effect (which, sneakily, is sometimes called the Mach Effect) contradicts many laws of physics (or invents sneaky ways to get around it, inventing new physical mechanisms out of practically whole cloth in order to hope it's possible).
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: grondilu on 02/08/2013 07:05 pm
(or invents sneaky ways to get around it, inventing new physical mechanisms out of practically whole cloth in order to hope it's possible).

I like the way you're magically capable of probing other people's mind in order to guess their hidden intentions.

As far as the many laws of physics it contradicts, you're just saying that but you don't give any actual argument and ignore those that are given to you.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: antiquark on 02/08/2013 07:32 pm

As far as the many laws of physics it contradicts, you're just saying that but  you don't give any actual argument and ignore those that are given to you.

The fact that it's a perpetual motion machine, contradicts ALL the laws of physics!
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: antiquark on 02/08/2013 07:40 pm
     I hate to say this, but it appears to me that what is happening is that microwaves are being bounced around in the chamber,

I think you're looking for the EmDrive thread, this is about a capacitor that produces force.  :)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: grondilu on 02/08/2013 07:51 pm

As far as the many laws of physics it contradicts, you're just saying that but  you don't give any actual argument and ignore those that are given to you.
The fact that it's a perpetual motion machine, contradicts ALL the laws of physics!

It is not a perpetual motion machine.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: D_Dom on 02/08/2013 07:53 pm
...You're confusing mathematical terminology with everyday terminology.

I practice engineering which is done with numbers. Mathematical terminology is everyday terminology.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: antiquark on 02/08/2013 07:54 pm
It is not a perpetual motion machine.

It can be used to create more energy than you put into it... not sure what other devices have that characteristic...
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: grondilu on 02/08/2013 08:08 pm
It is not a perpetual motion machine.

It can be used to create more energy than you put into it... not sure what other devices have that characteristic...

Looking back up in this thread, I'll assume you refer to this part in Wikipedia:

« If allowed to accelerate horizontally on a frictionless plane, the kinetic energy would grow as the square of the elapsed time, while the input energy grows linearly with time. Thus, after a characteristic time T, "free" energy would appear to be continuously available in ever-increasing amounts. Appeal is made by Woodward to the rest of the universe for making up the energy imbalance. »

That's an interesting point.  I give you that.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: R7 on 02/08/2013 09:02 pm
Maybe ...ffp ... the Mach field ....fffp fffp.... also transports .... fffffp ... energy into the propelled system ...ffp.... from rest of the universe.

edit: and it kinda of does if it transports pulses mass/inertia from elsewhere to be momentum-robbed.

When rocket accelerates the energy content of it's propellant in tanks increases. That's what enables rocket to accelerate faster and faster while seemingly running at constant power.

Mach field sort of keep replenishing your propellant tank from seemingly nowhere while you accelerate using it. Great for Isp!

Not that I buy any of that.

OK, I think I'm ready to go to bed now.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: LegendCJS on 02/08/2013 09:05 pm
It is not a perpetual motion machine.

It can be used to create more energy than you put into it... not sure what other devices have that characteristic...
A naive view of a heat pump would lead one to think they have that characteristic.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: GeeGee on 02/08/2013 09:14 pm
Baloney.

Your arguments in this thread have basically boiled down to arguments from incredulity.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: HMXHMX on 02/08/2013 09:14 pm
It might help if some of you read the book:

http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-4614-5623-0/page/1

Or actually read some of Woodward's papers at:

http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: QuantumG on 02/08/2013 09:15 pm
Baloney.

Your arguments in this thread have basically boiled down to arguments from incredulity.

I actually prefer to use the words: good luck with that.

I don't know he's wrong, but I'm not signing up for the newsletter either.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: KelvinZero on 02/09/2013 10:27 am

As far as the many laws of physics it contradicts, you're just saying that but  you don't give any actual argument and ignore those that are given to you.

The fact that it's a perpetual motion machine, contradicts ALL the laws of physics!

Could be worse. Could cause paradoxes like FTL.

All this was discussed in the other thread. (I posted a link earlier) What I would be most interested to hear is if anyone can argue against RobotBeat's claim, i.e. show that Woodwards effect actually has some explaining power. It is really about "is this a good explanation for inertia" isnt it? What is there about this theory that is more elegant than what we already have?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: grondilu on 02/09/2013 01:46 pm
What is there about this theory that is more elegant than what we already have?

I don't think there is any explanation for inertia in the current laws of physics.   In general relativity, mass bends space-time but space-time preexists to mass.  By this I mean that even in an empty universe, we think there are still reference frames that are inertial and others that are not.   But we're not sure.  That's why we don't know if Mach's principle is true or not.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/09/2013 03:16 pm
It clearly violates local conservation of momentum in any practical, testable sense.
Studying electronics I learned to use imaginary numbers in what is to my way of thinking a "non-obvious" way. I use this knowledge in a very practical manner although I will be the first to admit I cannot explain the theory. Einstein famously said that imagination is more important than knowledge so again I ask you, "define real".

If he does, what will you then do?  Two possibilities, but the same question:

If you do not accept his definition, what would you then prove?

If you do accept his definition, what would you then prove?

On the face of it, the reported theory violates the conservation of momentum.

Not at all clear how the explanation of the theory is made by having this "definition" of what is "real".
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: grondilu on 02/09/2013 03:25 pm
On the face of it, the reported theory violates the conservation of momentum.

Maybe the engine that he describes would (pulling and pushing an oscillating mass).  He might have made a mistake when modeling the dynamics of such a system.

But the effect by itself (the variation of mass) does not violate the conservation of momentum.  Momentum is conserved if you consider all masses in the universe.  Just like a comet falling towards the Sun does not violate momentum conservation.  It gains momentum due to an interaction with a gravitational field.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/09/2013 03:53 pm
I don't think there is any explanation for inertia in the current laws of physics.   In general relativity, mass bends space-time but space-time preexists to mass.  By this I mean that even in an empty universe, we think there are still reference frames that are inertial and others that are not.   But we're not sure.  That's why we don't know if Mach's principle is true or not.

That's my understanding as well.

AIUI, Mach's hypothesis is that inertia results from local mass interacting with the total mass of the universe.  I don't know how that hypothesis could be tested and verified.

Somehow, Woodward claims to have created a device where you put electrical energy in one end, and it is converted to rotational torque in the experimental setup.  Ideally, the electrical energy would be converted to forward momentum.  That conversion mechanism would be that "flux capacitor" which he refers to.  It is in the "flux capacitor" where the unestablished magic science happens, causing the driver mass be more massive while it's pushed backward, and less massive while pulled forward. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1010280#msg1010280)  Bit of a fix there, to give the benefit of the doubt.

The fact proposal that it's a perpetual motion machine, contradicts ALL the laws of physics!

Fixed that for ya.  'Cause it ain't no fact.  'Cause it don't exist.  But hey.

Personally, I'm ignoring the energy gains alleged for the "optimized" device as speculated about by Woodward and others.

I am still trying, without suggesting that I have been working the problem 24/7/365, to understand the math which is said to demonstrate Woodward and Sciama's interpretation of inertia.  With this understanding, I hope then to understand how the "flux capacitor" works.

So far, I haven't had good luck with that.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/09/2013 03:56 pm
On the face of it, the reported theory violates the conservation of momentum.

Maybe the engine that he describes would (pulling and pushing an oscillating mass).  He might have made a mistake when modeling the dynamics of such a system.

But the effect by itself (the variation of mass) does not violate the conservation of momentum.  Momentum is conserved if you consider all masses in the universe.  Just like a comet falling towards the Sun does not violate momentum conservation.  It gains momentum due to an interaction with a gravitational field.

That's what nobody seems to understand.  Did he make a mistake?

And if you do consider all the masses in the universe, something else somewhere else is moving, once this device gets going.  I like to joke that I stamp my feet in this room, and some Arcturian's coffee develops ripples.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: grondilu on 02/09/2013 04:06 pm
That's what nobody seems to understand.  Did he make a mistake?

I don't know.  You'll notice I started this thread with questions regarding his maths.

Quote
And if you do consider all the masses in the universe, something else somewhere else is moving, once this device gets going.  I like to joke that I stamp my feet in this room, and some Arcturian's coffee develops ripples.

Ever since I read Feynman's short book "strange theory of light and matter", where iirc he describes his absorber theory with advanced electromagnetic waves, I'm not surprised by this kind of stuff anymore.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/09/2013 04:39 pm
From the Propellantless thread, which is just too friggin' long, I repost a few things, for the general convenience. 

If I had written the software for this site, it would paginate well; but I didn't and it doesn't.  Use the "Print" function to find the pieces I repost.

Sometimes, the search function works, and you get a linkable quote.  Just offering some backup reading for the convenience of posters in this thread.  No particular order.

****************************************

Post by: Star-Drive on August 08, 2009, 11:52:48 AM

Quote
From Dr. James F. Woodward, August 08, 2009

"The issue of whether Mach's principle is contained in 1915 GR depends on how the principle is defined and whether or not one requires that initial/boundary conditions are considered part of the theory.  If all that GR is considered to be is the field equations, then one can make statements like that your correspondent makes.  It is now well-known, if not as widely appreciated as it should be, though, that Mach's principle -- which is one of Einstein's formative principles in creating GR -- is contained in 1915 GR.  That is, no modification of the 1915 field equations is required to encompass Mach's principle.  What is required is the stipulation of suitable boundary and/or initial conditions for it to be shown explicitly that the inertia of local objects is caused by the distribution of chiefly distant matter.  Derek Raine did this explicitly in his doctoral work for Dennis Sciama back in the mid-'70s.

The reason why this has not become textbook stuff (and your correspondent can make the sort of statements he does without looking like a complete jackass) is that while Mach's principle is part of 1915 GR with boundary/initial conditions that correspond to the universe as we see it, it comes with a price.  Either one must accept that, at least as far as inertia is concerned, GR is an "action at a distance" interaction (to account for the instantaneity of inertial reaction forces) -- see Hoyle and Narlikar's book Action at a Distance in Physics and Cosmology (Freeman, 1974) -- or inertial effects must be considered to be contained in the "constraint" equations on initial data (which are elliptic, rather than hyperbolic, and "propagate" instantaneously as a result) -- see Ciufolini and Wheeler, Gravitation and Inertia (Princeton, 1995).

Wheeler hardly mentions Raine at all -- presumably because Raine didn't include the energies associated with gravity waves in his analysis -- and perhaps because Wheeler, despite being an early advocate (with Feynman) of action at a distance electrodynamics, seems to have regarded action at a distance as a serious theoretical consideration as silly.

Actually, of course, who believes what, and why, is irrelevant as far as the physical reality of Mach effects is concerned.  The ONLY relevant question is: are inertial reaction forces produced by the gravitational action of chiefly distant matter (in GR or any other theory you happen to choose to believe in)?  The answer to this question is clear.  They are.

This was shown by Sciama decades ago.  And the same result can be demonstrated for GR conditions using Nordtvedt's formulation of the PPN formalism for linear accelerative frame dragging.  Once you have accepted the fact that inertial forces are produced by the gravitational action of chiefly distant matter, then the rest of the derivation of transient Mach effects follows inexorably.  Whether your corresponded chooses to understand and appreciate this is irrelevant to the facts of the nature of reality.  Science, ultimately, is not a beauty contest determined by fashion or wishful thinking.  Experiments, not the opinions of others, will eventually decide the issues involved.

I suggest that you not waste your time on trying to convince others to take Mach's principle Mach effects seriously.  People get silly theoretical fixations, and it is impossible to get them to abandon them.

As Planck once said, his critics didn't change their minds.  They died.
Building something that works is the only thing that warrants serious attention."

That last sentence is interesting, especially in light of the fact that no such working device has yet been publicly revealed.  That it is interesting is not to say that it is revealing.

Post by: Star-Drive on May 14, 2010, 11:30:05 AM  [Addressing moi, who had just oberved that I don't think that inertia is understood just yet.]

Quote
John:

Now that depends on who you ask.  Dennis Sciama, (Graduate student of Paul Dirac and Graduate Advisor to Steve Hawking amoung other stellar Physics folks from the 1960s, 70s and 80s), provided a very good explanation for the origins of inertia based on Mach's Priniciple and GRT.  (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_William_Sciama and Sciama's graduate paper on same.)  This is where Woodward started his quest for a better rocket via the Mach-Effect as revealed in its extendions to Newton's thrid law. 

And yes, the QM types have tried to make their Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations be the origins of inertia, (See Hal Puthoff & crew's work on same), but their arguments to date IMO don't stand up to Sciama's and the rest of the GRT folk's origins of-inertia theory.  Your opinion may differ, so we really need to be doing experiments instead of brushing this inertia issue under the rug.

Just clarifying that I am not brushing anything under the rug, yet neither is Star Drive providing me with an explanation of inertia.  I'm happy for experimentation to take place, tho I do not necessarily want to fund it myself.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13020.msg588994#msg588994

Quote from: JF
I have read some of Sciama's work.  We're familiar with Einstein's thought experiment of dropping a ball in the cab of an elevator, which seems to indicate that one can't differentiate between acceleration or gravitational attraction.  Sciama suggests dropping two balls.  In an accelerating frame, the balls would move parallel to one another.  In a gravitational frame, the balls would tend to converge to the center of gravity of the nearby body.  This struck me as a good experiment to differentiate between the two types of acceleration.[/JF]

Even so, and I can't find it, there is another explanation of why the two balls converge.

I have slogged thru Ciufolini & Wheeler in its entirety.  ...  They, C&W, assert instantaneous action at a distance as a precept of Mach's principle: "Inertia here arises from mass there".

One thing I don't get is how they can draw conclusions about inertial frame dragging, while admitting that there is a good deal of "missing" mass in the universe.  ...  Their math, of course, is impenetrable to me in large part, but their descriptive speculations and conclusions are illuminating.  Section 4.8 Cosmology and Origin of Inertia is a good example. 

C&W admit, "with regard to the origin of inertia, we try to do the same in this section (and in this book): to determine and distinguish among some formulations and interpretations of the origin of inertia in Einstein geometrodynamics, in other metric theories, and in classical mechanics, and come up with experiments that might test these different interpretations".  Italics theirs.

True, C&W get a mite poetic here and there:  Page 274. "Adopting this language, we can declare that spacetime and inertia here do not see mass-energy there; they feel it".  The language they're adopting is that of Sciama and Ellis: "the Coulomb field of a charged particle that lies outside of our particle horizon is still inprinciple detectable today.  We can express this situation by saying that although we cannot see acharge outside of our light cone, we can certainly feel it".  As I put it; if I stomp on the planet right now, the beings on Arcturus will feel it immediately, at least in principle.  In the documentary film "A New Hope", the scientist Alec Guinness points out that he has "felt a major disturbance in the Force".

There is some other mass-energy force out there and it is a huge component of the whole; I continue to struggle with understanding it beyond my math abilities.  The rest of the universe outside of our light cone can simply not cease to exist without there being some effect here; not only that, but there are "things", like planets, for example, out there which we cannot see.  I guess.  I think that the prop-less propulsion folk believe that they have found some demonstrable evidence of this force.

Edited out a bit of snark, but a good book is C&W "Gravitation and Inertia".  Also Sciama's "Foundations of General Relativity".

Post by: Star-Drive on August 02, 2010, 11:16:03 PM

Quote
And lets not forget:

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/25331/

http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.1988

"Inertial and gravitational mass in quantum mechanics

Authors: E. Kajari, N.L. Harshman, E.M. Rasel, S. Stenholm, G. Süßmann, W.P. Schleich

(Submitted on 10 Jun 2010 (v1), last revised 15 Jun 2010 (this version, v2))
Abstract: We show that in complete agreement with classical mechanics, the dynamics of any quantum mechanical wave packet in a linear gravitational potential involves the gravitational and the inertial mass only as their ratio. In contrast, the spatial modulation of the corresponding energy wave function is determined by the third root of the product of the two masses. Moreover, the discrete energy spectrum of a particle constrained in its motion by a linear gravitational potential and an infinitely steep wall depends on the inertial as well as the gravitational mass with different fractional powers. This feature might open a new avenue in quantum tests of the universality of free fall."

SiriusGrey

"Lastly; although you have given many buzzwords; you have not actually made it clear why the mach effect would have any effects on a scale smaller than some lightyears. Try to explain in one paragraph."

I did but you didn't seem to notice.  It's called Newtonian inerital reaction forces and the predicted transient M-E forces that surrounds them.  As to the buzzwords, you might take the time to read the comments and the references already provided in this thread, but I'll make it easy for you and append one of the more important papers and a teaser as well.

Best.

Paul March
Friendswood, TX


Read the attached PDF to that post:

Flux Caps & Origin of inertia_04-20-2004.pdf
Nordt-1.jpg

I'll try to paint a picture of the M-E and rockets that you can relate to, but this stuff is not easy to navigate through so bear with me. 

BTW, until we have an experimentally verified quantum-gravity theory that merges QM and GRT into a harmonious whole, we have no clue whether "gravitons" or the quantification of gravity into particles exist or does not.  So the GRT community talks about spacetime distortion waves being the seat of all gravitational and inertial phenomenon's instead.  In fact, Woodward claims that Newtonian inertial reaction forces are the only TRUE force of gravity!  Local gravitational disturbances, like the gee-field of the Earth, are just minor local spacetime distortions…


Woodward’s transient Mach-Effect (M-E) conjecture is inextricably tied to his proposed origins of inertia theory based on Newton's three laws of motion, Mach’s Principle, Special and General Relativity Theories (SRT & GRT), Lorentz Invariance, with the latter requirement guarantying that the resulting conjecture observes all known conservation laws, along with Dennis Sciama’s 1953 and 1969 origins of inertia papers.   The strength of Woodward’s arguments relies on the strength of these underlying assumptions, which have yet to be disproven in or out of the labs.  Also note that since we are talking about using a hidden attribute of regular Newtonian inertial reaction forces instead of gravity effects to create the M-E, the magnitude of these predicted M-E transient inertial forces are in line with everyday inertial reaction forces that can be very large dependent on the magnitude of the applied acceleration, instead of the pico-picoscopic forces described by gravity effects or GRT predicted gravity waves due to the ~1x10^40 measured difference in gravity verses inertial derived effects.  One may legitimately then ask why does this huge difference in magnitude exist between spacetime distortions derived effects such as gravity and inertia?  It results from the fact that the gravitational forces are created by spacetime distortions created by local mass/energy concentrations only, whereas inertial forces are created by the interactions of all the causally connected mass/energy in the universe which is currently pegged as having a radius of 13.7 billion light years.
 
Now why did I provide all of the foregoing when talking about the difference between the M-E based thrusters and rockets?   First off the reader has to remember that the rocket and its propellant form a small  CLOSED-loop system.  It has NO pertinent interactions with the outside universe as far as its maximum delta-V generation capability is concerned.  This closed system restriction limits a rocket vehicle’s maximum obtainable delta-V to the total amount of onboard propellant and the amount of useable energy that is stored in the vehicle’s propellant or reactors be it chemical or nuclear derived.   This local onboard energy and propellant limitation IS the origins of the Tyranny of the rocket equation!   

An M-E based thruster on the other hand is a much larger closed-loop propulsion system that can react with ALL the mass/energy in the causally connected universe that participates in the creation of the local acceleration induced inertial forces.  (See Sciama’s and Woodward’s “Origins of Inertia” papers.)  So an M-E based thruster not only uses this cosmologically derived mass/energy reaction force for most of its equivalent reaction mass, (It also has to have a minimum recyclable amount of local mass that will allow it to react with the gravinertial (G/I) field, just like a submarine has to have a propeller to react with the ocean’s waters.)   However, it also can extract energy and momentum from this near infinite sea of G/I mass/energy field and convert it into the local kinetic energy of the locally accelerated M-E powered vehicle above and beyond what the vehicle’s local power supply can provide.  However it can do this only if a G/I pressure differential of the proper sign can be established across the M-E device’s dielectric “propeller”.   

Ok, so why did I evoke Einstein’s e=m*c^2 energy/mass equivalency in my previous comments?  Simply because of Einstein’s GRT based equivalence principle or EEP that states that there can be no measureable difference between gravitational and inertial mass when measured in the same local frame of reference.  The EEP therefore requires that acceleration measured inertial mass has to have the same value as gravitationally measured mass in the same frame of reference, which is defined by Einstein’s mass/energy equivalency equation of m= e/c^2.  This implies that the G/I field phi, which has a theoretical value equal to c^2, is created by the summation of ALL of the mass/energy created spacetime distortions in the causally connected universe.  Therefore given the cosmologically derived estimates of the mass/energy contained in the causally connected universe that is ~13.7 billion light years in radius, which is measured to be 9.1x10^-27 kg/m^3 in mass density terms, times the total volume of the cosmos, and converting that figure back to energy gives us an upper bound for the available energy that any M-E device can tap.   Another way to estimate the magnitude of this upper energy storage bound of the causally connected universe can be estimated by noting that there are ~1x10^80 atoms in this cosmos, plus the associated dark matter and dark energy that goes with it and then converting that figure into energy and adding them all up.  So the theoretical G/I field energy so extracted by an M-E device is therefore near infinite and not limited by its local energy resources stored in the vehicle even if it’s nuclear power derived.  It is only limited by the power handling and phase control capabilities of the M-E device‘s components and its overall efficiency at pumping G/I field energy from this cosmological energy resource to the local vehicle or power plant in question.  How much energy that can be extracted from the G/I field by any one M-E device will ultimately be determined by the maximum operational G/I pressure differential that can be established across any given M-E device.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/09/2013 05:00 pm
General Relativity isn't compatible with the Mach principle, despite what Woodward claims. GR is intrinsically /local/. The existence of gravity waves actually supports this.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: GeeGee on 02/09/2013 10:02 pm
There's quite a few versions of Mach's principle out there, some of which are incompatible with GR (like the relationist version). The one Woodward's talking about is based on Sciama's model of inertia. Derek Raine showed in this (http://iopscience.iop.org/0034-4885/44/11/001) paper that Sciama's account of inertia is true in GR for all isotropic cosmologies (universes like ours). Those are the "boundary conditions" Woodward is talking about in the quote above.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/09/2013 10:14 pm
Again, it seems more like Woodward is trying to fit the universe to do what he wants it to do instead of trying to figure out how it /actually/ works and only then exploiting it.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: QuantumG on 02/09/2013 10:18 pm
I don't care how dumb the theory is.. if it leads him to an experiment that produces results which are hard to explain then it'll be worth it.

So far, that hasn't happened, but the feeling is that he's getting there.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/09/2013 10:20 pm
I don't care how dumb the theory is.. if it leads him to an experiment that produces results which are hard to explain then it'll be worth it.

So far, that hasn't happened, but the feeling is that he's getting there.

I don't get the feeling that it's getting there at all.

But of course, whatever clear, transparent, and reproducible experiment says, I will believe.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: grondilu on 02/09/2013 10:50 pm
Again, it seems more like Woodward is trying to fit the universe to do what he wants it to do instead of trying to figure out how it /actually/ works and only then exploiting it.

Again, I applaud your amazing capability of reading people's minds.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: QuantumG on 02/09/2013 10:54 pm
I don't get the feeling that it's getting there at all.

He's "getting there" in the sense that he's actually trying experiments.. which is more than most people in this field.

Quote
But of course, whatever clear, transparent, and reproducible experiment says, I will believe.

Yep, and Woodward indicates that he won't be happy with anything less.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/09/2013 11:00 pm
Again, it seems more like Woodward is trying to fit the universe to do what he wants it to do instead of trying to figure out how it /actually/ works and only then exploiting it.

Again, I applaud your amazing capability of reading people's minds.
It goes along with the non-locality of the Woodward Effect. ;)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: KelvinZero on 02/09/2013 11:06 pm
Is there an accurate prediction for the amount of force?

If say there were a prediction to a few significant figures and different people's experiments keep approaching this then we are beginning to see the first evidence.

If someone finds a force ten times greater, instead of everyone saying hurrah hurrah and calculating how long it will take to reach mars, we should immediately know it is not the effect we are trying to demonstrate. They have screwed up and have to hunt down the problem before publishing.. or start their own website ;)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 02/09/2013 11:08 pm
Not sure whether this has been posted here yet, but Heidi Fearn's presentation is up:
http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/ASPW2012.pdf
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: grondilu on 02/09/2013 11:16 pm
Not sure whether this has been posted here yet, but Heidi Fearn's presentation is up:
http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/ASPW2012.pdf

Thanks.

I don't get this (page 7):
«
The fact that inertial reaction forces are
independent of time and place requires
that the masses of things be equal to their
total gravitational potential energies.
»

Edit.  Also, at the end there is a nice quote from Einstein, but we are not told where it comes from, and a quick search on Google revealed nothing:

«
Einstein believed in Mach’s principle in 1918 and listed it on
equal footing with his first 2 principles of relativity;
(1) The principle of relativity as expressed by general covariance
(2) The principle of equivalence
(3) Mach’s principle (the first time this term entered the
literature). . . . that the gμν are completely determined by the
mass of bodies, more generally by Tμν.
In 1922, Einstein noted that others were satisfied to proceed
without this [third] criterion and added,
“This contentedness will appear incomprehensible to a later
generation however”.
»
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: KelvinZero on 02/09/2013 11:45 pm
cool.. at least it talks about hitting predictions instead of how impressively large the detected force is:

The detected thrusts are to better than order of magnitude the same as those predicted when the explicit acceleration dependent formalism is used.

I have heard something about scientists wanting two orders of magnitude accuracy, 99%, before concluding something is real. So I guess once this guy thinks he has a recipe to reproduce that then he can interest someone else reputable to attempt to reproduce it. Then it begins its journey towards acceptance.

I wonder why his slides show space travel and wormholes though. I would have thought the free energy aspect was much more socially and cosmologically relevant.

''Impressive.. they can make planets" :)

I can't follow the physics but that does sort of make it look like he is pursuing a theory for flying saucers rather than having an interest in the awesome cosmological consequences if he is right. Maybe nerds think like that. I dunno.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: quixote on 02/10/2013 02:29 am
It's in Subtle Is the Lord: The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein, page 287 of this (http://www.amazon.com/Subtle-Lord-Science-Albert-Einstein/dp/0192806726) edition on Amazon. In fact if you use the "Search inside this book" for "contentedness", it's the first thing found.

Edit.  Also, at the end there is a nice quote from Einstein, but we are not told where it comes from, and a quick search on Google revealed nothing:

«
Einstein believed in Mach’s principle in 1918 and listed it on
equal footing with his first 2 principles of relativity;
(1) The principle of relativity as expressed by general covariance
(2) The principle of equivalence
(3) Mach’s principle (the first time this term entered the
literature). . . . that the gμν are completely determined by the
mass of bodies, more generally by Tμν.
In 1922, Einstein noted that others were satisfied to proceed
without this [third] criterion and added,
“This contentedness will appear incomprehensible to a later
generation however”.
»
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: grondilu on 02/10/2013 02:45 am
It's in Subtle Is the Lord: The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein, page 287 of this (http://www.amazon.com/Subtle-Lord-Science-Albert-Einstein/dp/0192806726) edition on Amazon. In fact if you use the "Search inside this book" for "contentedness", it's the first thing found.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: GeeGee on 02/10/2013 04:01 am
I can't follow the physics but that does sort of make it look like he is pursuing a theory for flying saucers rather than having an interest in the awesome cosmological consequences if he is right.

Woodward has stated before that he's not pursuing the origin of inertia as an academic exercise, but as a practical one. If there's any chance of novel propulsion schemes that don't carry propellant, it would likely be found in areas of physics that aren't fully understood, like the source of inertia. He's had an interest in exotic propulsion since his college days, or as he likes to call it "Getting things to go fast without blowing stuff out of the tailpipe".
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/10/2013 05:24 am
See, right there. Don't even have to use my gift in reading minds.

"
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."
-Richard Feynman

Btw, Einstein also had dealings--even influence--with folks who thought matter was continuous, not made of atoms.

Woodward may be able to fool himself and some others that propellant less propulsion is possible, but he won't be able to trick the Universe.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: GeeGee on 02/10/2013 06:34 am
You have a very warped definition of "fooling yourself". Woodward is following proper scientific procedure. His papers have been published in peer-reviewed physics journals, the findings are regularly being checked by others, his experimental protocol is top-notch, and there are on-going replication attempts. The experimental results to date are suggestive, so he continues his pursuit.

I am not sure what you think it is that he is being fooled by, other than your own hunch that propellantless propulsion is impossible. If you mean his hypothesis will prove wrong, then fine. That's what experiments are for. Scientists are wrong all the time. But the accusation of being fooled is different, as I interpret that as meaning he is trying to deceive himself and others by using faulty experimental protocols to get positive results, demonstrably incorrect, unexamined physics and the like. If that's your claim, then I'm gonna have to ask for some evidence.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: KelvinZero on 02/10/2013 06:45 am
I can't follow the physics but that does sort of make it look like he is pursuing a theory for flying saucers rather than having an interest in the awesome cosmological consequences if he is right.

Woodward has stated before that he's not pursuing the origin of inertia as an academic exercise, but as a practical one. If there's any chance of novel propulsion schemes that don't carry propellant, it would likely be found in areas of physics that aren't fully understood, like the source of inertia. He's had an interest in exotic propulsion since his college days, or as he likes to call it "Getting things to go fast without blowing stuff out of the tailpipe".
I think that is what I said ;)

Thats fine as a motivation to study inertia. But ignoring other ramifications is very likely to be ignoring other obvious ways to test the theory. Can something that so fundamentally undermines physics as we know it really have had no part in explaining the evolution of the universe that we can measure with great accuracy through our telescopes, only popping up in desk top scale physics to give us an inertialess drive?

(Edit)
Worse are people who propose FTL drives yet show no interest in how they deal with the paradoxes these create. Its not that Im bright enough to say these cannot be overcome, its just that it is one of the first things you should test your idea against.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/10/2013 07:24 am
If propellantless drives are possible to build (besides trivial examples), the builders will get Noble prizes, colonization of the solar system will be pretty easy, and travel to other stars in our lifetime will be possible. I will gladly eat my shirt and repeat every day for the rest of my life that I was wrong.

But these are again, VERY extraordinary claims. The most extraordinary claims one can imagine, undermining the entire basis of physics in the 20th Century. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary skepticism to be met with extraordinary evidence. I've done science before, and it is trivial to make a mistake somewhere and make it look like you have some extraordinary result, especially if you don't have a very self-skeptical eye.

That there are SEVERAL different propellantless drives that essentially all (purportedly) operate on quite different theoretical bases should be a major red flag.

You know, everything else (with the /possible/ exception of FTL) in this Advanced Concepts section is basically more likely to come true than any of these propellantless drive concepts. This is on the same level as mind-reading (which I was accused of earlier) and telekinesis, and it should be given the same level of skepticism.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: GeeGee on 02/10/2013 08:15 am
I think that is what I said ;)

Thats fine as a motivation to study inertia. But ignoring other ramifications is very likely to be ignoring other obvious ways to test the theory. Can something that so fundamentally undermines physics as we know it really have had no part in explaining the evolution of the universe that we can measure with great accuracy through our telescopes, only popping up in desk top scale physics to give us an inertialess drive?


He's not ignoring other ramifications. I should have said that his main focus is propulsion, but he still cares about the physical implications of mach's principle.

Desktop experiments are cheap and (relatively) easy to do. Nembo Buldrini has his own on-going M-E experiment that uses ferromagnetic material instead of PZTs.

You should try to get your hands on the book and read the preface and foreword, as he explains a lot about his interest in physics, mach's principle and propulsion. The foreword is written by John Cramer.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Cinder on 02/10/2013 09:53 am
But these are again, VERY extraordinary claims.
The $$ required for falsification aren't extraordinary.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: KelvinZero on 02/10/2013 10:37 am
He's not ignoring other ramifications. I should have said that his main focus is propulsion, but he still cares about the physical implications of mach's principle.

Desktop experiments are cheap and (relatively) easy to do. Nembo Buldrini has his own on-going M-E experiment that uses ferromagnetic material instead of PZTs.

You should try to get your hands on the book and read the preface and foreword, as he explains a lot about his interest in physics, mach's principle and propulsion. The foreword is written by John Cramer.

Sorry I dont think we are communicating. Woodward is allowed to have any motivation he likes. It is not about us understanding his motivation, but him preparing for the questions physicists will obviously be motivated to ask him. Im not sure what conclusions I am meant to draw from that mention of Nembo Buldrini. I think I will opt out of this conversation now.

(also I think we are dragging this thread off topic. If it is to serve any purpose beyond the old thread, then it probably should be a discussion of what the theory actually is and keep away from the propellentless drive application)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: grondilu on 02/10/2013 12:47 pm
But ignoring other ramifications is very likely to be ignoring other obvious ways to test the theory. Can something that so fundamentally undermines physics as we know it really have had no part in explaining the evolution of the universe that we can measure with great accuracy through our telescopes, only popping up in desk top scale physics to give us an inertialess drive?

Amazingly enough, it seems that indeed there is no obvious way to test Mach's principle.   As far as I'm concerned, that's why I immediately picked interest in Woodward's effect, while I usually don't care about any other claim in propellantless propulsion.

Mach's principle is a very deep and interesting idea which tells a lot about how the universe works.  And indeed anyone who could confirm or infirm it experimentally will probably get a Nobel price.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/10/2013 02:01 pm
Again, it seems more like Woodward is trying to fit the universe to do what he wants it to do instead of trying to figure out how it /actually/ works and only then exploiting it.

Again, I applaud your amazing capability of reading people's minds.
It goes along with the non-locality of the Woodward Effect. ;)

Hardy har har.   I gotta say, that's pretty good!
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Patchouli on 02/10/2013 02:13 pm
General Relativity isn't compatible with the Mach principle, despite what Woodward claims. GR is intrinsically /local/. The existence of gravity waves actually supports this.

General Relativity also is not compatible with most theories of quantum physics nor can it describe what happens inside a black hole.
When you try the math things break down pretty badly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ4zlvqOtE8
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/10/2013 02:55 pm
Nothing can really explain what goes on inside a black hole. But we are shielded by the event horizon, which also makes experiment with it not possible.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/10/2013 03:40 pm
Not sure whether this has been posted here yet, but Heidi Fearn's presentation is up:
http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/ASPW2012.pdf

[finger raised.]

On P. 6:  phi=GM/R.

So uhhhh, what's the radius of the universe?  Since it is expanding, what is the force constant that the following equations seem to be demonstrating?

IOW, is the M-E a constant, or is it getting larger as time goes on?

You all skip so much of the math.  It would be nice to start at the beginning.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: grondilu on 02/10/2013 04:02 pm
On P. 6:  phi=GM/R.

So uhhhh, what's the radius of the universe?  Since it is expanding, what is the force constant that the following equations seem to be demonstrating?

This joins my initial question in this thread.  It really depends on your cosmological model, and the necessary simplifications you put in it.

As mentioned a bit later, I'm not sure it matters much.  What matters is that you can get the speed out of the integral and thus find out the static field phi, whatever its expression on the radius and mass of the universe actually is.

In his paper, Sciama doesn't even bother expressing phi in terms of M and R, anyway.   He writes A = phi/c v pretty much directly.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/10/2013 05:36 pm
Not sure whether this has been posted here yet, but Heidi Fearn's presentation is up:
http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/ASPW2012.pdf
Uses Comic Sans. Blasphemy!
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: cuddihy on 02/10/2013 06:19 pm
Not sure whether this has been posted here yet, but Heidi Fearn's presentation is up:
http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/ASPW2012.pdf

[finger raised.]

On P. 6:  phi=GM/R.

So uhhhh, what's the radius of the universe?  Since it is expanding, what is the force constant that the following equations seem to be demonstrating?

IOW, is the M-E a constant, or is it getting larger as time goes on?

You all skip so much of the math.  It would be nice to start at the beginning.

R= radius of the observable universe. "Observable" means that, since all forces and information travel at the speed of light max, the maximum observable radius is (age of universe)*(speed of light).

Yes, it changes over time just as in an expanding universe G changes and has changed over time, albeit very slowly.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: grondilu on 02/10/2013 06:27 pm

In its 2004 paper, "Tests of Mach’s Principle with a Mechanical Oscillator", John Cramer makes an interesting point about Woodward being probably wrong about his method for testing his effect.

« Woodward and his students [3,4] have attempted
to observe the predicted effect by producing an
unbalanced force (say, to the right) that is expected to
arise when the inertia varying test mass is accelerated
to the right when it has low inertia and to the left when
it has high inertia. They report having observed small
unbalanced forces, near the limits of their sensitivity,
which are about five orders of magnitude smaller than
the predicted effect.

Unfortunately, this scheme for observing the
inertia variation appears to be at odds with the
relativistically invariant form of Newton's 2nd law of
motion:

F = dp/dt = m dv/dt + v dm/dt

Since the inertial mass m of the test body is
expected to vary with time, the last term of equation (1)
cannot be ignored. It is not surprising, in view of
Newton's 3rd law of motion, that for any sinusoidal
variations of the mass around a central value, the force
contribution from the v dm/dt term is found to
precisely cancel the supposed "unbalanced force"
arising from the m dv/dt term, leading to a time-
averaged net force of zero on the overall system.
From this simple calculation, it appears that
unbalanced force searches are not good tests of the
proposed effect. »


I wonder if Woodward has taken this into account since then.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: cuddihy on 02/10/2013 06:28 pm
I don't understand your focus on the weight or apparent weight of the active mass.  Nothing terribly interesting happening there, the amount of mass actually experiencing the effect is very small, and it's a transient. It's the apparent change in inertia that really matters, because with the push that is what provides the useful force.

You say you don't understand the focus on weight and then you say that what matters is  change of inertia.  Well, according to general relativity, isn't there an exact correspondence between gravitational mass (aka. weight) and inertial mass (the tendency to resist to an external force)?

Just because there's a correspondence doesn't mean it's the same thing. In fact it's a key point for Mach Principle that whereas gravitational mass is a local effect that is only observed in the immediate vicinity of a massive object, inertial mass is an explicitly non-local phenomenon that local objects have a negligible effect on, because compared to the mass of the rest of the universe the mass of a massive object is so small. I won't have time to dig the discussion out today (kid bday party), but it was explicitly calculated by someone in Woodward's circle, it's buried in one of those linked papers on UCF's site.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: grondilu on 02/10/2013 07:16 pm
Just because there's a correspondence doesn't mean it's the same thing.

I've always thought that's precisely what Einstein meant, though.

Edit.  Also, I wrote "correspondence" but the correct term is "equivalence", which is less ambiguous.

Quote
In fact it's a key point for Mach Principle that whereas gravitational mass is a local effect that is only observed in the immediate vicinity of a massive object, inertial mass is an explicitly non-local phenomenon that local objects have a negligible effect on, because compared to the mass of the rest of the universe the mass of a massive object is so small.

Something tells me there is something wrong in this reasoning.  I think it's because you consider mass (either gravitational or inertial) as being an effect of some sort.  I think Mach was talking about inertial forces resulting from the action of distant stars, not the inertial mass.

Mass, either gravitational or inertial, is a form of energy.  E=mc2  does not come in two flavors.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: cuddihy on 02/11/2013 12:48 am
Just because there's a correspondence doesn't mean it's the same thing.

I've always thought that's precisely what Einstein meant, though.

Edit.  Also, I wrote "correspondence" but the correct term is "equivalence", which is less ambiguous.

Quote
In fact it's a key point for Mach Principle that whereas gravitational mass is a local effect that is only observed in the immediate vicinity of a massive object, inertial mass is an explicitly non-local phenomenon that local objects have a negligible effect on, because compared to the mass of the rest of the universe the mass of a massive object is so small.

Something tells me there is something wrong in this reasoning.  I think it's because you consider mass (either gravitational or inertial) as being an effect of some sort.  I think Mach was talking about inertial forces resulting from the action of distant stars, not the inertial mass.

Mass, either gravitational or inertial, is a form of energy.  E=mc2  does not come in two flavors.


As long as we're being precise, relativity means that you can't tell the difference between the two via normal means, not that they're the same. If the Woodward Effect works, we've got the exception that proves the distinction.

You're right, I was referring to the "observed action on" each, not the mass itself. Mass is mass. You can tell apart weight from inertial mass only in the case that observed inertial mass is variant...which is what Woodward suggests.

Woodward posits a transient reduction in the observed inertia. Transients related to gravitation would be insignificant due to, again, the scale of inertial back-reaction forces vs. the small scale of local gravitation.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: grondilu on 02/11/2013 01:10 am
You can tell apart weight from inertial mass only in the case that observed inertial mass is variant...which is what Woodward suggests.

Woodwards predicts a variation of inertial mass, and thus weight.   Really I don't think it is possible to distinct inertia from gravity, as I understand it they really are the same thing according to the equivalence principle.

Gravity is the inertial force you feel when the ground prevents you from following an inertial reference frame.

I may be wrong though, as I'm really no expert in GR.  But long time ago that was one thing I remembered from a vulgarization text about it.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/11/2013 01:24 am
Quote from: cuddihy
Just because there's a correspondence doesn't mean it's the same thing.

Quote from: grondilu
I've always thought that's precisely what Einstein meant, though.

Edit.  Also, I wrote "correspondence" but the correct term is "equivalence", which is less ambiguous.

Which is fine and good, but answers not the math of Sciama at all. 

I recall the correct term being "equivalence" as well.  Even so, ten dollars equals, say, fifteen francs.  (what do I know about money)  In this example, the two sums are said to be "equivalent", even tho they are denominated as different things.

There is some difference between mass and inertia, but in terms of "dollars and francs", they have the same value.  Sciama's theory purports to describe the "dollar" and the "franc", that is, mass and inertia.

Sciama, the dear reader will remember, suggested in 1953 that "The principle of equivalence is a consequence of [his inertial theory, not an initial axiom."  This is a part of his "tentative theory to account for the inertial properties of matter".

So going back to P. 6, phi=GM/R, in that ASPW2012 article, since I recognize and understand this equation:

G, M, and R are changing over time.  So must phi, unless it is asserted that G, M, and R change in such a fashion that phi remains constant.  R is the "Hubble" sphere, defined as (ct), the speed of light times the elapsed time since the Big Bang.  But that radius is the observable universe, not the radius of the universe as it exists.

No evidence exists to suggest that the boundary of the observable universe constitutes a boundary on the universe as a whole, nor do any of the mainstream cosmological models propose that the universe has any physical boundary in the first place ... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe)

It appears that there are parts of this universe which are not observable to us.  It is thought that "dark energy" is contributing to the increasing acceleration of the radius of the universe.  The struggle for me is partly this:  Let's say we have a universe which started from one Big Bang, and during an early period of FTL expansion, a good bit of the universe got away from our light cone of observation.  But how could causality stop at the radius of observability? Doesn't make sense to us simpletons.  I prefer to think that the entire universe is fraught with causality of a sort that is different from the speed of light observability.

If this line of reasoning has any merit, then what happens "there" can affect what happens "here", and vice versa.  That is, there is some kind of "action at a distance".  What inertia is has to do with this "action at a distance".  According to Mach's Principle:

Quote from: that ASPW2012 article
The inertial mass of a body is determined by the distribution and flow of mass-energy in the universe.

The mass of the universe is not static; it is moving.  Even so, if your "brain" were big enough, you could conceive of a "fixed frame" of the universe, which is what I think Mach is surmising.  After all, the universe, if that's all there is, cannot be moving with respect to anything else; all of its constituent atoms can be moving with respect to one another, however.  Which leads me to believe that the center of mass of the universe is not static, but is moving around the universe in such a way as to constantly express that it is the center of mass.

With the universe getting bigger, somehow the scalar term of the "fixed frame" is getting bigger too, but apparently that doesn't matter.  As to the pragmatic effect of the fixed inertial frame being different from "absolute space", I don't get that either, but hey.  For all practical purposes, the two terms could be interchangeable.  Besides, Sciama contends that you don't need "absolute space" anyhow, so an understanding of the difference may not be necessary for the layman!

Anyhow... Heidi Fearn, in 2012, asserts that Sciama was right in 1953, and that phi=c^^2.

But first, the "gravelectric" field needs to be proven correct.  Intuitively, the M-E device does convert electricity into forward momentum; if it goes "up" then it defies gravity.  So it seems to me that his equation relates electricity and gravity.

*************************************

Don't ask me for the math.  I'm just the "idea" guy.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: grondilu on 02/11/2013 02:02 am
The struggle for me is partly this:  Let's say we have a universe which started from one Big Bang, and during an early period of FTL expansion, a good bit of the universe got away from our light cone of observation.  But how could causality stop at the radius of observability? Doesn't make sense to us simpletons.  I prefer to think that the entire universe is fraught with causality of a sort that is different from the speed of light observability.

I think the limit of observability is actually the last scattering surface.  Beyond it, no light can be seen because it would come from a time in the universe when it was so hot that light was coupled with matter and could not escape.  Just at the limit what you see is basically the cosmic background radiation:  it's the first light the universe ever emitted.

Beyond the last scattering surface, there is what I think is called the cosmological horizon. It is the point to which the expansion makes space itself go away from us at light speed.  Beyond that, things still exist but whatever happens can never affect us in anyway.  There can indeed be lots of stuffs there, and it can expand to thousands of times the size of the observable universe, but it is indeed causally separated.


Quote
With the universe getting bigger, somehow the scalar term of the "fixed frame" is getting bigger too, but apparently that doesn't matter.

Indeed it doesn't matter, because in the end what you use is the literal expression phi, not GM/R.   I don't know why Woodward mentions it.  Sciama does not.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/11/2013 12:54 pm
I think the limit of observability is actually the last scattering surface. ... Beyond the last scattering surface, there is what I think is called the cosmological horizon.

Yes, and the oracle explains that fairly well to the layman.  But still, there was one cause, the Big Bang.  Now there are multiple "causalities", since this part of the u. is too far from that part of the u.  And what about the stuff on that "horizon"?  Objects there can "see" beyond the horizon, as well as into the "interior", where we are.

If there is to be a "fixed frame", it must contain the whole universe, regardless of the speed of light.  Otherwise, it would just be an arbitrary frame, dependent on the observer's location.  You know:  "Uhhhh... the stars look pretty 'fixed' from this location..."

If the "fixed frame" can be said to exist, then there must be "action at a distance", and the idea that inertia is the inevitable result of this "action" can start to be considered.

Quote from: JF
With the universe getting bigger, somehow the scalar term of the "fixed frame" is getting bigger too, but apparently that doesn't matter.

Quote from: Grondilu
Indeed it doesn't matter, because in the end what you use is the literal expression phi, not GM/R.   I don't know why Woodward mentions it.  Sciama does not.

Unfortunately, this does not explain the matter at all.  It is fundamental to the argument that phi=c^^2.  They must mention this for a reason; the term is not thrown into the line of argument without reason.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: grondilu on 02/11/2013 01:03 pm
Unfortunately, this does not explain the matter at all.  It is fundamental to the argument that phi=c^^2.

I did not get this either.  phi = GM/R is not fundamental to the argument that phi=c^2 since Sciama does not use it.  Sciama writes about a page and half to justify it.  It's page 38 to 40.  Not much maths, but essentially cosmological and relativistic considerations.  I don't get it all.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: mrmandias on 02/11/2013 01:05 pm

This is on the same level as mind-reading (which I was accused of earlier) and telekinesis, and it should be given the same level of skepticism.

That's absurd.  I was taking you seriously until you got histrionic. 

You can't defeat silly claims with silly claims.  Double down on the silly claim if you want, but you'll only be doubling down on a patent falsehood.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: mrmandias on 02/11/2013 01:13 pm
Cuddihy, Grondilu, Fornaro, et al.,
I'm getting a lot out of this thread.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/11/2013 01:57 pm
Unfortunately, this does not explain the matter at all.  It is fundamental to the argument that phi=c^^2.

I did not get this either.  phi = GM/R is not fundamental to the argument that phi=c^2 since Sciama does not use it.  Sciama writes about a page and half to justify it.  It's page 38 to 40.  Not much maths, but essentially cosmological and relativistic considerations.  I don't get it all.

Huh?  Are you referring to Sciama 1953?, where page 38 begins with:

"since the change of rho with time is very small..."

You call those pages "Not much math?"  Sheesh.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/11/2013 01:58 pm

This is on the same level as mind-reading (which I was accused of earlier) and telekinesis, and it should be given the same level of skepticism.

That's absurd.  I was taking you seriously until you got histrionic. 

You can't defeat silly claims with silly claims.  Double down on the silly claim if you want, but you'll only be doubling down on a patent falsehood.

This is absolutely true.  Chris will throw math at people pretty readily.  Here he does not.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/11/2013 02:35 pm

This is on the same level as mind-reading (which I was accused of earlier) and telekinesis, and it should be given the same level of skepticism.

That's absurd.  I was taking you seriously until you got histrionic. 
...
People seeking to justify a means to an end use quantum mechanics arguments to say that things like telekinesis are possible. Sure, it breaks the laws of physics as understood by the mainstream, but so does (supposedly) Woodward's device. There have been many discredited telekinesis claims, just like there have been many propellantless propulsion devices. And both are a staple of mid-century science fiction. The fact that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence applies to both.

And while telekinesis probably has greater stigma than a claim about propellantless propulsion, the number of laws of physics (according to the mainstream understanding) it breaks are about the same. Call this histrionics if you want.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/11/2013 02:38 pm

This is on the same level as mind-reading (which I was accused of earlier) and telekinesis, and it should be given the same level of skepticism.

That's absurd.  I was taking you seriously until you got histrionic. 

You can't defeat silly claims with silly claims.  Double down on the silly claim if you want, but you'll only be doubling down on a patent falsehood.

This is absolutely true.  Chris will throw math at people pretty readily.  Here he does not.
You know why? Because almost every other questionable claim on this forum still at least assumes mainstream laws of physics work (and that to their credit, by the way!!!).  This claim makes new laws of physics, thus in order to shoot it down with math (unless they've made a trivial error somewhere), one would have to learn a new set of physical laws instead of just applying existing laws of physics. I don't, frankly, have time for that.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: D_Dom on 02/11/2013 03:04 pm
learn a new set of physical laws instead of just applying existing laws of physics. I don't, frankly, have time for that.

I am trying to do just that, pardon me if I set the comments from your closed mind to "ignore".
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: antiquark on 02/11/2013 03:15 pm
Isn't anyone here concerned that Woodward's drive is a perpetual motion machine?

I mean, once I realized that, well... forget about looking at equations, if it's a perpetual motion machine, there's no point in even considering it!
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/11/2013 03:19 pm
And while telekinesis probably has greater stigma than a claim about propellantless propulsion...

Which is a non-mathematical straw man.

Quote from: JF
Chris will throw math at people pretty readily.  Here he does not.

Quote from: Chris
You know why? Because almost every other questionable claim on this forum still at least assumes mainstream laws of physics work ...

The takaway here is that you don't know if the assertion that phi=c^^2 is valid either.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: R7 on 02/11/2013 03:23 pm
Isn't anyone here concerned that Woodward's drive is a perpetual motion machine?

Guessing you refer to the apparent exponential increase with Ww-driven vehicle's kinetic energy while consuming steady power?

Tried to ask about that earlier from propulsion perspective (energy content of propellant) but no luck. So again:

The 'extra' mass appears to the vibrating driver mass with increasing kinetic energy as the vehicle accelerates. When it's pushed backwards momentum gets exchanged and kinetic energy too. The extra mass gets returned back to the rest of the universe with less kinetic energy. So, does rest of the universe loose mass when Ww-engine runs? edit: the kinetic energy must come from somewhere and leftover returned to somewhere.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/11/2013 03:26 pm
Isn't anyone here concerned that Woodward's drive is a perpetual motion machine?

I mean, once I realized that, well... forget about looking at equations, if it's a perpetual motion machine, there's no point in even considering it!

For the purposes of the current discussion, that nonsense about increasing its energy can be ignored.  Once we understand Sciama's work, then we can see if Woodward and Fearn are interpreting it correctly.

IOW, you can't already "realize" anything about this drive without understanding where the flaws in the math are.

OTOH, the time spent in understanding this math, in my case, might be better spent working on my PMP system.  But I need money for that, and not for this.  Besides, I need the tutorial!

At this point, the "stargate" is firmly ensconced within the human mind.  Once the principles can be understood and shared, then hardware can be built.  So I don't worry about imaginary hardware.

YMMV.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: antiquark on 02/11/2013 03:36 pm
Here's the equation for propellant based rocketry, no free energy there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation

The perpetual motion/free energy aspect is a straightforward result of two equations: F=ma, and kinetic energy = 1/2 m v^2.  If Woodward's device worked as advertised, it would provide simple free energy.

Also, the idea of sucking energy from the rest of the universe, violates the second law of thermodynamics. It's very similar to the perpetual motion idea of constructing a heat engine that works off the ambient temperature.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/11/2013 03:48 pm
Here's the equation for propellant based rocketry, no free energy there:

Thanks, but I didn't need that particular bit.  I think the key issue is to determine if the guy's math is ok.  Nobody seems able to tackle that question.

If the steak is real then the sizzle will follow.  I wanna know if the steak is real.  What is inertia?  You don't seem to know either.

What you and RobotBeat are saying is that the sizzle (so-called 'free' energy) can't be real, therefore the steak (M-E drive) can be assumed not to exist.  In my opinion today, Woodward has jumped off the deep end prematurely, with speculations about that 'free' energy.  In this analogy, I'm calling the understanding of the M-E effect the shallow end.  Continuing this analogy, one wonders what special relativity is... a puddle?

Maybe you don't want to discuss the derivation of the gravelectric equation.   If so, whyncha F/m out of the discussion?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: grondilu on 02/11/2013 03:54 pm
Here's the equation for propellant based rocketry, no free energy there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation

The perpetual motion/free energy aspect is a straightforward result of two equations: F=ma, and kinetic energy = 1/2 m v^2.  If Woodward's device worked as advertised, it would provide simple free energy.

You've already written that, and you've been answered (see the quote from Cramer's paper for instance).  Before we talk about Woodward's engine, so far we've been talking about Woodward's effect, which consists of a variable mass, not of a stationary force.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: R7 on 02/11/2013 03:55 pm
I want to know if the math explains where the extra KE for the extra mass keep appearing and where the leftovers go. If the math fails to explain that then...it can still propel MCT.

And does this mach field give instantaneous information of entire universe, or does "information" about mass/inertia/energy travel with speed of light in it? edit: if latter is the engine more efficient near large mass like sun than in say instellar space.

Ffp ffp.


edit2: the F/W seems to suck.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/11/2013 03:55 pm
Here's the problem, his math can be COMPLETELY CONSISTENT AND CORRECT but be based on wrong physics with no basis in the reality of our universe.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: grondilu on 02/11/2013 03:58 pm
Here's the problem, his math can be COMPLETELY CONSISTENT AND CORRECT but be based on wrong physics with no basis in the reality of our universe.

Sciama's model of PlanckMach's principle does not violate any law of physics.  So any effect deduced from it, if done with correct maths, should not either.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/11/2013 04:04 pm
Here's the problem, his math can be COMPLETELY CONSISTENT AND CORRECT but be based on wrong physics with no basis in the reality of our universe.

Sciama's model of Planck's principle does not violate any law of physics.  So any effect deduced from it, if done with correct maths, should not either.
That's the /claim/, and yet local conservation of energy and momentum are invalidated (by the mainstream understanding, without inventing new fields which are not accepted by mainstream physics).

I'm pretty sure we all know where the burden of proof lies.

(and what Planck's Principle are you talking about? The sociology of science one?)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: grondilu on 02/11/2013 04:09 pm
That's the /claim/, and yet local conservation of energy and momentum are invalidated (by the mainstream understanding, without inventing new fields which are not accepted by mainstream physics).

Well, Sciama's dissertation was accepted and granted him his PhD, didn't it?  Also, it was endorsed by Dirac himself.  I don't know what else you would like.

About "Planck's principle":  oops.  I obviously meant "Mach".
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/11/2013 04:16 pm
That's the /claim/, and yet local conservation of energy and momentum are invalidated (by the mainstream understanding, without inventing new fields which are not accepted by mainstream physics).

Well, Sciama's dissertation was accepted and granted him his PhD, didn't it?  Also, it was endorsed by Dirac himself.  I don't know what else you would like.

About "Planck's principle":  oops.  I obviously meant "Mach".

Mach's principle is considered incompatible with General Relativity by the majority of physicists who deal with relativity, if you put much weight on that sort of thing. And Woodward's purported device clearly violates the current laws of physics.

Again, you're trying to use proof-by-association (with a few degrees of separation) to give credence to an idea that violates locally the laws of currently understood physics.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/11/2013 04:18 pm
"But because the principle is so vague, many distinct statements can be (and have been) made which would qualify as a Mach principle, and some of these are false." --some wikipedia editor.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: grondilu on 02/11/2013 04:25 pm
Mach's principle is considered incompatible with General Relativity by the majority of physicists who deal with relativity, if you put much weight on that sort of thing

Not by Einstein and Dirac apparently.  Also, Einstein did notice that physicists were ignoring Mach's principle, and stated that this "contendness" would be incomprehensible for future generations.  Maybe this time is coming.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: grondilu on 02/11/2013 04:29 pm
"But because the principle is so vague, many distinct statements can be (and have been) made which would qualify as a Mach principle, and some of these are false." --some wikipedia editor.

I don't think Mach's principle is vague at all.  Just because an idea can be stated in many ways does not mean it has not an accurate meaning.  I'm pretty sure there are several examples of such principles in physics.

Also, quoting a Wikipedia editor is ... kind of low.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/11/2013 04:30 pm
The point is still valid.

Okay, tell me exactly what Mach's principle is.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: grondilu on 02/11/2013 04:32 pm
The point is still valid.

Okay, tell me exactly what Mach's principle is.

Inertia comes from an interaction of some sort with surrounding matter.  In an empty universe, a test particle would not feel any inertial force, whatever its motion would be.

That's how I understand it, anyway.

I also like to think about it this way:  empty space is really empty.  All motions in an empty space describe exactly the same thing, and can not be distinguished in any way.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: kch on 02/11/2013 04:35 pm

Also, quoting a Wikipedia editor is ... kind of low.


Now, now -- let's not be Mach-ing Wikipedia ... ;)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: R7 on 02/11/2013 04:43 pm
empty space is really empty.

Is there such thing? (Casimir etc)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: grondilu on 02/11/2013 04:46 pm
empty space is really empty.
Is there such thing? (Casimir etc)

Well, yeah, apart from quantum mechanics considerations.  That's basically one of the reason why I like Mach's principle: it challenges concepts both in GR and QM.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: simonbp on 02/11/2013 04:50 pm
Okay, tell me exactly what Mach's principle is.

Magical space drives will always have supporters, no matter how ridiculous they sound.

Honestly, I think Woodward should do a kickstarter to launch a nanosat with his thruster in it. Only "true believers" would have to pay for it, but in 0.0000000001% chance it worked, we would all benefit.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Patchouli on 02/11/2013 05:08 pm
Okay, tell me exactly what Mach's principle is.

Magical space drives will always have supporters, no matter how ridiculous they sound.

Honestly, I think Woodward should do a kickstarter to launch a nanosat with his thruster in it. Only "true believers" would have to pay for it, but in 0.0000000001% chance it worked, we would all benefit.

That would be one way to test it.

If the effect exists it's likely very small at low power inputs so there needs to be a way to rule out other forces such as photon and solar wind pressure on the solar arrays.

Maybe two identical sats one with the drive and another with a mass simulator in it's place.
Even go as far as giving the mass simulator a power resistor bank equal to the power consumption of the operational drive.

Still even if it turns out to be real it probably won't replace rockets overnight and likely only would be a supplement to existing forms of high ISP propulsion.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/11/2013 05:48 pm
Well, Sciama's dissertation was accepted and granted him his PhD, didn't it?  Also, it was endorsed by Dirac himself.  I don't know what else you would like.

An explanation of the gravelectric equation, and its derivation?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: grondilu on 02/11/2013 06:01 pm
Not sure whether this has been posted here yet, but Heidi Fearn's presentation is up:
http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/ASPW2012.pdf
Uses Comic Sans. Blasphemy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUCcObwIsOs
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: KelvinZero on 02/11/2013 09:02 pm
Isn't anyone here concerned that Woodward's drive is a perpetual motion machine?

I mean, once I realized that, well... forget about looking at equations, if it's a perpetual motion machine, there's no point in even considering it!

Hi, I guess you missed my earlier posts. (I think one was replying to you also, said something like "Yeah but FTL paradoxes are even worse")

To me it is a big hoot. Propellentless propulsion and perpetual motion machine are so obviously the same, at physics so incredibly trivial compared to the extremely esoteric physics invoked to justify it, that you have really just got to take them together. If we are going to talk about propellentless propulsion, why not this other thing?

btw, I like my "tarzan drive" example here. It is a silly concept that nevertheless probably is easier to swallow because it breaks no conservation law.

By the way, talking about what is and isnt possible, Here is another 'possible' as far as I can tell. if there were such a thing as a tractor beam that could reach across interstellar distances we could swing though the stars like tarzan, always chosing a new star with the desired relative velocity to us. This also gives us energy for free, at least locally.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: grondilu on 02/11/2013 09:44 pm
Propellentless propulsion and perpetual motion machine are so obviously the same, at physics so incredibly trivial compared to the extremely esoteric physics invoked to justify it.

I'm not convinced by this argument.  You make it sound like it's not possible for an object to be moved by a constant force.   Of course it is, provided there is a reaction force somewhere.

When you fell towards a star, your momentum increases, and so does your kinetic energy.  Your kinetic energy seems to increase indefinitely but it's just the gravitational potential energy being converted into motion.  You reach amazing speeds, and yet your input energy is zero.  Does that make it a perpetual motion machine?  Is a planet orbiting a star a perpetual motion machine?

A propelentless device would not use its input energy in order to directly convert it into kinetic energy, but only to activate the conversion of some other energy into kinetic energy.  Again, like when you provoke a reaction chain in an atomic bomb.  You need some energy to reach a critical mass of plutonium or something, but this energy has nothing to do with the amount of energy that is released at the end of the process.

The universe is currently not stacked in a single point.  It thus has potential energy.   At least conceptually, this energy could be turned into kinetic energy.  Someone mentioned gravitational assistance currently used by spacecrafts.  Well, kind of like that.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/11/2013 10:27 pm
Sounds like rationalization to me.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 02/11/2013 10:46 pm
Personally, I am a bit on the fence with this. I am still waiting for more convincing results to come out of their experiments before I make a decision. The idea is intriguing, but as has been said, there is reason to be sceptical. It sure would solve a lot of problems, if it worked.
I think that in order for this to work without going against the conservation of momentum the required energy input into the device has to increase with the speed of the spacecraft in order to create a constant acceleration.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: KelvinZero on 02/12/2013 12:06 am
Propellentless propulsion and perpetual motion machine are so obviously the same, at physics so incredibly trivial compared to the extremely esoteric physics invoked to justify it.

I'm not convinced by this argument.  You make it sound like it's not possible for an object to be moved by a constant force.   Of course it is, provided there is a reaction force somewhere.

No I accept that. Thats what I intended with the Tarzan drive. It is really just a gravitational slingshot. If you accept something as apparently propellantless it is not suprising to get apparently free energy. One isnt stranger than the other. Even when you can look under the hood and find the explanation is quite understandable you still get this.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: QuantumG on 02/12/2013 12:30 am
For some reason my comment was removed.. so I'll try saying this more explicitly and diplomatically. I'm not being snarky here, I just think there's an obvious disconnect here between fundamental elements of the scientific method and the thinking I commonly see on threads like this.

Personally, I am a bit on the fence with this. I am still waiting for more convincing results to come out of their experiments before I make a decision. The idea is intriguing, but as has been said, there is reason to be sceptical. It sure would solve a lot of problems, if it worked.

It's good that you're on the fence, and it's important to stay there. You should remain skeptical regardless of whether or not it would "solve a lot of problems", or whether you've been "convinced" by the results of their experiments. There's never a time when you should make a "decision" to not be skeptical.

This cuts both ways. If Woodward is successful at producing experimental results that contradict "mainstream science", then we should both be skeptical of his methods and be skeptical of the science they contradict. Belief is not a luxury we have in science. The whole apple cart could be upset tomorrow. We could find out the speed of light is constant in all frames of reference. We could find out the universe is expanding. We could find out the expansion is accelerating. Surprises happen in science. This is a good thing.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 02/12/2013 12:39 am

Personally, I am a bit on the fence with this. I am still waiting for more convincing results to come out of their experiments before I make a decision. The idea is intriguing, but as has been said, there is reason to be sceptical. It sure would solve a lot of problems, if it worked.

It's good that you're on the fence, and it's important to stay there. You should remain skeptical regardless of whether or not it would "solve a lot of problems", or whether you've been "convinced" by the results of their experiments. There's never a time when you should make a "decision" to not be skeptical.

This cuts both ways. If Woodward is successful at producing experimental results that contradict "mainstream science", then we should both be skeptical of his methods and be skeptical of the science they contradict. Belief is not a luxury we have in science. The whole apple cart could be upset tomorrow. We could find out the speed of light is constant in all frames of reference. We could find out the universe is expanding. We could find out the expansion is accelerating. Surprises happen in science. This is a good thing.
All very true. I have to admit that I would really love for Woodward to be right, but no matter how much I wish for it, I would never take his claims at face value. Plus at least right now his experimental results have quite a margin for error (even though they are trying hard to address all that).
It takes more to convince me, no matter how much I would love to see it work.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/12/2013 01:57 am
For some reason my comment was removed.. so I'll try saying this more explicitly and diplomatically. I'm not being snarky here, I just think there's an obvious disconnect here between fundamental elements of the scientific method and the thinking I commonly see on threads like this.

Personally, I am a bit on the fence with this. I am still waiting for more convincing results to come out of their experiments before I make a decision. The idea is intriguing, but as has been said, there is reason to be sceptical. It sure would solve a lot of problems, if it worked.

It's good that you're on the fence, and it's important to stay there. You should remain skeptical regardless of whether or not it would "solve a lot of problems", or whether you've been "convinced" by the results of their experiments. There's never a time when you should make a "decision" to not be skeptical.

This cuts both ways. If Woodward is successful at producing experimental results that contradict "mainstream science", then we should both be skeptical of his methods and be skeptical of the science they contradict. Belief is not a luxury we have in science. The whole apple cart could be upset tomorrow. We could find out the speed of light is constant in all frames of reference. We could find out the universe is expanding. We could find out the expansion is accelerating. Surprises happen in science. This is a good thing.


I disagree. We can start being skeptical of modern scientific theory once the effect has been replicated a few times by outside parties. You act like there hasn't been mountains of experiments done which confirm GR in all kinds of ways, or conservation of energy and momentum. Every time a scientist takes a reading at CERN, they are verifying and relying on those two things to be conserved.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You can be skeptical that science is complete, but you cannot have equal levels of skepticism for a non-clearly-replicated claim that is made by a small group motivated by wishful thinking and that of all of mainstream science.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: QuantumG on 02/12/2013 02:35 am
I disagree. We can start being skeptical of modern scientific theory once the effect has been replicated a few times by outside parties.

If you're not already skeptical of "modern scientific theory" then you'll never bother trying any experiment that might disprove it. It's our skepticism that inspires us to look in the cracks.

Quote
You act like there hasn't been mountains of experiments done which confirm GR in all kinds of ways, or conservation of energy and momentum.

How do I do that exactly?

Quote
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Just the regular kind will do. Exactly how extraordinary we find the evidence is just a sign of how much skepticism we've lost.. aka complacency. If someone comes to me with experimental evidence that contradicts a well established scientific theory I'm going to say: Is it reproducible? Have you considered alternative explanations? What happens when you vary this or that.. etc, etc. All the same things as if they came to me with experimental evidence that contradicted a theory invented last Tuesday.

Quote
You can be skeptical that science is complete,

One would hope so!

Quote
but you cannot have equal levels of skepticism for a non-clearly-replicated claim that is made by a small group motivated by wishful thinking and that of all of mainstream science.

Yes, one has to has an appreciation for evidence, and skepticism is the means by which one achieves that appreciation. Unfortunately, I have no idea what a "level" of skepticism is, which suggests we're talking about completely different concepts. To me, the alternative to skepticism is blind dogmatic belief. If you're suggesting some sort of gray area between those two, I'm going to have to say I have a hard time understanding that. Perhaps the problem here is that you're thinking of scientific theories as some sort of description of reality. They're not. They're models of reality.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/12/2013 02:03 pm
To me it is a big hoot. Propellentless propulsion and perpetual motion machine are so obviously the same...

No they're not.

The Tesla motor car is a propellantless drive machine.  Electricity pushes against magnets, causing rotation, and the wheels push against the road, causing forward momentum.  There may be other instances of the electric motor which I have inadvertrently overlooked.

What is new here in the claim is that electricity is pushing on something, ostensibly the rest of the universe, and is converted directly into forward momentum. 
Grondilu put it a slightly different way: "A propellantless device would not use its input energy in order to directly convert it into kinetic energy, but only to activate the conversion of some other energy into kinetic energy."  This is different from my understanding.

Woodward is pumping AC current into a PZT thingy, "just so", pushing hard, and pulling light, purportedly taking advantage of the change in mass of the vibrating nuclei of the PZT thingy.  The PZT thingy is the "wheel" and the rest of the universe is the "road".

The best analogy that I can think of is that Woodward claims that he can stand in a rowboat in the middle of the lake, and by skootching himself back and forth, can move across the lake.  He claims to have an "invisible" inertial pole with which he can push upon the distant shore to effect this movement.

If you read the other thread from end to end, and all the attachments, Woodward does discuss one of the terms in his impenetrable (to me) equations as allowing some kind of "free" energy.  No point that I see in discussing this aspect without understanding the more basic assertion, which hinges on a correct, verifiable understanding of what inertia is.

Woodward claims, in his experimental apparatus to have used "x" number of Watts to provide a very small forward momentum.  My take is that he believes that he has demonstrated a real world application to the understanding of inertia that he proposes; his understanding is based on the work of Maxwell, Mach, and Sciama mostly, that I can tell.  However, not even his adherents seem to be able to replicate the experiment.

By focusing solely on the completely unverified claims of "free" energy, everybody here is quietly acknowledging that they don't have the math to tackle the fundamental equations, sine qua non est nihil.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: antiquark on 02/12/2013 02:35 pm
To me it is a big hoot. Propellentless propulsion and perpetual motion machine are so obviously the same...

The Tesla motor car is a propellantless drive machine. 

Actually, the "propellant" of the Tesla car is the earth! Yes, a Tesla will make the world rotate counter to the direction of the Tesla. Momentum is conserved!

By focusing solely on the completely unverified claims of "free" energy, everybody here is quietly acknowledging that they don't have the math to tackle the fundamental equations, sine qua non est nihil.

Not "unverified" claims, but "predicted and wholly supported by basic physics" claims.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/12/2013 02:45 pm
By focusing solely on the completely unverified claims of "free" energy, everybody here is quietly acknowledging that they don't have the math to tackle the fundamental equations, sine qua non est nihil.

Not "unverified" claims, but "predicted and wholly supported by basic physics" claims.

Think about it a bit more, young Paduan.

A "verified" claim would be "predicted and wholly supported by basic physics".  Not so with an "unverified" claim.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: antiquark on 02/12/2013 02:54 pm

A "verified" claim would be "predicted and wholly supported by basic physics".  Not so with an "unverified" claim.

Are you saying the only way we can verify that Woodward's drive is a free energy machine, is to actually build one and demonstrate that it provides free energy?  Do you see the paradox there...
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: sanman on 02/12/2013 02:54 pm
Is there any way to strap this thing to a balloon with neutral buoyancy inside a closed room, and see if it moves anywhere?

The real proof is in how much it moves, right?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: antiquark on 02/12/2013 02:59 pm
Is there any way to strap this thing to a balloon with neutral buoyancy inside a closed room, and see if it moves anywhere?

The real proof is in how much it moves, right?

It only provides a few microNewtons of force (i.e. the weight of a grain of salt) so probably natural air currents would be a problem and drown out the actual effect.

But in general I agree, the device should be revamped so it produces, say, a few Kg of force, then it would be obvious if the effect was real.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Celebrimbor on 02/12/2013 03:31 pm
...
Every time a scientist takes a reading at CERN, they are verifying and relying on those two things to be conserved.

...

Just to nitpick, they can't be verifying and relying on the same thing at the same time cam they?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Celebrimbor on 02/12/2013 03:32 pm

A "verified" claim would be "predicted and wholly supported by basic physics".  Not so with an "unverified" claim.

Are you saying the only way we can verify that Woodward's drive is a free energy machine, is to actually build one and demonstrate that it provides free energy?  Do you see the paradox there...

I don't get it... What's the paradox...
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: antiquark on 02/12/2013 03:38 pm
I don't get it... What's the paradox...

Basic physics tells us it will be a free energy machine, it's not necessary to build one to find out.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Celebrimbor on 02/12/2013 03:40 pm

Just the regular kind will do. Exactly how extraordinary we find the evidence is just a sign of how much skepticism we've lost.. aka complacency. If someone comes to me with experimental evidence that contradicts a well established scientific theory I'm going to say: Is it reproducible? Have you considered alternative explanations? What happens when you vary this or that.. etc, etc. All the same things as if they came to me with experimental evidence that contradicted a theory invented last Tuesday.

 

Admirable. But really?  All theories deserve equal scepticism in the face of contradictory evidence? Im not sure...
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 02/12/2013 06:00 pm
I don't get it... What's the paradox...

Basic physics tells us it will be a free energy machine, it's not necessary to build one to find out.
Only if the required energy input for a constant acceleration does not increase with the speed of the vehicle.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: antiquark on 02/12/2013 06:25 pm
Only if the required energy input for a constant acceleration does not increase with the speed of the vehicle.

I get what you're saying, that the kinetic energy might never increase beyond the energy provided to the device.

But then that will violate relativity. E.g., the device going east will not accelerate as fast as the device going west, due to the 1000 mph speed of the earth's rotation. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/12/2013 06:44 pm
...
Every time a scientist takes a reading at CERN, they are verifying and relying on those two things to be conserved.

...

Just to nitpick, they can't be verifying and relying on the same thing at the same time cam they?
They're making multiple measurements relying on it. Ridiculous discrepancies would show up if it wasn't true to a very, very high degree. Our current model of inertia and such, which don't use Woodward's effect at all, work extremely well.

If you rely on a hammer for work all the time, you're also verifying that it works.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/12/2013 06:58 pm

A "verified" claim would be "predicted and wholly supported by basic physics".  Not so with an "unverified" claim.

Are you saying the only way we can verify that Woodward's drive is a free energy machine, is to actually build one and demonstrate that it provides free energy?  Do you see the paradox there...

You're not listening.  You're stuck on this "unverified" "free energy" claim of his, and ignoring the actual experiment where he is attempting to verify his earlier claim about his understanding of inertia.

I understand your fixation.  I believe that the shuttle could be turned around in two weeks, because the "experts" verified that claim for me.  I now know that there was no verification whatsoever in those early claims.

The ability to convert electricity into forward momentum would indeed be a propulsive game changer.  You could have a big old solar array and explore the solar system out to Saturn.  Wouldn't have to carry propellant.

I don't get it... What's the paradox...

Basic physics tells us it will be a free energy machine, it's not necessary to build one to find out.

There is no such machine, only an unverified claim that there could be such a machine.  Basic physics tells us that the claim that the machine produces or uses free energy is unverifiable. 

No paradoxes here.  Move along.  Move along.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/12/2013 07:04 pm
"Free" energy (either harvesting it from "zero-point," from just room-temp background thermal energy, or some very non-local energy source like described here) or perpetual motion machines have a very well-deserved stigma.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: antiquark on 02/12/2013 07:09 pm
Basic physics tells us that the claim that the machine produces or uses free energy is unverifiable. 

Actually, basic physics (and even the more advanced physics of the pros) tells us that free energy is 100% impossible!

And in the history of free energy, this fact has been verified many times over.  I.e., every free energy machine made thus far--- didn't work as advertised!
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/12/2013 07:41 pm
Basic physics tells us that the claim that the machine produces or uses free energy is unverifiable. 

Actually, basic physics (and even the more advanced physics of the pros) tells us that free energy is 100% impossible!

...

I would certainly agree that the impossible is unverifiable, or some semantic game to that effect.  So you don't know about Sciama's gravelectric equation either?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: antiquark on 02/12/2013 07:47 pm
So you don't know about Sciama's gravelectric equation either?

If the equation predicts free energy, then sorry, I don't plan on reading it.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 02/12/2013 08:02 pm
Only if the required energy input for a constant acceleration does not increase with the speed of the vehicle.

I get what you're saying, that the kinetic energy might never increase beyond the energy provided to the device.

But then that will violate relativity. E.g., the device going east will not accelerate as fast as the device going west, due to the 1000 mph speed of the earth's rotation. 
Wrong reference frame. Since Woodward's ME thruster claims to use the entire universe as its reaction mass (and not the earth like a car does), the entire universe should be your reference frame.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/12/2013 08:05 pm
Only if the required energy input for a constant acceleration does not increase with the speed of the vehicle.

I get what you're saying, that the kinetic energy might never increase beyond the energy provided to the device.

But then that will violate relativity. E.g., the device going east will not accelerate as fast as the device going west, due to the 1000 mph speed of the earth's rotation. 
Wrong reference frame. Since Woodward's ME thruster claims to use the entire universe as its reaction mass (and not the earth like a car does), the entire universe should be your reference frame.
The Earth's rotation still affects it. The speed you are moving WRT the cosmic background radiation changes with time of day (and time of year, etc).
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 02/12/2013 08:09 pm
The Earth's rotation still affects it. The speed you are moving WRT the cosmic background radiation changes with time of day (and time of year, etc).
How would that affect anything? We are talking about the mass of the entire universe, not particles of the entire universe. You are thinking in local terms, when the theory is talking about a non local reference frame.
I am not saying that Woodward is right, but you counter argumentation is wrong.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: antiquark on 02/12/2013 08:52 pm
I am not saying that Woodward is right, but you counter argumentation is wrong.

If Woodwards device accelerates more and more slowly based on how fast it's already going, then you now have a way to determine your absolute direction and velocity, which goes against current physics.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: cuddihy on 02/12/2013 09:39 pm
...
Every time a scientist takes a reading at CERN, they are verifying and relying on those two things to be conserved.

...

Just to nitpick, they can't be verifying and relying on the same thing at the same time cam they?
They're making multiple measurements relying on it. Ridiculous discrepancies would show up if it wasn't true to a very, very high degree. Our current model of inertia and such, which don't use Woodward's effect at all, work extremely well.

If you rely on a hammer for work all the time, you're also verifying that it works.

Ok, Chris, if our current model of inertia (somehow in opposition to Woodward's model I presume) works so well, please link to a description of what that model is!

The whole reason Woodward's theory is so intriguing (apart from potential applications like propellant-recycled propulsion) is that it offers a testable theory of how inertia works.

You'll find fairly quickly that there is no standard model of how inertia "works" beyond the assumption that it works "as classically expected".

In fact Woodward doesn't dispute this, just adds that in addition, there are interesting things happening during changes in acceleration and internal energy, and that these things are observable in the right conditions.

Conditions that are well described and don't often occur in nature. Including at CERN.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/12/2013 09:46 pm
The current model is that you can't just change the inertia in the way Woodward supposes, there's no long-distance field (other than the usual inverse squared ones). In the current model, there is no way to "push" against the whole of the universe and develop propellantless propulsion.

The current model says that momentum and energy are both conserved locally.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 02/12/2013 09:56 pm
I am not saying that Woodward is right, but you counter argumentation is wrong.
then you now have a way to determine your absolute direction and velocity, which goes against current physics.
How?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: cuddihy on 02/12/2013 10:07 pm
The current model is that you can't just change the inertia in the way Woodward supposes, there's no long-distance field (other than the usual inverse squared ones). In the current model, there is no way to "push" against the whole of the universe and develop propellantless propulsion.

The current model says that momentum and energy are both conserved locally.

Woodward claims (on the basis of Sciama) that the long-distance field that transmits inertial forces is precisely the long distance inverse square one...i.e. gravity...that you admit is part of the current model. Might want to read the actual Woodward papers, they're not terribly long.

Your second statement is semantic--in that statement "local" is taken to mean any particles that are interacting. QED if your test particle is interacting with the entire universe (as it must for Mach's Principle to hold), the entire universe is local. So momentum and energy are conserved.

Anyway, you're focusing your fire on the wrong point. The only really incredible part of the theory is that it requires time-traveling (as it were) gravity waves to make inertia work the way it does instantly. That's clearly the actual incredible part without resorting to blaming the effect rather than the theory itself.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: D_Dom on 02/12/2013 10:22 pm
Some ten months ago in email exchange with Star-Drive he described his effort to

 "pin down the reality of the effect(s) we are seeing and if real AND scalable, then determine what math model best fits the data that will be obtained".

 I consider that effort to be very interesting and all other "incredible"  discussion is lost in the noise. I hope to understand enough of the math eventually and build a "flightworthy" experiment.
 Rejecting the concept out of hand because of my lack of understanding will never result in controlled flight. I choose to concentrate my effort on understanding the signal, rejecting the noise is part and parcel of good design of experiments.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/12/2013 10:38 pm
The current model is that you can't just change the inertia in the way Woodward supposes, there's no long-distance field (other than the usual inverse squared ones). In the current model, there is no way to "push" against the whole of the universe and develop propellantless propulsion.

The current model says that momentum and energy are both conserved locally.

Woodward claims (on the basis of Sciama) that the long-distance field that transmits inertial forces is precisely the long distance inverse square one...i.e. gravity......
Well if it's inverse squared, then the bulk mass of the Universe should affect me barely at all (and would only exert maybe a dozen or so micronewtons... which it does by the way, but it's not the mechanism for inertia), and the affect due to local objects (like, say, the EARTH) would overwhelm it.

Nope, the coupling field that is posited is much more than inverse squared.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: D_Dom on 02/12/2013 10:56 pm
So the bulk mass of the universe does affect us in the micro-newtons range.
I accept the earth overwhelms due to distance.
I wish I understand the mechanism for inertia, can you explain the coupling field? Not the posited "Woodward effect" but the micronewtons of the bulk mass of the universe.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/12/2013 10:58 pm
So the bulk mass of the universe does affect us in the micro-newtons range.
I accept the earth overwhelms due to distance.
I wish I understand the mechanism for inertia, can you explain the coupling field? Not the posited "Woodward effect" but the micronewtons of the bulk mass of the universe.
To get a rough order-of magnitude estimate, just use the law of gravitation:

Force= (Gravitational Constant)*massofuniverse*massofme/(roughlyradiusofuniverse)^2
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: antiquark on 02/13/2013 12:32 am
I am not saying that Woodward is right, but you counter argumentation is wrong.
then you now have a way to determine your absolute direction and velocity, which goes against current physics.
How?


Put Woodward drives on two windowless trains, one moving, one stationary. The one on the moving train will not accelerate as fast as the one on the stationary train, indicating the velocity of the train.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: KelvinZero on 02/13/2013 12:54 am
You dont need to build a working vehicle to prove it. You just need to make an accurate prediction that no other theory predicts and then reproduce it. If you claim 1.234 jiggaboos and that is what you see, then essentially you dont need to worry that it is some random effect you have not eliminated.

Then if other people can reproduce your 1.234 jiggaboos result, for a while the physics community will go wild trying to find a way to tear it down, then if they can't it will become accepted.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: QuantumG on 02/13/2013 12:57 am
I am not saying that Woodward is right, but you counter argumentation is wrong.
then you now have a way to determine your absolute direction and velocity, which goes against current physics.
How?


Put Woodward drives on two windowless trains, one moving, one stationary. The one on the moving train will not accelerate as fast as the one on the stationary train, indicating the velocity of the train.

That's just using a Woodward drive as a "rest of the universe" detector. You can just substitute any sort of detector. The point of the word "windowless" in the thought experiment is to exclude all forms of detection of the outside world from consideration.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/13/2013 01:40 am
So you don't know about Sciama's gravelectric equation either?

If the equation predicts free energy, then sorry, I don't plan on reading it.

It does not.  That much is clear.

Sciama is defining inertia according to an interpretation of Mach's principle.  His gravelectric equation has been peer reviewed and not disproved in 60 years.

I have no idea if it's right or wrong, but my sense is that not many people understand it.  This thread confirms that observation so far.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Cinder on 02/13/2013 07:21 pm
Does not Feynman (too) leave the question of inertia fairly open in his Lectures on Physics?  Saying something like "that question is curiously unresolved" (despite the rest of the model apparently not suffering from it).
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/13/2013 07:36 pm
So you don't know about Sciama's gravelectric equation either?

If the equation predicts free energy, then sorry, I don't plan on reading it.

It does not.  That much is clear.

Sciama is defining inertia according to an interpretation of Mach's principle.  His gravelectric equation has been peer reviewed and not disproved in 60 years.

I have no idea if it's right or wrong, but my sense is that not many people understand it.  This thread confirms that observation so far.
We are talking about woodward's purported effect, not sciama.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/14/2013 12:40 pm
We are talking about woodward's purported effect, not sciama.

I get it.  You don't understand his math either.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/14/2013 01:35 pm
We are talking about woodward's purported effect, not sciama.

I get it.  You don't understand his math either.
Give me a good reason to try.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: D_Dom on 02/14/2013 02:54 pm
From one of many papers
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1301/1301.6178.pdf
in the previous thread
 http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13020.1785
I find this interesting:
4. Conclusions
We have shown in Section 2 how, using a Mach Effect Thruster (MET) it is possible to produce a linear thrust with no propellant. We have utilized the Mach Principle which says in brief, that the inertial mass of a body is determined by its gravitational interaction with the rest of the matter and energy flow in the universe. We sought to prove that we had managed to eliminate all vibration effects from our data and attempted a null experiment. We attached equal size reaction masses to each end of the active PZT stack, this would cause the induced mass fluctuation to push and pull in both directions at once, and the device should not produce a net thrust. In section 3 we have shown that by using equal masses at both ends of our device we can indeed eliminate the net thrust.

If this is not the science you are looking for then move along.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/14/2013 02:58 pm
We are talking about woodward's purported effect, not sciama.

I get it.  You don't understand his math either.
Give me a good reason to try.

I see that you can run as well as hide. 

You're not going to get away with brushing away Woodward without understanding Sciama.  You have no idea if Woodward has misinterpreted Sciama.

Instead, you focus your effort on Woodward's unverified energy claim, and make no effort to understand the math behind his experimental apparatus, which precedes the "claim" by a number of years.

The reason these two threads continue is because nobody understands the math.

On the other thread, Steven Fuesrt started educating the thread readers in June of 2011, but he stopped.  Another poster Blazotron, almost started explaining the math in May and June of 2009.  He debunked Shawyer's EM drive, but did not get around to examining Woodward's work.

It would be nice if these two would help out.


Happy to be able to share.  Glad everyone enjoyed them.

Quote

Who said anything about breaking conservation?  M-E doesn't.  If the EM-Drive works (which I am not claiming), whatever makes it work can be assumed to also not break conservation unless very good evidence shows up that it does.

M-E does.  Its math depends on a vector theory of gravity.  The reason everyone else uses the more complex tensor theory known as GR is because vector theories break energy-momentum conservation.


gross generalization. Tensor theory =/= GR.

Newtonian theories are all kinds of inconsistent. That doesn't invalidate every calculation or derivation done in Newtonian calculus either. Tensor theories are shown to not work with certain parts of quantum physics. That doesn't invalidate tensor GR math either.

What specific part of Woodward's derivation are you alleging cannot be calculated in vector form and why?


The Woodward derivation requires the existence of a mass-energy dipole.  This is possible with a vector theory (which is what they use).  With a tensor theory, like GR, it is impossible.  The lowest multipole order is a quadrapole.  This matters because the emitted power from a quadrapole is much much less than a dipole by many orders of magnitude due to the additional G/c^2 factor.

So why don't other physicists use vector gravity theories?  The reason is that they don't conserve energy-momentum.  In effect Woodward is assuming that momentum is not conserved, constructing a device, and then noticing that that device doesn't conserve momentum.  It is the physics version of "begging the question".

This particular problem is exercise 7.2 in MTW Gravitation.

The above explanation is still too advanced for me, and I would ask for an easier approach to tensor theory.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: antiquark on 02/14/2013 03:04 pm
You have no idea if Woodward has misinterpreted Sciama.

Sciama: no free energy.
Woodward: free energy.

Woodward has misinterpreted Sciama.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/14/2013 03:18 pm
You have no idea if Woodward has misinterpreted Sciama.

Sciama: no free energy.
Woodward: free energy.

Woodward has misinterpreted Sciama.

Well yeah, that is the assertion.  But this is Woodward's fundamental equation:

E = -V phi - (phi/c^^2) (dv/dt)

Which doesn't get into "free" energy, that I can tell.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: GeeGee on 02/14/2013 05:37 pm



This is possible with a vector theory (which is what they use).  With a tensor theory, like GR, it is impossible. 

Woodward's conjecture does not hinge on Sciama's vectory theory of gravity. He has stated before that Sciama's model is only an approximation to GR, and the phi=c^2 result can be obtained in GR using Nordtvedt's PPN formalism.

Here's a quote of his I found explaining this distinction

"I am not claiming (nor have I claimed) that Sciama's 1953 theory is exactly correct.  What I do claim is that the formalism is the vector approximation to GR -- especially the dA/dt term in the gravelectric field equation.  The same term, in the interpretation of this effect, shows up in the PPN version as Nordtvedt shows later as "linear accelerative frame dragging". And when the rigidly accelerating body producing the frame dragging is the observable universe, rigid frame dragging results (and, up to a constant factor of order unity, phi = c^2).  The point is that whether you treat this as frame dragging or inertial force, the distant matter in the universe affects the inertial behavior of local objects by producing the reaction force when local objects are forced out of geodesic motion."
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/14/2013 07:36 pm
GeeGee: going back to that other thread, I see see that you and I had some interaction back there.  If you don't mind, you need to help me, and those with similar math skills to better understand the differentiation that you point out.

The salient differences between tensor and vector theories of GR.  What I hear you saying is that ... well, actually, I don't know for sure what you're saying...

Woodward's conjecture does not hinge on Sciama's vectory theory of gravity. He has stated before that Sciama's model is only an approximation to GR, and the phi=c^2 result can be obtained in GR using Nordtvedt's PPN formalism.

Here's a quote of his I found explaining this distinction

"I am not claiming (nor have I claimed) that Sciama's 1953 theory is exactly correct. ...

I have several of Woodward's papers, but not that one that you quote.  Could you link that one too?

Thanks for your various comments here and there on this.  Hopefully, you can give us math phobes some insight into the derivations.

Right now, and still, for me, the problem is where to start.  Sciama 1953 seems like a good place.

Link to Nordtvedt's paper is behind this Springer paywall:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/t834127482nuv384/

If someone could attach the PDF as "fair use" educational materials, it would be appreciated.

Here is Raine's paper:

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1975MNRAS.171..507R/0000509.000.html
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: GeeGee on 02/14/2013 09:38 pm
John,

I'm only a computer science student and certainly not a physics expert. I just felt the need to point out that sfruerst's claims about a vectory theory of gravity being required is not true, since I had a quote from Woodward in hand from the mailing list that explains the issue.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Cinder on 02/15/2013 12:51 am
We are talking about woodward's purported effect, not sciama.

I get it.  You don't understand his math either.
Give me a good reason to try.
It'd be more pertinent than arguing the politics of it.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: QuantumG on 02/15/2013 01:07 am
We are talking about woodward's purported effect, not sciama.

I get it.  You don't understand his math either.
Give me a good reason to try.
It'd be more pertinent than arguing the politics of it.

Agreed, but in scientific terms, a good reason to try would be experimental results that can't be explained without it.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/15/2013 01:30 am
We are talking about woodward's purported effect, not sciama.

I get it.  You don't understand his math either.
Give me a good reason to try.
It'd be more pertinent than arguing the politics of it.

Agreed, but in scientific terms, a good reason to try would be experimental results that can't be explained without it.
And why this and not the hundreds of other perpetual motion machines? I'll be interested if there is independent, transparent replication.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/15/2013 01:35 am
We are talking about woodward's purported effect, not sciama.

I get it.  You don't understand his math either.
Give me a good reason to try.
It'd be more pertinent than arguing the politics of it.

Agreed, but in scientific terms, a good reason to try would be experimental results that can't be explained without it.

I don't get it.  I thought Woodward did the math, then created an experiment to "prove" it.  Are you saying that he did an experiment, then is looking for the math to prove his results?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: QuantumG on 02/15/2013 01:39 am
Agreed, but in scientific terms, a good reason to try would be experimental results that can't be explained without it.
And why this and not the hundreds of other perpetual motion machines?

Because they can be explained without it?

Quote
I'll be interested if there is independent, transparent replication.

Agreed.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/15/2013 02:03 am
We are talking about woodward's purported effect, not sciama.

I get it.  You don't understand his math either.
Give me a good reason to try.
It'd be more pertinent than arguing the politics of it.

Agreed, but in scientific terms, a good reason to try would be experimental results that can't be explained without it.

I don't get it.  I thought Woodward did the math, then created an experiment to "prove" it.  Are you saying that he did an experiment, then is looking for the math to prove his results?
Not at all. I'm saying he wanted to build a propellantless device (in spite of not being possible with mainstream physics), found some not-so-mainstream physics/math that either would let him do so or tweaked to let him do so, then built a device. He thinks he has a signal, but it doesn't entirely fit his predictions and it hasn't been independently replicated. This is a tried and true process for many a breaking-the-laws-of-physics device.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/15/2013 02:42 am

Quote from: JF
I don't get it.  I thought Woodward did the math, then created an experiment to "prove" it.  Are you saying that he did an experiment, then is looking for the math to prove his results?

Not at all. I'm saying he wanted to build a propellantless device (in spite of not being possible with mainstream physics), found some not-so-mainstream physics/math that either would let him do so or tweaked to let him do so, then built a device. He thinks he has a signal, but it doesn't entirely fit his predictions and it hasn't been independently replicated. This is a tried and true process for many a breaking-the-laws-of-physics device.

I will listen to that line of reasoning for a bit, but I'm not sure that "he wanted to build" the device first.  My take is that he noticed the "not-so-mainstream" physics (which you cannot address... no blame from me on that) and decided to take advantage of it, which led him to design his experiment.

But still, I totally agree that there is no independent replication, largely because his apparatus and protocol is not completely divulged.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: GeeGee on 02/15/2013 02:47 am

Not at all. I'm saying he wanted to build a propellantless device (in spite of not being possible with mainstream physics), found some not-so-mainstream physics/math that either would let him do so or tweaked to let him do so, then built a device. He thinks he has a signal, but it doesn't entirely fit his predictions and it hasn't been independently replicated. This is a tried and true process for many a breaking-the-laws-of-physics device.

Mach's principle was mainstream physics for quite some time in the last century. Indeed, if you do a search on arxiv, you'll find quite a few high-caliber physicists still write papers on the subject.

The earlier predictions suggested the signals were orders of magnitude smaller than they should be, but those predictions were wrong. They are within an order of magnitude the same as those predicted when the mass fluctuation is written with explicit acceleration dependence (see slide 17 and 34 in the ASPW presentation).

I agree about the independent replication. The replication attempts have been inconclusive so far. I know Nembo Buldrini is currently working on one.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: QuantumG on 02/15/2013 04:47 am
I don't care why someone builds an experiment.. if it gives a result that no-one can explain, and others can replicate it, then huzzah!

"That's weird" is the nicest two words in science.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/15/2013 05:07 am
Woodward talked, if I recalled correctly, about wanting to build a propellantless thrusting device since undergrad.

And while the motivation doesn't matter once it has been independently verified (by disinterested parties) to high certainty, before that happens it certainly should affect our judgement of how likely it is Woodward is fooling himself.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: QuantumG on 02/15/2013 05:13 am
Woodward talked, if I recalled correctly, about wanting to build a propellantless thrusting device since undergrad.

And while the motivation doesn't matter once it has been independently verified (by disinterested parties) to high certainty, before that happens it certainly should affect our judgement of how likely it is Woodward is fooling himself.

Well, I could almost agree with that, if I didn't have complete apathy towards pre-validation results. If you're just expressing your desire to see folks on this side of the forum stop pinning their hopes to rainbows, I can sympathize with that.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/15/2013 01:29 pm
Woodward talked, if I recalled correctly, about wanting to build a propellantless thrusting device since undergrad.

And while the motivation doesn't matter once it has been independently verified (by disinterested parties) to high certainty, before that happens it certainly should affect our judgement of how likely it is Woodward is fooling himself.

You and I both know that the correct solution to the pertinant equations is the only way to determine the liklihood of him "fooling himself".

However, there has been no news on the experimental side for some months now.  And that lack of news is on top of several years of sketchily reported results with little reported evidence of the dang thing actually moving.  If anybody has "complete apathy towards pre-validation results", who could argue otherwise?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/15/2013 05:57 pm
No, you don't get it ;). You can make up assumptions that can't be readily proven and disproven and then put those assumptions in a consistent mathematical framework. I don't doubt Woodward's mathematical skills.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/15/2013 07:35 pm
No, you don't get it ;). You can make up assumptions that can't be readily proven and disproven and then put those assumptions in a consistent mathematical framework. I don't doubt Woodward's mathematical skills.

Understood.  What's the friggin' assumption here that you're having a bolide about?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: antiquark on 02/15/2013 07:49 pm
Understood.  What's the friggin' assumption here that you're having a bolide about?

My guess would be: free energy!
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: cuddihy on 02/15/2013 11:17 pm
Understood.  What's the friggin' assumption here that you're having a bolide about?

My guess would be: free energy!

That's a conclusion, not an assumption. You keep getting this confused. Einstein's theory of special relativity has the speed of light being the max speed as a conclusion, not an assumption. Woodward's theory of inertial and mass fluctuation has the potential of harvesting energy from distant, far-off mass at low (not no) cost as a conclusion, not an assumption.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: cuddihy on 02/15/2013 11:24 pm
Woodward talked, if I recalled correctly, about wanting to build a propellantless thrusting device since undergrad.

And while the motivation doesn't matter once it has been independently verified (by disinterested parties) to high certainty, before that happens it certainly should affect our judgement of how likely it is Woodward is fooling himself.

You and I both know that the correct solution to the pertinant equations is the only way to determine the liklihood of him "fooling himself".

However, there has been no news on the experimental side for some months now.  And that lack of news is on top of several years of sketchily reported results with little reported evidence of the dang thing actually moving.  If anybody has "complete apathy towards pre-validation results", who could argue otherwise?

I would argue the "null result" test is pretty big news, it entirely eliminates (if replicatable) vibration as a source of error. Since thermal effects have already been pretty well ruled out, the only major piece missing is a totally independent replication-- I just don't buy that it's so complex it can't be correctly done.

Till then, it remains speculative. But most accidental sources of error have been eliminated already just as of this year.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/16/2013 02:30 pm
Understood.  What's the friggin' assumption here that you're having a bolide about?

My guess would be: free energy!

That's a conclusion, not an assumption. You keep getting this confused. Einstein's theory of special relativity has the speed of light being the max speed as a conclusion, not an assumption. Woodward's theory of inertial and mass fluctuation has the potential of harvesting energy from distant, far-off mass at low (not no) cost as a conclusion, not an assumption.

Worse, Cuddihy continues to focus on the extravagant claim, without investigating the backup material.  The claim is easily ignored.  The backup material doesn't lead inexorably to free energy, from my take.

Maybe there needs to be a thread on inertia?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: antiquark on 02/16/2013 05:10 pm
Y'all are forgetting that propellantless propulsion will INEVITABLY lead to free energy!

For that reason, y'all should be very skeptical about propellantless propulsion!
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: 93143 on 02/16/2013 08:45 pm
Conservation of momentum and energy is guaranteed by the interaction with the distant universe.  No violation.

Technically, this isn't a "propellantless" thruster.  The rest of the observable universe is the propellant.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: GeeGee on 02/16/2013 09:48 pm
Conservation of momentum and energy is guaranteed by the interaction with the distant universe.  No violation.

Technically, this isn't a "propellantless" thruster.  The rest of the observable universe is the propellant.

I would think the fact that the M-E equation is Lorentz invariant would be enough to settle the issue.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 02/16/2013 10:06 pm
Y'all are forgetting that propellantless propulsion will INEVITABLY lead to free energy!

For that reason, y'all should be very skeptical about propellantless propulsion!
Woodwards ME drive is supposedly as much propellantless as a car is.
It is good to be skeptical, but lets not make hasty conclusions without doing the math.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: KelvinZero on 02/17/2013 11:24 am
There might be another problem. Presumably the woodward drive would work even if the universe was at a very high state of entropy. If you could grab energy distributed across the universe and concentrate it into the velocity of a vehicle then you are violating the second law of thermodynamics.

Maybe it only works because the universe is expanding or something, but is this hidden in the math somewhere, the assumption of an expanding universe? Just another example of the fact that it should have some sort of profound cosmological significance.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: KelvinZero on 02/17/2013 11:33 am
Y'all are forgetting that propellantless propulsion will INEVITABLY lead to free energy!

For that reason, y'all should be very skeptical about propellantless propulsion!
Woodwards ME drive is supposedly as much propellantless as a car is.
It is good to be skeptical, but lets not make hasty conclusions without doing the math.

It is a bit different from a car pushing on the ground. A car is better than a rocket but you still have the Ek=0.5mv2 relationship. This Woodwards drive is apparently always fortunate enough to find some mass that is in average moving at the same velocity, so it can increase velocity directly proportional to energy.

This probably violate thermodynamics. For example, suppose an airplane propeller could select only the particles in the surrounding air that happen to be moving at the same velocity to push against. In that case you could also increase velocity proportional to energy and then extract energy proportional to velocity squared, magically concentrating kinetic energy out of the random motions of atoms in the air.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/17/2013 01:54 pm
Conservation of momentum and energy is guaranteed by the interaction with the distant universe.  No violation.

Technically, this isn't a "propellantless" thruster.  The rest of the observable universe is the propellant.

I would think the fact that the M-E equation is Lorentz invariant would be enough to settle the issue.

Explain that better than the wiki page, if ya don't mind.  I still don't get Lorentz invariance.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: antiquark on 02/17/2013 02:44 pm

This probably violate thermodynamics. For example, suppose an airplane propeller could select only the particles in the surrounding air that happen to be moving at the same velocity to push against. In that case you could also increase velocity proportional to energy and then extract energy proportional to velocity squared, magically concentrating kinetic energy out of the random motions of atoms in the air.

You are referring (basically) to Maxwell's Demon! That's a free energy machine that even the top physicists were stumped by, over 100 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon

But don't worry, they eventually figured out what "the catch" was. The demon in the experiment would need more energy to run, than the energy produced by the machine.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: HMXHMX on 02/17/2013 04:38 pm
Woodward talked, if I recalled correctly, about wanting to build a propellantless thrusting device since undergrad.

And while the motivation doesn't matter once it has been independently verified (by disinterested parties) to high certainty, before that happens it certainly should affect our judgement of how likely it is Woodward is fooling himself.

You and I both know that the correct solution to the pertinant equations is the only way to determine the liklihood of him "fooling himself".

However, there has been no news on the experimental side for some months now.  And that lack of news is on top of several years of sketchily reported results with little reported evidence of the dang thing actually moving.  If anybody has "complete apathy towards pre-validation results", who could argue otherwise?

Dec 2012:  http://physics.fullerton.edu/%7Ejimw/ASPW2012.pdf

Summer 2012 (Joint Propulsion Conf. AIAA): http://physics.fullerton.edu/%7Ejimw/JPC2012.pdf

Edit: date correction
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: cuddihy on 02/17/2013 04:44 pm
Understood.  What's the friggin' assumption here that you're having a bolide about?

My guess would be: free energy!

That's a conclusion, not an assumption. You keep getting this confused. Einstein's theory of special relativity has the speed of light being the max speed as a conclusion, not an assumption. Woodward's theory of inertial and mass fluctuation has the potential of harvesting energy from distant, far-off mass at low (not no) cost as a conclusion, not an assumption.

Worse, Cuddihy continues to focus on the extravagant claim, without investigating the backup material.  The claim is easily ignored.  The backup material doesn't lead inexorably to free energy, from my take.

Maybe there needs to be a thread on inertia?
That's Antiquark, not me.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: cuddihy on 02/17/2013 04:50 pm
Y'all are forgetting that propellantless propulsion will INEVITABLY lead to free energy!

For that reason, y'all should be very skeptical about propellantless propulsion!
Woodwards ME drive is supposedly as much propellantless as a car is.
It is good to be skeptical, but lets not make hasty conclusions without doing the math.

It is a bit different from a car pushing on the ground. A car is better than a rocket but you still have the Ek=0.5mv2 relationship. This Woodwards drive is apparently always fortunate enough to find some mass that is in average moving at the same velocity, so it can increase velocity directly proportional to energy.


Where does this claim come from? Not Woodward.

File under "speculative derivative, utterly unprovable."

How the force is transmitted is apart from whether or not it is transmitted at all, which is the claim in question. Perhaps there is no direct Mass to Mass coupling, perhaps it only pushes on the universe as a whole. Maybe it's invisible midgets that do the coupling, whatever knowing how the momentum gets from the mass to the rest of the universe isn't necessary to the claim.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: KelvinZero on 02/17/2013 07:25 pm

You are referring (basically) to Maxwell's Demon! That's a free energy machine that even the top physicists were stumped by, over 100 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon

But don't worry, they eventually figured out what "the catch" was. The demon in the experiment would need more energy to run, than the energy produced by the machine.

Yeah I've met that one. I had great fun designing perpetual motion machines as a kid. One of my favorite was a sort of cloth that consisted of lots of tiny one-way trapdoors. If an atom of atmosphere hits one side it goes through, if it hits the other it bounces. The result being it would supposedly feel more air pressure on one side than the other ;)

btw the structure of the cloth was meant to be sort of like chicken wire made of carbon chains, with additional chains leading off to only one side, sort of like a carpet. I realize it has been established this cant work but it still feels intuitive to me that an atom that gets tangled in the threads of this 'carpet' would work itself away from the constrained side, ie away from the bottom of the carpet to the top.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/18/2013 01:45 pm
Understood.  What's the friggin' assumption here that you're having a bolide about?

My guess would be: free energy!

That's a conclusion, not an assumption. You keep getting this confused. Einstein's theory of special relativity has the speed of light being the max speed as a conclusion, not an assumption. Woodward's theory of inertial and mass fluctuation has the potential of harvesting energy from distant, far-off mass at low (not no) cost as a conclusion, not an assumption.

Worse, Cuddihy continues to focus on the extravagant claim, without investigating the backup material.  The claim is easily ignored.  The backup material doesn't lead inexorably to free energy, from my take.

Maybe there needs to be a thread on inertia?
That's Antiquark, not me.

Sorry about that.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/18/2013 01:49 pm
One more about Maxwell's demon.  He's not necessary, if you're willing to wait. 
Say you have two gas chambers, separated by a small hole with an airtight valve.  The random motion of the gas is such that, if you wait long enough, all the gas will eventually be in one chamber, if the term "random motion" has any meaning.  Then you quickly close the valve.

You'd have to wait a very long time, tho.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/18/2013 01:54 pm
Woodward talked, if I recalled correctly, about wanting to build a propellantless thrusting device since undergrad.

And while the motivation doesn't matter once it has been independently verified (by disinterested parties) to high certainty, before that happens it certainly should affect our judgement of how likely it is Woodward is fooling himself.

You and I both know that the correct solution to the pertinant equations is the only way to determine the liklihood of him "fooling himself".

However, there has been no news on the experimental side for some months now.  And that lack of news is on top of several years of sketchily reported results with little reported evidence of the dang thing actually moving.  If anybody has "complete apathy towards pre-validation results", who could argue otherwise?

Dec 2012:  http://physics.fullerton.edu/%7Ejimw/ASPW2012.pdf

Summer 2012 (Joint Propulsion Conf. AIAA): http://physics.fullerton.edu/%7Ejimw/JPC2012.pdf

Edit: date correction

Perfectly acceptable nit, but still, with little reported evidence of the dang thing actually moving in a way that can be replicated by other labs, nor widespread agreement about the fundamental math of the explaining theory. 

If anybody has complete apathy towards these results, why shouldn't they?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: HMXHMX on 02/18/2013 10:14 pm
Woodward talked, if I recalled correctly, about wanting to build a propellantless thrusting device since undergrad.

And while the motivation doesn't matter once it has been independently verified (by disinterested parties) to high certainty, before that happens it certainly should affect our judgement of how likely it is Woodward is fooling himself.

You and I both know that the correct solution to the pertinant equations is the only way to determine the liklihood of him "fooling himself".

However, there has been no news on the experimental side for some months now.  And that lack of news is on top of several years of sketchily reported results with little reported evidence of the dang thing actually moving.  If anybody has "complete apathy towards pre-validation results", who could argue otherwise?

Dec 2012:  http://physics.fullerton.edu/%7Ejimw/ASPW2012.pdf

Summer 2012 (Joint Propulsion Conf. AIAA): http://physics.fullerton.edu/%7Ejimw/JPC2012.pdf

Edit: date correction

Perfectly acceptable nit, but still, with little reported evidence of the dang thing actually moving in a way that can be replicated by other labs, nor widespread agreement about the fundamental math of the explaining theory. 

If anybody has complete apathy towards these results, why shouldn't they?

OK, you gave me the straight line, so I'll take it:

"Nevertheless, it moves..."  :)

I'd like to see replication, surely, but that means someone has to try.  These days, almost no one will do replication of any experiment.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/18/2013 11:57 pm
"Nevertheless, it moves..." 

I'd like to see replication, surely, but that means someone has to try.  These days, almost no one will do replication of any experiment.

Of course they won't Galileo, old buddy. 

Two reasons:  1) It didn't move all that much.  2) The objectors are latching on to the extravagant claim, instead of the experimental claim, largely because the math is obtuse.  This saves the time of having to thoroughly understand Maxwell, Mach, Sciama, and Woodward.

Like this exchange:

Y'all are forgetting that propellantless propulsion will INEVITABLY lead to free energy!

So you don't know about Sciama's gravelectric equation either?

If the equation predicts free energy, then sorry, I don't plan on reading it.

It [the gravilectric equation] does not.  That much is clear.

I don't have an official opinion on this "flux capacitor", but I have a long held intuition that the speed of light is not necessarily a limiting factor to causality.  I don't mention this in polite society.

Either we live in one universe which had one cause, or else we live in a number of different universes which sprang from one cause, but which are now not attached by causality, because of the speed of light.  Somehow, no matter how far "out" you go, you can never get to the expanding boundary of the universe that we are in, therefore those other universes which sprang from this one cannot be proven to exist, since no signal can be received from them.

Somehow, after the Big Bang, during the "expansionary" period, these parts of the universe sped away faster than the speed of light?  They were causally connected with us, but now they're not?  Even tho, at the edge of our universe, they would seem to be causally connected per the relative speeds of galaxies at the "edge".  You'd think that the residents of UDFj-39546284 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UDFj-39546284) would be able to see those galaxies, no?

This makes no intuitive sense to my tiny brain.

Sheesh.  I picked a fine time to stop sniffing glue...
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: antiquark on 02/19/2013 12:22 am
2) The objectors are latching on to the extravagant claim, instead of the experimental claim, largely because the math is obtuse.

The "free energy" claim isn't some weird obtuse interpretation of quantum physics.  If someone invented a usable propellantless propulsion device, you would be able to show, within an hour, that it produces free energy! And the mathematics behind it is taught in high school.

So it's perfectly valid to argue that Woodward's device will produce free energy.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/19/2013 12:31 am
2) The objectors are latching on to the extravagant claim, instead of the experimental claim, largely because the math is obtuse.

The "free energy" claim isn't some weird obtuse interpretation of quantum physics.  If someone invented a usable propellantless propulsion device, you would be able to show, within an hour, that it produces free energy! And the mathematics behind it is taught in high school.

So it's perfectly valid to argue that Woodward's device will produce free energy.

The only way I'll say "fine", is if you give the hour long math lesson here.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: antiquark on 02/19/2013 12:44 am
The only way I'll say "fine", is if you give the hour long math lesson here.

Ek = 1/2 m v^2

F = m a

Those two equations are all you need to show that Woodward's device would produce free energy.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/19/2013 03:46 am
I understand maxwell just fine. Just explain to me why I should read a ton of what will almost surely end up being a crackpot theory?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: 93143 on 02/19/2013 06:26 am
Ek = 1/2 m v^2

F = m a

Those two equations are all you need to show that Woodward's device would produce free energy.

We've been over this (and over it, and over it, for years).  M-E thrusters (if they work) do not violate conservation of momentum or energy.  They exchange momentum and energy with the rest of the observable universe.

The claim that an M-E thruster violates the entropy condition is at least plausible, though IMO it is (for a couple of reasons) on pretty thin ice as a reason to discount the whole concept.  But the claim that the concept necessarily violates conservation of energy based simply on Newtonian mechanics cannot be seriously maintained; anyone capable of drawing a free-body diagram shouldn't even need to do so to understand this.

Let's take a thruster at a velocity v1, and a large quantity of mostly distant matter (the Far-Off Active Mass, or FOAM, the gravitational potential of which is what gives the thruster and its payload their inertia) at an average velocity v2.  The thruster produces a thrust F, which results in the FOAM experiencing some distributed force pattern that integrates to -F.  The thruster accelerates at an acceleration a1 = F/m1, and everything else accelerates at a mean acceleration of a2 = -F/m2 (note that |m2| >> |m1|, and accordingly |a2| << |a1|).  Momentum is conserved.

The rate of gain of kinetic energy of the thruster and its payload is of course P1 = F·v1.  For the FOAM, we get P2 = -F·v2.  This means that the input power to the thruster, assuming no extra energy from non-obvious cosmological effects, needs to be at least Pin = P1+P2, or Pin = F·(v1-v2).

In the controversial case where the operating principle of the thruster manages to maintain an effective reaction velocity v2 = v1 irrespective of the value of v1, by somehow weighting its interaction with the rest of the observable universe, or perhaps by calling in some funky cosmological weirdness to balance the energy books, the thrust efficiency ηF = |F|/Pin [N/W] is independent of v1 and in principle unlimited.  This case gives you the flywheel-type pseudo-free-energy machine, possibly violating or at least circumventing the entropy condition in the process.  In the opposite case, where v2 is essentially constant and no cosmological weirdness occurs, the maximum value of ηF is the inverse of the velocity difference between the thruster and the rest of the observable universe in the axis of thrust.  This case gives you the linear-brake-type pseudo-free-energy machine (which works on the same principle as a windmill), and the entropy condition is classically respected.  (I don't think this second case is tenable given the form of Woodward's equations, but I haven't pored over all his papers in detail and I'm not very far into his book yet, so...)  Neither of these cases results in true "free energy" in the sense of a global conservation violation, nor does any member of the family of cases that can be imagined along these lines.

BTW, the only way to get a frame-invariant kinetic energy - in other words a real energy - is to sum the values of ½mivi·vi in the centre-of-mass frame of reference Σmivi / Σmi = 0.  The value ½mv·v for a single object of mass m and velocity v is not a real energy, though it can be used for bookkeeping if you know what you're doing.

Just explain to me why I should read a ton of what will almost surely end up being a crackpot theory?

Because you insist on trying to criticize it.  What you're doing is called "contempt prior to investigation".  As Jim would put it, know something before posting.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/19/2013 06:38 am
Give me a single paper to critique and I will.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/19/2013 01:30 pm
Start with the "easy" paper:
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: antiquark on 02/19/2013 02:29 pm
M-E thrusters (if they work) do not violate conservation of momentum or energy.  They exchange momentum and energy with the rest of the observable universe.

I'm at work now, so I can't really get in depth, so I'll just ask one question here:  when the rest of the universe acts as a reaction mass, is that simultaneous, or propagating at the speed of light?

If simultaneous, then it violates the speed of light. If it propagates, then the Woodward drive would have problems operating in the depths of space (no mass nearby).
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: mrmandias on 02/19/2013 05:17 pm
No one cares if you read it or not.  What is peculiar is repeatedly opining, over and over again, on something you don't know much about and have announced is not worth your time to learn.

I understand maxwell just fine. Just explain to me why I should read a ton of what will almost surely end up being a crackpot theory?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: KelvinZero on 02/19/2013 07:32 pm
I realized there is something basic I dont understand:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect :
Thus, if the mass of a given object can be varied while being oscillated either in a linear or orbital path, such that the mass is high while the mass is moving in one direction and low while moving back, then the net effect should be acceleration in one direction as the inertial drag of the universe upon the object varies as its mass varies. Woodward claims the mass variation has been accomplished by demonstrating that the initial mass of a capacitor will increase with the energy stored in its electrical charge (m=E/c2).

If you can vary a mass like this, wouldnt you expect it to work without any new physics? I mean, you push a small mass to the left, you push a large mass to the right, repeat. That is like pushing (large minus small) mass to the right, right?
The devil is in the detail of how you are increasing the energy/mass of the capacitor without undoing the push you just gave yourself. For example you can't just let the mass flow as electricity in the reverse direction since that would give you a reverse push. What am I (and perhaps the wiki article) missing?

One possible difference is that in standard physics it would be the mass as you accelerated it at each end that mattered. That could have just been bad wording though.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/19/2013 07:45 pm
Of course it's new physics. If this effect is replicated convincingly, Woodward will get a Nobel Prize.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: 93143 on 02/19/2013 09:50 pm
I'm at work now, so I can't really get in depth, so I'll just ask one question here:  when the rest of the universe acts as a reaction mass, is that simultaneous, or propagating at the speed of light?

If simultaneous, then it violates the speed of light. If it propagates, then the Woodward drive would have problems operating in the depths of space (no mass nearby).

It supposedly uses the underlying principle of inertia.  We observe that inertial reaction forces are instantaneous and independent of the proximity of large gravitating masses.  Mach's principle states that inertia is due to the action (in Sciama and Woodward's theory, the gravitational potential) of the rest of the matter in the observable universe.  Therefore the drive's operation is likely to be unaffected by the lightspeed limit in the way you're suggesting, though the use of the word "observable" would seem to imply that the limit isn't right out the window.

It has been proposed that the gravinertial radiation that carries the momentum and energy to and from the distant matter incorporates a reversed-time component, similar to Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory and Cramer's transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics.  This allows for instantaneous inertial reaction forces while technically maintaining the lightspeed limit.

Hence the slogan on the door to Woodward's lab: "Tomorrow's momentum today!"...
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: D_Dom on 02/20/2013 04:34 am
... I have long held intuition that the speed of light is not necessarily a limiting factor to causality.  I don't mention this in polite society.

I couldn't agree more, fortunately we are among friends here!
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/20/2013 02:26 pm
It [the Woodward "flux capacitor"] supposedly uses the underlying principle of inertia.  We observe that inertial reaction forces are instantaneous and independent of the proximity of large gravitating masses.  Mach's principle states that inertia is due to the action (in Sciama and Woodward's theory, the gravitational potential) of the rest of the matter in the observable universe.  Therefore the drive's operation is likely to be unaffected by the lightspeed limit ...

Hence the slogan on the door to Woodward's lab: "Tomorrow's momentum today!"...

If you kick a basketball sized rock on Earth, you'll break your toe.  Same if you kick the same rock on ISS or on the Moon.

Inertia is the same regardless of where you happen to be standing.  Inertia is instantaneous.  Where does it come from?  Why is it the same value regardless of gravitational field?  Is it the same value when the mass oscillates in a certain fashion?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: djolds1 on 02/20/2013 03:22 pm
I don't have an official opinion on this "flux capacitor", but I have a long held intuition that the speed of light is not necessarily a limiting factor to causality.  I don't mention this in polite society.
Pharis Williams' thermodynamic interpretation of relativity might appeal to you. He analogizes the speed of light to absolute zero temperature as limiting quantities.

Either we live in one universe which had one cause, or else we live in a number of different universes which sprang from one cause, but which are now not attached by causality, because of the speed of light.  Somehow, no matter how far "out" you go, you can never get to the expanding boundary of the universe that we are in, therefore those other universes which sprang from this one cannot be proven to exist, since no signal can be received from them.

Somehow, after the Big Bang, during the "expansionary" period, these parts of the universe sped away faster than the speed of light?  They were causally connected with us, but now they're not?  Even tho, at the edge of our universe, they would seem to be causally connected per the relative speeds of galaxies at the "edge".  You'd think that the residents of UDFj-39546284 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UDFj-39546284) would be able to see those galaxies, no?

This makes no intuitive sense to my tiny brain.

Sheesh.  I picked a fine time to stop sniffing glue...
  ;D

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/20/2013 04:38 pm
Pharis Williams' thermodynamic interpretation...

No mother names her child Pharis:

I'm not going to review a paper written by someone named Pharis.  Something about "contempt prior to investigation".
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: djolds1 on 02/21/2013 04:12 am
Pharis Williams' thermodynamic interpretation...
No mother names her child Pharis:
He was born ~1941.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/21/2013 12:46 pm
Pharis Williams' thermodynamic interpretation...
No mother names her child Pharis:
He was born ~1941.

Huh?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: djolds1 on 02/21/2013 04:21 pm
No mother names her child Pharis:
He was born ~1941.
Huh?
No mother names her son Pharis? Different standards c.1940, I would expect.

http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA028082

http://catalog.lanl.gov/F/T838BSYXUYICH6GS1ME7RNGPS6L4NQY99MS11F5YFB3XEST4XN-02848?func=full-set-set&set_number=000045&set_entry=000001&format=999

Pharis reports his derivation of the equation of electrostatic potential was wrong in these works.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/21/2013 04:41 pm
No mother names her son Pharis? Different standards c.1940, I would expect.

I see.  Note that I do not use smilies.  It is more effective that way, as demonstrated.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: djolds1 on 02/21/2013 09:38 pm
No mother names her son Pharis? Different standards c.1940, I would expect.
I see.  Note that I do not use smilies.  It is more effective that way, as demonstrated.
It's difficult to convey tone via text w/o emoticons.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/21/2013 10:33 pm
That's what happened to the Egyptians.  It was all emoticons, and then it was all over...
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: cuddihy on 03/08/2013 12:29 am
M-E thrusters (if they work) do not violate conservation of momentum or energy.  They exchange momentum and energy with the rest of the observable universe.

I'm at work now, so I can't really get in depth, so I'll just ask one question here:  when the rest of the universe acts as a reaction mass, is that simultaneous, or propagating at the speed of light?

If simultaneous, then it violates the speed of light. If it propagates, then the Woodward drive would have problems operating in the depths of space (no mass nearby).

speed of light, but propogates both forward in time and back. No, your second point is incorrect, local mass has a negligible effect on the inertial reaction force because no matter how giant and close your local mass it is isignificant next to the mass and distribution of the rest of the universe. This is actually explained in part 2 of the book.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: jded on 03/08/2013 08:02 am
I have a different problem. If the inertia depends on the interaction with the rest of causally connected universe, shouldn't it change over time as far-off mass leaves the casually connected sphere? Especially, shouldn't it be dramatically different in the early universe?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: UncleMatt on 03/11/2013 02:42 am
I have read the new book, and wonder where the inertia of light originates? Light sails work. They prove that light has inertia, but supposedly not mass. But if mass is what is connected to distant mass for the effects of inertia to occur, what is it about light that is connecting with the distant mass of the universe to give it inertia?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 03/11/2013 12:26 pm
Thanks.  I will not get to sleep this evening...
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: 93143 on 03/11/2013 08:04 pm
I have read the new book, and wonder where the inertia of light originates? Light sails work. They prove that light has inertia, but supposedly not mass. But if mass is what is connected to distant mass for the effects of inertia to occur, what is it about light that is connecting with the distant mass of the universe to give it inertia?

It's total non-gravitational energy, not rest mass, that gravitates and thus determines the gravinertial interaction.

m = E/c²

Light has energy; therefore it has mass in this sense.  Just not rest mass.

Also, light is a bit of an edge case, since it has no rest mass, always moves at the speed of light, and has null proper time (or something).  I'd be careful with it...

I have a different problem. If the inertia depends on the interaction with the rest of causally connected universe, shouldn't it change over time as far-off mass leaves the casually connected sphere? Especially, shouldn't it be dramatically different in the early universe?

It is postulated that GM/R is a locally measured invariant equal to c².  So either the speed of light is changing, or G is changing.  I think...?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 03/13/2013 01:25 pm
I have a different problem. If the inertia depends on the interaction with the rest of causally connected universe, shouldn't it change over time as far-off mass leaves the casually connected sphere? Especially, shouldn't it be dramatically different in the early universe?

It is postulated that GM/R is a locally measured invariant equal to c².  So either the speed of light is changing, or G is changing.  I think...?

Something must be changing.  I don't think there has to be a speed limit.

Even so, Woodward is hard to believe.  If wormholes can be "absurdly benign", why haven't they "evolved" elsewhere over the last 15B years?  How come we're the first intelligent species to suggest creating these artifacts?  Is there nobody else out there?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: MarkZero on 03/13/2013 09:42 pm
Wouldn't "absurdly benign" wormholes also be absurdly small in astronomical scales (the size of spaceships) and emit/reflect very little radiation of any kind and as such be very hard to spot? If so there could be lots of other intelligent species out there creating these without us seeing any of it.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 03/14/2013 11:54 am
As an illustration in his book, he includes a rendering of an airport like setting, with a nine foot diameter "wormhole", beyond which the viewer sees the Jovian "wormport",with "Jupiter" in the windows beyond. Kinda like you would see in a sci-fi movie.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: cuddihy on 03/16/2013 06:17 am
I realized there is something basic I dont understand:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect :
Woodward claims the mass variation has been accomplished by demonstrating that the initial mass of a capacitor will increase with the energy stored in its electrical charge (m=E/c2).

If you can vary a mass like this, wouldnt you expect it to work without any new physics? I mean, you push a small mass to the left, you push a large mass to the right, repeat. That is like pushing (large minus small) mass to the right, right?
The devil is in the detail of how you are increasing the energy/mass of the capacitor without undoing the push you just gave yourself. For example you can't just let the mass flow as electricity in the reverse direction since that would give you a reverse push. What am I (and perhaps the wiki article) missing?

One possible difference is that in standard physics it would be the mass as you accelerated it at each end that mattered. That could have just been bad wording though.

I really think the lack of precision in the Wikipedia article seriously confuses the issue and I believe may be the source of your confusion.

To take just the sentence that I cut above from the wiki cite, it is not accurate to say that a mere change in the mass-energy of the capacitor from charging/discharging is sufficient to cause a mass fluctuation--otherwise the effect would be observed all the time in nature. And the quote above is not only badly wrong about what Woodward claims but also totally misstates the physical theory behind it.

Woodward's physical contention is accurately stated as that an object that undergoes a change in acceleration while simultaneously undergoing a change in internal mass-energy produces a rest mass fluctuation that can be observed as a temporary increase or decrease in inertial mass-reaction.

Yes it is really necessary to say all the italicized parts in order to be accurate.
And to say mass-energy instead of just mass because otherwise it makes it sound like it is enough to only have one or the other (change in energy or acceleration) when you need both.

Because it is not enough to only have either the change in acceleration (such as a vibrating string, or the piezo crystal Woodward uses) or the change in internal mass-energy (such as the charging/discharging capacitor). You need them both at the same time in order to get the effect. Hence Woodward's reliance on capacitors with piezo-electric and electro-strictive effects in the experiments.

So properly stated in the odd phraseology the article uses, it would be that Woodward claims that the mass variation has been accomplished by demonstrating that a capacitor charging and discharging while simultaneously undergoing changes in physical acceleration from piezoelectric effects, exhibits an otherwise un-explained force in a single direction.

That is as close as you can get to the Wikipedia statement while still approaching what Woodward actually says. In other words, there is no way to understand the Wikipedia statement of the principle because it's so inaccurate that it doesn't actually address the theory properly.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 03/16/2013 10:50 am
In other words, there is no way to understand the Wikipedia statement of the principle because it's so inaccurate that it doesn't actually address the theory properly.

Hi. This was true a while back, but you should read the wikipedia article about the Woodward effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect) again, because it has changed a lot and the issues you are describing have already been addressed, along other withdrawn statements previously attributed to Woodward who never made them, especially this one regarding the so-called perpetual motion machine: "Appeal is made by Woodward to the rest of the universe for making up the energy imbalance" (problem reported on page 3 of this topic). Woodward never made such claim. Quite the opposite, he says that a Mach effect thruster cannot deliver "free" energy.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: cuddihy on 03/18/2013 05:43 am
In other words, there is no way to understand the Wikipedia statement of the principle because it's so inaccurate that it doesn't actually address the theory properly.

Hi. This was true a while back, but you should read the wikipedia article about the Woodward effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect) again, because it has changed a lot and the issues you are describing have already been addressed, along other withdrawn statements previously attributed to Woodward who never made them, especially this one regarding the so-called perpetual motion machine: "Appeal is made by Woodward to the rest of the universe for making up the energy imbalance" (problem reported on page 3 of this topic). Woodward never made such claim. Quite the opposite, he says that a Mach effect thruster cannot deliver "free" energy.

Wow, no kidding it is much improved! It looks like Woodward's book has cleared up a lot of chaff related to misunderstandings about what his claims actually are.

*UPDATE - on second look it's actually gone too far the other direction, it omits proper reference to contrary evidence, for instance although it cites Woodward's rebuttal of the Oak Ridge National Labs replication that was unable to produce the effect, it leaves the actual ORNL paper out of the cites and evidence timelines. Negative evidence is fair game and ought to be included, when I have a chance to dig it out when I'm not on my iPhone I'll fix the Wikipedia
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star-Drive on 03/18/2013 11:30 am
Folks:

Noting up front that Dr. Woodward prefers "Mach-Effect" (M-E) instead of the "Woodward-Effect" descriptor of his discovery, you folks haven't asked WHY should a time rate of change of internal energy combined with the bulk acceleration of the energy storing media create the M-E's posited inertial mass variations in the first place.   Woodward merely points to the M-E’s math derivation and indicates that is what the math says ought to happen and then experimentally looks for the predicted inertial mass variation effects and goes from there.   Jim does provide though a two dimensional analog in his book of an accelerated mass that creates “Kinks” in the ambient cosmological gravitational (g) field that somehow transiently shields the local accelerated mass from the cumulative inertial effects of the cosmological g-field and that transient shielding effect is what gives rise to the accelerated mass’s inertial mass fluctuations.  I could buy that if the M-E didn’t have one other requirement that leads to some very strange predictions.

Woodward also posits that due to the fact that inertial reaction forces apparently occur instantaneously, (I can’t find any experiments that have directly  measured this assumption.), that the M-E's posited gravitational effects with the mostly distant mass-energy in the causally connected universe that give rise to the M-E have to interact effectively in no-time.  I.e. it’s Einstein’s famous “Spooky action at a distance” problem.  And IMO it is a problem in this regard, for how does an instantaneous g-field interaction in spacetime, TRANSIENTLY shield a locally accelerated mass from the rest of the cosmological g-field?   It would be nice if Dr. Woodward could explain to us how instantaneous g-field like Wheeler/Feynman radiation reaction forces can give rise to transient effects that take time to occur in the local laboratory frame of reference.

Best,
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: cuddihy on 03/19/2013 12:10 am
Folks:

Noting up front that Dr. Woodward prefers "Mach-Effect" (M-E) instead of the "Woodward-Effect" descriptor of his discovery,

Yeah, but that's likely, perhaps subconscious, false humility on Woodward's part in service of the idea, especially since nothing Mach said remotely leads necessarily to the effect, it is all Woodward's take on Sciama. Mach is just dead enough that he can't complain about it.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star-Drive on 03/19/2013 03:20 am
This is Woodward's reply to my previous question:

"Paul,

So you've become a critic after all these years?  The answer to your question is on page 262 of the book.

The instantaneity of inertial reaction forces simply means that whenever something is pushed, the reaction force on it appears instantaneously.  So if the thing pushed is extended, but rigid, there are no Mach effects (as explained repeatedly in Chapter 3 of the book) because the acceleration and reaction takes place simlutaneously throughout the body.  But when an extended body does not react rigidly (and it absorbs internal energy), the effective mass of the body during the acceleration becomes a function of time, and the math of Chapter 3 follows in an elementary fashion.

You may want to review Chapter 2 as well, where the action-at-a-distance character of inertial forces is explained.

Best,

Jim"
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: cuddihy on 03/19/2013 11:36 pm
Paul, you're a mensch for posting Woodward's reply.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 03/20/2013 01:30 am
Paul, you're a mensch for posting Woodward's reply.
A "mensch" (human)?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: cuddihy on 03/20/2013 05:38 am
Paul, you're a mensch for posting Woodward's reply.
A "mensch" (human)?

Common usage in English is the Yiddish-a man of integrity.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 03/20/2013 11:57 am
Interesting, "Mensch" means "human" in German. That is why I am asking.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 03/20/2013 01:13 pm
Paul, you're a mensch for posting Woodward's reply.

In the book, Woodward criticizes Paul when Paul is investigating Shawyer's work.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/13/2013 03:35 am
Paul, you're a mensch for posting Woodward's reply.

In the book, Woodward criticizes Paul when Paul is investigating Shawyer's work.

Jim can complain all he wants to, but the truth of the matter is that Shawyer's resonant cavity work has now been replicated not only by the Chinese, twice, but in at least two other labs here in the USA with similar results.  These results lends some credance to White's Q-Thruster conjecture as well as our related DARPA work...

That said I'm going to post an excerpt from Dr. Woodward's May 10, 2013 weekly lab report that I posted over at the TalkPolywell.com site yesterday on the proposed Carver Mead thrust limit that bears repeating and thinking about here.


"To recap Carver's argument, he noted that both gravity and electromagnetism, as long range fields, have zero rest mass field quanta (assuming that gravitons actually exist of course).  As such, one can simply write E = pc for the energy and momentum carried by the field.  Now, if a MET produces thrust by completely converting the power applied to it (that is, dE/dt) into the equivalent momentum flux in the field, then the momentum flux will be dp/dt = (1/c)dE/dt and this is the thrust.  As an example, if dE/dt = 100 watts, then dp/dt is a third of a uN.  I'm going to call this relationship between power and thrust the "Mead limit".

There are a couple of questions here.  Can METs (Mach-Effect Thruster)s beat the Mead limit?  If they do, is there supporting plausible physics that underpins such behavior?  The first question is one for experiment.  The second one for "theory".  Tonight's email chiefly addresses the first question.  For if the Mead limit is found to apply in fact, then the second question is one for casual speculation at best.

Several weeks ago, I decided to go after the experimental question by building a device designed to run at higher frequency, one that would exceed the Mead limit if it could be made to perform as well as the devices that have been running now seemingly forever.  Then, last weekend, it dawned on me that the answer to this question was already present in the data that these devices have been producing for upwards of a year.  Indeed, the behavior is present in plots in chapter 5 of the book already.  And it is especially obvious in the constant frequency runs that have been featured in the last few email attachments.  Talk about feeling foolish.  Especially galling is that there is a cheap tourist trick of analysis that makes interpretation of the data, at least in approximation, trivial.  But on to the file (that will be attached to a following email).

The first dozen slides are selected from those sent last week.  They include some pictures of the apparatus and the results for the 10 second steady power/thrust test.  Immediately following are slides (13 through 16) with the results of a 14 second steady power/thrust test done after replacement of the lower flexural bearing in the balance.  They are essentially identical to the shorter interval test.  That is, after an initial transient thrust pulse lasting a couple of seconds settles, a steady thrust of a micronewton or two ensues.  When the device is switched off, there is a prominent thrust pulse of a couple of seconds duration that quickly settles.  The steady thrust, the focus of earlier attention, is right about at the Mead limit for this device.  So it cannot be used to settle the question of exceeding the Mead limit.

Until last weekend, the obvious thrust switching transients, noted many time in earlier work, were simply noted and ignored.  Last weekend, however, I paid attention to the transients.  For two reasons.  First, Carver's argument has an implicit assumption: the relationship between thrust and power is: thrust = constant X power.  Always.  This may be intuitively likely.  But it is not necessarily so.  If it is so, then the thrust transients in the displays MUST be accompanied by transient power surges that produce them.  That is, the voltage squared (proportional to the power) traces (dark blue) should show signs of power transients that produce the thrust transients.

The cheap tourist trick observation is that the thrust balance, as far as transients are concerned, behaves as a "ballistic pendulum".  A horizontal and damped pendulum -- which complicates careful analysis -- but a ballistic pendulum nonetheless.  If your introductory physics text was Sears and Zemanski, you'll remember that they have a chapter on impulse, force and energy, with the ballistic pendulum as an example.  Rudimentary analysis requires only elementary algebra.  Impulse is force times time = change in momentum.  Shoot a bullet into a block of wood suspended on strings, and the bullet plus block acquires kinetic energy equal to that of the bullet before inelastic impact.  The block rises on strings until its potential energy in the gravity field equals the initial kinetic energy.  You can compute the velocity of the bullet without fancy timing apparatus.

In our case, the two second thrust transients recorded MUST be produced by a force transient that satisfies the force times time condition to be equal to the thrust times 2 seconds.  Especially obvious in the case of the outgoing transient, there is no corresponding power transient that the Mead analysis requires to be present.  This is less obvious for in incoming transient, but it is also true there.  This can be seen by inspection of slides 18 and 19. Depending on the duration of the power transient assumed, the dark blue traces should show VERY pronounced deviations from simple rise to and fall from steady power supporting the steady thrust condition.  No, there is nothing in the system that would filter out such power transients.  The implicit assumption in Carver's argument is as a matter of fact wrong in this case.

You may be thinking, gee, that's weird.  If power transients aren't producing the thrust transients, what is?  The Mach effect.  Remember, the first Mach effect is NOT proportional to the power.  It is proportional to the rate of change of the power (that is, dP/dt).  So simply turning the device on and off should produce transients.  Everything needs to be tuned to produce the Mach effect of course.  But that does not depend on power transients beyond the simple switching of the power.  The size of the transient thrusts should depend on how quickly the power is switched.  Power switching is effected by the closing/opening of a relay that controls the driving signal to the power amplifier.  One may expect the rise time of the power to be a bit slower than the fall time in these circumstance, and accordingly that the outgoing thrust transient will be a bit larger than the incoming transient.

The data acquisition rate for the routinely stored data is 100 Hz, so detailed analysis of fast transients using it isn't possible.  But in slides 18 and 19 it is possible to determine that the rise time is at least a few ms and fall time is less than 10 ms.  The cheap trick comes in here.  The Mach effect thrust pulse that produces the ballistically measured thrust pulse of 2 s duration is just the measured average of the thrust pulses, say, a few uN, times 2 s divided by the rise/fall time, less than 10 ms.  That is, the measured thrust transients tell you that the Mach effect switching transients are on the order of at least hundreds of uN.  Given that there is no corresponding power transient, the Mead limit is far exceeded -- indicating that Carver's argument does not apply to these devices AS A MATTER OF FACT.  Since Mach effects are derived from elementary physics first principles, we see that the assumption that thrust = constant X power always is false.  Heidi and I, and others, are working on how this all works in detail. It is not a trivial problem."


Both Woodward's M-E and White's QVF conjectures predict that energy may be extracted locally from the cosmos' gravity/inertia (G/I) field, at least transiently when large power fluxes are being processed.  This may be the first experimental data indicating that there really is a higher than 4D dimensional realm that can be explored.  So it's going to be fun to see which of these conjectures makes the better predicitions as the experimental data continues to accumulate.  Right now it's still a neck and neck race IMO...

Best,
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 06/13/2013 07:35 am
I have a different problem. If the inertia depends on the interaction with the rest of causally connected universe, shouldn't it change over time as far-off mass leaves the casually connected sphere? Especially, shouldn't it be dramatically different in the early universe?

The idea that it depends on how much mass is in the "causally connected universe" is nuts.

The causally connected universe of a particular object at a particular moment in time is the set of matter/energy that could be reached by information from that object travelling at light speed, or equivalently the set of matter/energy that could have information arrive at that object at some point in the future.  It is all about future causality.  A star 100 light years away is in the causally connected universe of that object, but that causality can only take place 100 years in the future.

The idea that an effect here and now on an object depends on whether a causal link could happen at any point in the future is crazy.  It's confusing instantaneous causality with future causality.

That star 100 light years away does exert a (very small) gravitational effect on the object here and now, but that's from the position of the star 100 years ago.  That's the whole point of gravity waves -- if the star moves, the change in its gravity takes 100 years to reach the object.

Similarly, stars that are outside the causality universe of the object still exert a gravitational effect on the object, because at some point in the past they were within the causality universe of the object.  It's just like we can see light today from a star 100 light years away that 50 years ago disappeared into a black hole.  It doesn't matter that it's now in the black hole and beyond future causality.  What matters is that when the light originated from the star, it was still in the causality universe of the object, so it affects us today.

Either the Woodward effect is similar to all known fields and its effects travel at the speed of light, in which case, just like gravity, it doesn't matter whether a distant star is in the causality universe of an object, or the Woodward effect is instantaneous, in which case the entire universe is in the causality universe of every object.

In any case, the idea that the amount of mass in a causality universe of an object changes the Woodward effect is nuts.  I mean, even more nuts (which is saying a lot!) than the rest of the Woodward effect.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 06/13/2013 07:50 am
Everything about it obviously breaks the fundamental laws of physics, starting with (local) conservation of momentum.
Are you even sure about that?  It really does not seem obvious to me.

I know this is going to sound very insulting ...

Edited.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/13/2013 01:29 pm
I have a different problem. If the inertia depends on the interaction with the rest of causally connected universe, shouldn't it change over time as far-off mass leaves the casually connected sphere? Especially, shouldn't it be dramatically different in the early universe?

The idea that it depends on how much mass is in the "causally connected universe" is nuts.

Well, that sounds like you too are "continuing to post logical responses in spite of the evidence that most of the other people posting here could not tell the difference between logic and illogic".

Quote from: Chris Wilson
The idea that an effect here and now on an object depends on whether a causal link could happen at any point in the future is crazy.  It's confusing instantaneous causality with future causality.

You're beginning to see some of the problem:

It is held by Mr. Woodward and the proponents of his theory that inertia, as they deduce from Sciama, is an instantaneous connection between local matter and the rest of the universe.

One cannot help but ask about other "instantaneous" connections.

In addition, the universe is said to be increasing its mass, yet the inertia of local objects does not seem to change.  Woodward's group claims to have evidence of mass fluctuations under certain laboratory conditions.

One cannot help but ask about how the changing mass of the universe affects their theory.

The vast majority of reputable physicists ignore Woodward. ... Don't you think that if there were anything to it by now at least one reputable physicist somewhere would have noticed? ...

At least one reputable physicist did carefully consider Woodward's theories and wrote up an analysis that said they were bogus.  Don't you think if the analysis itself was flawed some other reputable physicist would have noticed the analysis was flawed?

I have read most of the published material.  It is impenetrable.  The problem with those other "reputable physicists" is that the material is no mathematical walk in the park for them either.  Besides, who will fund their time to get up to speed?

Probably, they're waiting for Woodward's group to float one of the devices into a room.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: 93143 on 06/13/2013 10:02 pm
It is held by Mr. Woodward and the proponents of his theory that inertia, as they deduce from Sciama, is an instantaneous connection between local matter and the rest of the universe.

No, this is not true.

Inertial reaction is instantaneous, yes.  But this is purportedly due to Wheeler-Feynman-style transactional radiation, which travels at the speed of light forward and backward in time.  That is, part of the gravinertial radiation emitted by an accelerating object is supposedly reversed-time radiation from the distant universe being absorbed.

It is postulated that the total gravitational potential due to the observable universe is invariant and equal to c².  Currently available cosmological data seems to pretty much match this; not sure how this plays with the source of the reaction being in the future...

I'm still not totally sold on his theory; I haven't had the time or mental energy to really dig into his math.  But so far as I can tell from the available data, his devices do seem to work.

By "reputable physicist", are we referring to whoever did the Oak Ridge analysis?  Or has someone else addressed this?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 06/14/2013 05:20 am

The vast majority of reputable physicists ignore Woodward. ... Don't you think that if there were anything to it by now at least one reputable physicist somewhere would have noticed? ...

At least one reputable physicist did carefully consider Woodward's theories and wrote up an analysis that said they were bogus.  Don't you think if the analysis itself was flawed some other reputable physicist would have noticed the analysis was flawed?

I have read most of the published material.  It is impenetrable.  The problem with those other "reputable physicists" is that the material is no mathematical walk in the park for them either.  Besides, who will fund their time to get up to speed?

Probably, they're waiting for Woodward's group to float one of the devices into a room.

Fortunately, it's often not necessary to learn all the details of a theory in order to prove it is incorrect.

For example, suppose someone hands you a 5,000 page purported proof that pi is rational.  You needn't read and understand even a single page of this proof to correctly conclude it is wrong.  It is enough to know there is a valid proof of the contrary, that pi is irrational.

As another example, take the EmDrive.  It's inventor claims that bouncing microwaves around a closed container in a clever way leads to a net force on the container.  He claims to have worked out the math that shows this.  Do you need to follow through all his calculations to see if he is wrong?  No!  Because he states that the calculations are all based on commonly-accepted physics, and it has been mathematically proven that commonly-accepted physics always leads to conservation of momentum, so his calculations have to be in error, even if you don't bother to track down the error.

The Woodward Effect is a somewhat different case, since at least some proponents seem to acknowledge that it relies on new physics.  However, even without knowing any of the details of the theory, we can know for sure that if it is true, some very, very fundamental properties of all known physics are violated.  Instantaneously transferring inertia with the entire rest of the universe (or some large part of it) violates the second law of thermodynamics.  It also violates the principal that all exchanges of information can travel no faster than the speed of light.

Also, even without knowing any details of the mathematics of the theory, from its broad outlines we can know that it doesn't solve any discrepency between experimental results and known physics with the sole exception of claimed results by Woodward's circle.  Given the sweeping implications of the theory, it is beyond belief that it could have had no effect that was noticeable in the hundreds of thousands of physics experiments that have been done that have confirmed known physics but happen not to have been done by Woodward or his followers.

So, without a solid, reproducible experimental result that contradicts known physics, there's very little reason for an outside physicist to bother with the inscrutable math of Woodward's theory.

In other words, the reputable physicists have very good reason to wait for Woodward's group to float one of the devices into a room
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 06/14/2013 05:26 am
I'm still not totally sold on his theory; I haven't had the time or mental energy to really dig into his math.  But so far as I can tell from the available data, his devices do seem to work.

There's a long history of devices of this sort seeming to work when the forces claimed are very small.  There are just all kinds of unintended interactions with the outside world that can lead to erroneous results.  Their proponents never get convinced the devices don't work, the mainstream physics community never gets convinced the devices do work, and their inventors never successfully scale them up to do anything of practical value.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: 93143 on 06/14/2013 06:29 am
Given that you still seem to be under the impression that Woodward's theory requires instantaneous communication with distant matter, I don't see why I should accept your conclusions regarding it.

It's not new physics.  It's neglected physics.  The basics were worked out in the '50s and '60s, based solely on General Relativity, by Stephen Hawking's doctoral supervisor.  Whether it means what Woodward says it does - that's the part I haven't figured out yet.  But it is IMO pretty arrogant to claim that it can't before either studying the theory in detail or reading up on the experiments, when it isn't obvious that it violates any well-established physical principles.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: QuantumG on 06/14/2013 06:32 am
What I wanna know is what it has to do with spaceflight... other than grandiose claims about what it might mean for spaceflight if it works - in which case, we might as well talk about unicorns as I hear you can ride them to Mars without even a spacesuit.

Isn't there some nerdy physics forum that can host this conversation? Or are their standards too high?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 06/14/2013 06:54 am
Given that you still seem to be under the impression that Woodward's theory requires instantaneous communication with distant matter, I don't see why I should accept your conclusions regarding it.

It's not new physics.  It's neglected physics.  The basics were worked out in the '50s and '60s, based solely on General Relativity, by Stephen Hawking's doctoral supervisor.  Whether it means what Woodward says it does - that's the part I haven't figured out yet.  But it is IMO pretty arrogant to claim that it can't before either studying the theory in detail or reading up on the experiments, when it isn't obvious that it violates any well-established physical principles.

No, Sciama never claimed the Woodward Effect or anything like it was true.  Woodward and his circle simply claim they are basing their theory on his work, and Sciama is conveniently dead and unable to protest having his name be sullied by association with the Woodward Effect.

What Sciama actually worked out was another way of looking at exactly the same physical laws that were already accepted.  It's just another mathematical system for specifying exactly the same predicted results.

Woodward absolutely does propose new physics: a new field that supposedly transmits inertia between an object and the rest of the universe.  Nothing in commonly-accepted physics would have a mass vary as Woodward proposes it would.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 06/14/2013 06:58 am
What I wanna know is what it has to do with spaceflight... other than grandiose claims about what it might mean for spaceflight if it works - in which case, we might as well talk about unicorns as I hear you can ride them to Mars without even a spacesuit.

I have a 30,000 page theory that says unicorns can fly us to Mars.  Unless you read all 30,000 pages and follow every detail in them, you're not qualified to even talk about space unicorns.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: john smith 19 on 06/14/2013 07:02 am
What I wanna know is what it has to do with spaceflight... other than grandiose claims about what it might mean for spaceflight if it works - in which case, we might as well talk about unicorns as I hear you can ride them to Mars without even a spacesuit.

Well the shortest answer is that it would eliminate the #1 ending reason for ending the life of a communications satellite because they would never run out of fuel for station keeping.

That's worth $$$ to the operators of communications satellites would could lower the cost of your satellite TV subscription.  :)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: QuantumG on 06/14/2013 07:14 am
What I wanna know is what it has to do with spaceflight... other than grandiose claims about what it might mean for spaceflight if it works - in which case, we might as well talk about unicorns as I hear you can ride them to Mars without even a spacesuit.

Well the shortest answer is that it would eliminate the #1 ending reason for ending the life of a communications satellite because they would never run out of fuel for station keeping.

That's worth $$$ to the operators of communications satellites would could lower the cost of your satellite TV subscription.  :)

Thanks for repeating my basic argument (which you seemed to miss).
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: 93143 on 06/14/2013 07:32 am
What is the relevance of Skylon/SABRE, or reusable Falcon 9, to spaceflight, other than grandiose claims about what it means for spaceflight if it works?

You see the problem?  If a promising technology isn't developed and deployed already, it doesn't matter how high the TRL is; your question has no answer.

This is the advanced concepts section.  Mach effect is a proposed form of field propulsion based on general relativity that does not require new physics, is not demonstrably in conflict with known physical principles, has never been discredited in the peer-reviewed literature so far as I am aware, and is under ongoing investigation, having reportedly produced experimental results that match approximate theoretical predictions within an order of magnitude despite persistent attempts to eliminate sources of error.

The contempt of armchair physicists does not constitute a reason to ignore this topic, not while there's more to be learned.  Mere pessimism, even less so.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: QuantumG on 06/14/2013 08:03 am
What is the relevance of Skylon/SABRE, or reusable Falcon 9, to spaceflight, other than grandiose claims about what it means for spaceflight if it works?

That's why we talk about what they're actually doing and don't bother rambling about their grandiose claims.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: 93143 on 06/14/2013 08:07 am
I don't know if you noticed, but the post that dredged this thread up from the depths was mostly composed of a lengthy writeup on the interpretation of experimental results in an attempt to falsify a theoretical conjecture.  No "grandiose claims", just a discussion of lab work.

Besides, people totally discuss SpaceX's grandiose claims on here, even making some of their own...

Discussing the possibilities stemming from a development is pretty standard on these forums, unless you're in L2 or an update thread.  As far as I recall, Mach effect actually sees surprisingly little of that; most of the discussion is about whether or not it can work at all, and its potential for revolutionizing spaceflight is mostly left to the imagination.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 06/14/2013 10:21 am
Discussing the possibilities stemming from a development is pretty standard on these forums, unless you're in L2 or an update thread.  As far as I recall, Mach effect actually sees surprisingly little of that; most of the discussion is about whether or not it can work at all, and its potential for revolutionizing spaceflight is mostly left to the imagination.

It shouldn't be surprising.  Nobody doubts the fundamental physics behind SLS or Falcon Heavy, so the discussion focuses on the execution details and engineering trade-offs.  Most people here likely consider the Woodward Effect to be pseudoscience.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: 93143 on 06/14/2013 11:01 am
No, it's not really all that surprising; I guess I pretty much left that word in out of laziness.  Even if you don't consider it pseudoscience - even if you assume it will work, which to my knowledge no one here does - we simply don't know enough about the (hypothetical) practicalities to do more than wildly speculate, which can be fun for a bit but doesn't accomplish much.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: MP99 on 06/14/2013 12:18 pm
For example, suppose someone hands you a 5,000 page purported proof that pi is rational.  You needn't read and understand even a single page of this proof to correctly conclude it is wrong.  It is enough to know there is a valid proof of the contrary, that pi is irrational.

Newton proved light is a wave.

Einstein won a Nobel for proving light is also a particle.

cheers, Martin

PS I'm neutral on Woodward effect.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/14/2013 01:44 pm
Quote from: jf
It is held by Mr. Woodward and the proponents of his theory that inertia, as they deduce from Sciama, is an instantaneous connection between local matter and the rest of the universe.

No, this is not true.

Inertial reaction is instantaneous, yes.

Ok.  Excellent nit on terminology.  Which doesn't explain a thing.

I'm fine with calling it an inertial reaction.  So let's rephrase my comment.

It is held by Mr. Woodward and the proponents of his theory that inertia, as they deduce from Sciama, is an instantaneous reaction between local matter and the rest of the universe.

Satisfied?  Explained?

What, pray tell, is the "connection" with the distant matter which effects this intantaneous "reaction"?

I just bought and read Woodward's book, where the notion of Wheeler Feynmen transactional radiation is discussed.  I had not heard of that theory until then.  In fact, this is relatively new to the oracle (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wheeler%E2%80%93Feynman_absorber_theory&oldid=27172255) as well: 2005.

Anyhow, today, the oracle reports:

Quote
Indeed, there is no apparent reason for the time-reversal symmetry breaking which singles out a preferential time direction, that is which makes a distinction between past and future. A time-reversal invariant theory is more logical and elegant.

Without getting unnecessarily sidetracked into the obvious favoritism regarding the direction of time that most of us have experienced over our lives, "elegance" and "logic", should they not pertain to reality, have no basis in a theory.  IOW, Occam's razor applies only to reality.  Agreed?

There are problems with Wheeler and Feynman's theory.

Quote
The requirement of time reversal symmetry, in general, is difficult to conjugate with the principle of causality.

Why?  "The advanced solutions are usually discarded in the interpretation of electromagnetic waves" because they violate the causality principle: "advanced waves could be detected before their emission".

Then, unfortunately for me, the article goes all math.  Even so, by my read, the article also gets a mite too self-referential:

"The resulting wave appears to have a preferred time direction, because it respects causality", which seems to be explaining that causality causes the preferred time direction.  Which, while "elegant" does not really explain or prove Wheeler and Feynman's theory.

I definitely learned something from reading the oracle just now.  Problem is, I'm not sure what.  Time symmetry is still broken in the experimental world.  Just sayin'.

Quote from: 93143
It is postulated that GM/R, where M and R are the mass and radius of the observable universe, is invariant and equal to c².

I understand the principle of that constant.  But M and R are changing.  Over time, some of the M moves outside of our causality, yet still is apparently involved in the instantateous inertial reactions that we observe locally.  'Splain dat.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/14/2013 01:56 pm
As another example, take the EmDrive.  It's inventor claims that bouncing microwaves around a closed container in a clever way leads to a net force on the container.

Just a friendly reminder of the Law of Internets Posting History.  Just because you may not have read others' comments, doesn't mean that the others have not addressed an issue on the table at the current moment.

In the other thread, I followed the EmDrive logic to the same conclusion.  Moving right along:

Quote from: Chris Wilson
Instantaneously transferring inertia with the entire rest of the universe (or some large part of it) violates the second law of thermodynamics.

That's correct.  [Edit: That seems to be correct, but there also seems to be a theoretical loophole, the Mach interpretation on inertia, which may provide a "loophole",]  The instantaneous reaction of inertia that we observe locally, is said, first by Sciama, and then by Woodward, to be dependent upon an intantaneous "connection" with the rest of the universe.

Nobody on this thread, or the other one, can explain why Sciama is necessarily wrong.  Neither has anybody debunked Sciama in the general physicist community.  What I'm pointing out is that there is some theoretical basis upon which Woodward bases the initial part of his theory.  If Sciama is wrong, then probably Woodward is also.

Obviously, physicists need a day job.  Pragmatically speaking, it would probably cost less to investigate Sciama's theory first.  As it stands, inertia has not yet been explained, nor has Sciama been disproven.

In the meantime, I'm glad that you agree with me the necessity of providing the experimental proof of the floating device.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/14/2013 02:03 pm
No, Sciama never claimed the Woodward Effect or anything like it was true.  Woodward and his circle simply claim they are basing their theory on his work, and Sciama is conveniently dead and unable to protest having his name be sullied by association with the Woodward Effect.

Nice ad hominem on Woodward, but you miss the point of Sciama's suggested explanation for inertia.  It is an explanation that is completely independent of his death, or of his known, somewhat shocking habits of writing about physics.

You have not explained Sciama's theory and why it is false.  You won't because you can't.

I know that I can't, therefore I won't.  But I still study Sciama.  I might learn something.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/14/2013 02:04 pm
I have a 30,000 page theory that says unicorns can fly us to Mars.  Unless you read all 30,000 pages and follow every detail in them, you're not qualified to even talk about space unicorns.

My 40,000 page theory on ponies completely disproves your wretched notions of unicorns.

So there.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/14/2013 02:38 pm
Woodward also posits that due to the fact that inertial reaction forces apparently occur instantaneously, (I can’t find any experiments that have directly  measured this assumption.), that the M-E's posited gravitational effects with the mostly distant mass-energy in the causally connected universe that give rise to the M-E have to interact effectively in no-time.  I.e. it’s Einstein’s famous "Spooky action at a distance" problem.  And IMO it is a problem in this regard, for how does an instantaneous g-field interaction in spacetime, TRANSIENTLY shield a locally accelerated mass from the rest of the cosmological g-field?   It would be nice if Dr. Woodward could explain to us how instantaneous g-field like Wheeler/Feynman radiation reaction forces can give rise to transient effects that take time to occur in the local laboratory frame of reference.

Page 262 talks about the Mossbauer Effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%B6ssbauer_effect), "one of the last major discoveries in physics to be originally reported in German language".

Whatever the original language used, the affect [effect, affect.... whatevs] appears to have nothing to do with the physical movement of the iron lattice thru space, in a macroscopic scale and timeframe which would be useful for making spacecraft.

We would be happy to make our spacecraft out of iron, if that would work.

So, if the question was, "How does an instantaneous g-field interaction in spacetime, TRANSIENTLY shield a locally accelerated mass from the rest of the cosmological g-field?", and the answer is, "if the thing pushed is extended, but rigid, there are no Mach effects", one might reasonably and tentatively conclude that a rigid iron spacecraft could not be made to work using the Mach Effect, even if you bombarded it with gamma rays.

A quick review of Chapter 2 confirms that Sciama's theory of Mach's principle must first be proven experimentally before spending money building a spacecraft.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/14/2013 02:40 pm
The truth of the matter is that Shawyer's resonant cavity work has now been replicated not only by the Chinese, twice, but in at least two other labs here in the USA with similar results.

Everybody is waiting for the actual device to be floated into the conference room.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/14/2013 02:46 pm
To recap Carver's argument, he noted that both gravity and electromagnetism, as long range fields, have zero rest mass field quanta (assuming that gravitons actually exist of course).

Why would further experimental work be done without the proof of the existance of gravitons?

Or is it not necessary to the possible existance of Mach Effects that there be gravitons?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: mrmandias on 06/14/2013 07:16 pm
What I wanna know is what it has to do with spaceflight... other than grandiose claims about what it might mean for spaceflight if it works - in which case, we might as well talk about unicorns as I hear you can ride them to Mars without even a spacesuit.

Well the shortest answer is that it would eliminate the #1 ending reason for ending the life of a communications satellite because they would never run out of fuel for station keeping.

That's worth $$$ to the operators of communications satellites would could lower the cost of your satellite TV subscription.  :)

Thanks for repeating my basic argument (which you seemed to miss).


Usually decisions about whether a topic belongs on this forum are made by Chris.  If you have a beef, take it up with him.

Otherwsie, don't read the thread.  That works too.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 06/14/2013 07:39 pm
For example, suppose someone hands you a 5,000 page purported proof that pi is rational.  You needn't read and understand even a single page of this proof to correctly conclude it is wrong.  It is enough to know there is a valid proof of the contrary, that pi is irrational.

Newton proved light is a wave.

Einstein won a Nobel for proving light is also a particle.

cheers, Martin

PS I'm neutral on Woodward effect.

You're confusing experimental evidence which supports a particular theory in a particular set of circumstances with a mathematical proof.

Newton showed that certain experimental results were consistent with light being modeled as a continuous wave.  Modern experiments show that other experimental results are consistent with light also having some properties of a discrete particle.

Showing that a theory is incomplete with new experimental results that aren't consistent with the theory has nothing at all to do with the validity of being able to dismiss a theory without knowing all its details if that theory's premise can be shown mathematically to be inconsistent with its conclusions.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 06/14/2013 07:43 pm
As another example, take the EmDrive.  It's inventor claims that bouncing microwaves around a closed container in a clever way leads to a net force on the container.

Just a friendly reminder of the Law of Internets Posting History.  Just because you may not have read others' comments, doesn't mean that the others have not addressed an issue on the table at the current moment.

In the other thread, I followed the EmDrive logic to the same conclusion.  Moving right along:

You missed the point of my EmDrive example.  I'm not trying to convince anyone about anything related to the EmDrive here, so it doesn't matter what anyone else here has said about the EmDrive.  I'm simply using EmDrive as an example of how logic can be used to rule out something without knowing all its details.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 06/14/2013 07:50 pm
The instantaneous reaction of inertia that we observe locally, is said, first by Sciama, and then by Woodward, to be dependent upon an intantaneous "connection" with the rest of the universe.

Words like "instantaneous" and "connection" are vague and open to interpretation.  To whatever extent you want to consider Sciama's framework to deal with an instantaneous connection, it's not in the physical sense of being able to instantaneously transfer inertia.

Sciama's framework is simply a different way of looking at well-established physical laws.  It makes no predictions that are any different from any other formulation of those laws.

That is totally different from what Woodward claims.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 06/14/2013 07:55 pm
Nobody on this thread, or the other one, can explain why Sciama is necessarily wrong.

Sciama simply proposes another framework that always gives exactly the same physical results as other formulations of known laws of physics.  So there's nothing to be right or wrong about in Sciama's ideas.  They're simply another way of formalizing the same theory.

Again, the point of divergence in Woodward's theories from mainstream physics is not Sciama.  It's Woodward.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/14/2013 08:11 pm
Again, the point of divergence in Woodward's theories from mainstream physics is not Sciama.  It's Woodward.

It would seem that Woodward insists otherwise.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 06/14/2013 08:18 pm
Again, the point of divergence in Woodward's theories from mainstream physics is not Sciama.  It's Woodward.

It would seem that Woodward insists otherwise.

Yes, that is quite true!  Woodward insists that his results are simply the logic results of applying Sciama's framework.  No mainstream physicist seems to agree with this.  In fact, since Sciama's results are mathematically equivalent to formulations that follow certain laws and Woodward's theories violate those laws, it's not mathematically possible that Woodward is simply following Sciama.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: aceshigh on 06/14/2013 08:29 pm
Again, the point of divergence in Woodward's theories from mainstream physics is not Sciama.  It's Woodward.

It would seem that Woodward insists otherwise.

Yes, that is quite true!  Woodward insists that his results are simply the logic results of applying Sciama's framework.  No mainstream physicist seems to agree with this.

source? What about the peer reviews?


Quote
  In fact, since Sciama's results are mathematically equivalent to formulations that follow certain laws and Woodward's theories violate those laws, it's not mathematically possible that Woodward is simply following Sciama.

you have proof Woodward´s formulations violate those laws?

Or are you saying they violate those laws because they are unlike Sciama´s formulations, and they are unlike Sciama´s formulations because they violate those laws?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 06/14/2013 08:33 pm
No, Sciama never claimed the Woodward Effect or anything like it was true.  Woodward and his circle simply claim they are basing their theory on his work, and Sciama is conveniently dead and unable to protest having his name be sullied by association with the Woodward Effect.

Nice ad hominem on Woodward, but you miss the point of Sciama's suggested explanation for inertia.

My quote is not an ad hominem argument.

The term ad hominem doesn't apply to all attacks on a person's credibility.  Ad hominem specifically means to attack an idea itself by attacking the credibility of a proponent of that idea rather than the idea itself.

What I'm doing is responding to the reverse of an ad hominem argument: an appeal to authority.  The claim I'm rebutting is that the Woodward Effect should be taken seriously because Sciama was a respected authority and Sciama's respectability gives credence to the Woodward Effect.

It's a subtle but very real and critical distinction.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ddunham on 06/14/2013 10:54 pm

Why would further experimental work be done without the proof of the existance of gravitons?

At least partially because no proof is likely to be forthcoming.  There is no good method of attack on it.  Energies needed to probe it would be huge.

Probing gravitons is beyond our reach for some time.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/15/2013 02:56 am
No, Sciama never claimed the Woodward Effect or anything like it was true.  Woodward and his circle simply claim they are basing their theory on his work, and Sciama is conveniently dead and unable to protest having his name be sullied by association with the Woodward Effect.

Nice ad hominem on Woodward, but you miss the point of Sciama's suggested explanation for inertia.

My quote is not an ad hominem argument.

The term ad hominem blah blah blah...

What I'm doing is responding to the reverse of an ad hominem argument: an appeal to authority.  The claim I'm rebutting is that the Woodward Effect should be taken seriously because Sciama was a respected authority and Sciama's respectability gives credence to the Woodward Effect.

It's a subtle but very real and critical distinction.

Well, if you're not going all ad hominem, then do refrain from pointing out that Sciama is "conveniently" dead, and can't "protest" that his name is being "sullied".

If instead, you're using the "reverse" ad hominem argument, I'd guess that would be an "ad idea" argument?  (E-Z translation)   A surface reading of some of the comments here, without acknowledgement of the various posters' histories, might draw your tentative conclusion, but I am not saying anything about the "respectability" of either of these authors.

I'm willing to grant Woodward (quite realizing that my granting is, well, massless) a read.  I do note that with each subsequent new reading, Woodward appears to dig the hole of obscure reference even deeper, along the lines of your 30,000 page unicorn theory.  Combine that with the lack of a "floating device" on the one hand, or even his own acknowlegement about the low magnitude of the results he has gotten so far, and you don't impress the phycisist community all that much.

Still, my interest lies more with the Mach conjecture, and Sciama's interpretation of it, which seems to have pragmatic application to the possibility of propellantless propulsion, given the "right" application of electrical energy to a mass.

As we all know, electrical energy can be converted to magnetism, which can be constrained in a rotational fashion resulting in an electric wheel, which by friction, ends up converting electrical energy to forward momentum.

As they say, "where we're going, we don't need roads".  If electrical energy can be converted into forward momentum without a wheel and a road, that would be a very convenient technology worth understanding and using.

Bottom line is (for the moment), and I know you're rather busy and important no doubt, but... could you address Sciama with more than a passing reference as to his respectability?  My guess is that you don't care for the wording of my question, and are probably unwilling to try and understand what I'm asking, but hey.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/15/2013 02:58 am

Why would further experimental work be done without the proof of the existance of gravitons?

At least partially because no proof is likely to be forthcoming.  There is no good method of attack on it.  Energies needed to probe it would be huge.

Probing gravitons is beyond our reach for some time.

Which I kinda knew in general? So why bother with more experimental work?  Given that what's needed for the work to work, is proof on gravitons?  Is he just writing papers? 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: 93143 on 06/15/2013 03:29 am
An experimental proof of the existence of gravitons is not necessary for the work to proceed.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/15/2013 03:39 am
Showing that a theory is incomplete with new experimental results that aren't consistent with the theory has nothing at all to do with the validity of being able to dismiss a theory without knowing all its details if that theory's premise can be shown mathematically to be inconsistent with its conclusions.

Which is true and also something that you haven't yet done.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/15/2013 03:50 am
An experimental proof of the existence of gravitons is not necessary for the work to proceed.

To recap Carver's argument, he noted that both gravity and electromagnetism, as long range fields, have zero rest mass field quanta (assuming that gravitons actually exist of course).

You're going to have to tell me straight up, with no weasel words or subtle qualifications, why Mr. Woodward is saying that, "both gravity and electromagnetism, as long range fields, have zero rest mass field quanta (assuming that gravitons actually exist of course)".

He is hanging the crux of this argument on the "assumption" of the existance of gravitons.

Are we just talking about theories with words, and "elegant" mathematical constructs, or are we talking about theories based on this autonomous universe which surrounds us?

If the damn things cannot be shown to exist, and worse, require huge power expenditures in the hopes of finding them, why do further experiments based on the assumption of their existance?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/15/2013 04:53 am
An experimental proof of the existence of gravitons is not necessary for the work to proceed.

To recap Carver's argument, he noted that both gravity and electromagnetism, as long range fields, have zero rest mass field quanta (assuming that gravitons actually exist of course).

You're going to have to tell me straight up, with no weasel words or subtle qualifications, why Mr. Woodward is saying that, "both gravity and electromagnetism, as long range fields, have zero rest mass field quanta (assuming that gravitons actually exist of course)".

He is hanging the crux of this argument on the "assumption" of the existance of gravitons.

Are we just talking about theories with words, and "elegant" mathematical constructs, or are we talking about theories based on this autonomous universe which surrounds us?

If the damn things cannot be shown to exist, and worse, require huge power expenditures in the hopes of finding them, why do further experiments based on the assumption of their existance?

Folks:

It is Dr. James F. Woodward, now retired from the California State University - Fullerton (CSUF) Campus and he is still working on campus in his lab.

Next for those new to this Mach-Effect (M-E) topic on this thread, you might consider reading and understanding the attached 2004 and 2012 papers from Dr. Woodward and then analyzing the 2004 paper's appendix A, which has the full M-E derivation in it.  Many people have tried to shoot holes in Dr. Woodward's M-E derivation over the years and they have failed to date.  If you are up to the task and find a credible error in the M-E derivation, Dr. Woodward would love to hear about it.  He can be reached at his CSUF e-mail address or you can ask me for his personal e-mail address if you would prefer that com-link.

http://physics.fullerton.edu/component/zoo/item/dr-james-f-woodward

For more insight into what Woodward is up to, you might also consider reading and again making the effort to understand Dr. Woodward's "Making Starships and Stargates: The Science of Interstellar Transport and Absurdly Benign Wormholes" book on this topic which can be found here:

http://www.amazon.com/Making-Starships-Stargates-Interstellar-Exploration/dp/1461456223/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1371271272&sr=1-1&keywords=james+f.+woodward

Meanwhile serious experimental work on verifying and expanding the M-E conjecture continues in several labs with some modest successes along the way, but alas no floating test articles into the conference room just yet.  However if you still have to ask about the significance of this work in regards to spaceflight, think about what just the 0.4 N/kWe specific force performance metric that I reported for an experimental device that I built back in 2003 and reported on in my STAIF-2006 paper will do for space flight if we can perfect the device's run time.

Best,

Paul March, Friendswood, TX
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Cinder on 06/15/2013 11:22 am
attached 2004 and 2012 papers from Dr. Woodward and then analyzing the 2004 paper's appendix A, which has the full M-E derivation in it.  Many people have tried to shoot holes in Dr. Woodward's M-E derivation over the years and they have failed to date.  If you are up to the task and find a credible error in the M-E derivation

Surely what ChrisWilson68 means to do, to put "the Woodward effect" right to bed, since among other things:

Sciama's results are mathematically equivalent to formulations that follow certain laws and Woodward's theories violate those laws, it's not mathematically possible that Woodward is simply following Sciama.
etc.

Maybe such a math demonstration would go in the Woodward Effect Math thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31119.0
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/15/2013 01:38 pm
Quote from: Paul
Many people have tried to shoot holes in Dr. Woodward's M-E derivation over the years and they have failed to date.

I don't operate that particular mathematical gun at that level, thus do not attempt that shooting.  As an aside, on this thread, I continue to point out the disdain which some of the critics here heap on that gun.

And on the math only thread, I've asked (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31119.msg1023817#msg1023817), but have not yet received.

The answers I've gotten so far are mostly the functional equivalent of the sarcastic comment above: "Read my 40,000 page theory on ponies where I skip over the most crucial steps in the math, because basically, it is beneath me to take the time to explain it fully to my inferiors".

Moving right along...

Quote from: Paul
...think about what just the 0.4 N/kWe specific force performance metric ... will do for space flight if we can perfect the device's run time.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPcwsJ2aYEA
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/15/2013 03:03 pm
Quote from: Paul
Many people have tried to shoot holes in Dr. Woodward's M-E derivation over the years and they have failed to date.

I don't operate that particular mathematical gun at that level, thus do not attempt that shooting.  As an aside, on this thread, I continue to point out the disdain which some of the critics here heap on that gun.

And on the math only thread, I've asked (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31119.msg1023817#msg1023817), but have not yet received.

The answers I've gotten so far are mostly the functional equivalent of the sarcastic comment above: "Read my 40,000 page theory on ponies where I skip over the most crucial steps in the math, because basically, it is beneath me to take the time to explain it fully to my inferiors".

Moving right along...

Quote from: Paul
...think about what just the 0.4 N/kWe specific force performance metric ... will do for space flight if we can perfect the device's run time.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPcwsJ2aYEA

John:

If you want to comment on a topic, I think you have the responsibility to at least make an effort to try to understand it before you try to criticize it, ponies notwithstanding.  So I could just respond to you that you’re below cute Star Trek quote where Kirk asks Spock "Is that a lot” is just an exercise left to the student, i.e., you, as many professors have told me in the past.  However I will give you a hint.  The electrodynamic Hall thruster that is the M-E thruster's nearest conventional electric rocket analog has a maximum specific force of ~0.05 N/KWe with a specific impulse (Isp) of ~2,500 seconds dependent on anode voltage.  The M-E device I built back in 2003 not only had a specific force almost an order of magnitude larger than the best Hall thrusters, see below URL, its equivalent Isp based on energy flow into the device where mass = E/c^2 , yields an equivalent Isp of over 1x10^12 seconds.  Yes, a functional M-E based thruster matters and it could matter in a big way if we can perfect it.

http://www.busek.com/technologies__hall.htm

In regards to Woodward's M-E work, it’s not an easy subject to master since it takes a working knowledge, (and yes that means the math contained in same), of Newtonian Physics, Special & General relativity, and the latest data in cosmology, but if you really want to understand the M-E conjecture that's the effort that will be required.  On top of that if you want to understand the technology behind Woodward's experiments, you had better become very good in solid state physics, electrical and mechanical engineering, material science and acoustics.  I've been a student of this M-E conjecture since 1998 and I still don’t consider myself an expert in it, but I keep trying to learn more about it most every day that I have the opportunity to do so…

Edit:

PS: I'm also working with Dr. Harold Sonny White at NASA/JSC on White's Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation (QVF) Conjecture that covers similar territory that Woodward's M-E conjecture does, but it also adds in possible Quantum Mechanical (QM) effects as well.  As to which or either of these conjectures proves to be a true reflection of nature in the end analysis is still up for grabs, but either one is worth fighting for IMO.

Best, P.M.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/15/2013 04:30 pm
Paul:

You need to let humor into your life.

****************************************

From Sciama 1953:

"We shall assume that matter receding with velocity greater than that of light makes no contribution to the potential, so that the integral in (1) is taken over the spherical radius of c tau.  An assumption of this sort is necessary since we have naievly extrapolated the Hubble law without considering relativistic effects, and should give the correct order of magnitude."

In other words, the naieve extrapolation assumed "should" give the correct order of magnitude of phi.

This is one of the areas that I can't get past.  How can an assumption which only "should" provide a correct order of magnitude, be depended upon for correct results? 

If the radius of the universe is changing, and the mass of the universe is changing, and if all of the mass in the universe hasn't yet been accounted for, what is the validity of the scalar potential phi?

****************************************

I'm not claiming the theoretical ability to float the device into the conference room.  You are.  Based on Woodward's theory and recently also on Shawyer's theory.

I'm happy to have you lecture me on my commenting "responsibilitie" while simultaneously not having reviewed my posting history as evidence of my effort on this subject.

Quote from: Paul
Yes, a functional M-E based thruster matters and it could matter in a big way if we can perfect it.

Yeah, I get that 0.4 N/kWe "would" be a lot.

What are your latest results?  How much power was put into the experimental system and how much thrust was produced by that system and reliably reported, including all the losses?

I am not asking about the "free energy" claims.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: sanman on 06/15/2013 10:50 pm
I'm not sure I agree with the rejection of instantaneous interaction with distant non-local matter. Distant matter which has existed for some time has propagated its fields over to your locality, so that any immediate change of your local mass is interacting with that propagated field manifestation, rather than interacting with the distant original matter itself.

Even if GmM/R^2 only works at the speed of light, it still interacts locally with whatever is available at the time. The interaction doesn't have to trace back to some distant point of origin in order to interact with it.

If you as a surfer catch a wave produced by some distant source, does this mean you are instantaneously interacting with the distant source itself? Of course not - you are locally interacting with the propagated wave. That does not require instantaneous interaction with the origin.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: djolds1 on 06/15/2013 11:40 pm
Next for those new to this Mach-Effect (M-E) topic on this thread, you might consider reading and understanding the attached 2004 and 2012 papers from Dr. Woodward and then analyzing the 2004 paper's appendix A, which has the full M-E derivation in it.  Many people have tried to shoot holes in Dr. Woodward's M-E derivation over the years and they have failed to date.  If you are up to the task and find a credible error in the M-E derivation, Dr. Woodward would love to hear about it.  He can be reached at his CSUF e-mail address or you can ask me for his personal e-mail address if you would prefer that com-link.
There were refinements in recent years IIRC - recognition of the bulk acceleration nature of the effect in the working mass, etc. The 2004 paper would fail to capture those, yes?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/17/2013 04:31 am
Next for those new to this Mach-Effect (M-E) topic on this thread, you might consider reading and understanding the attached 2004 and 2012 papers from Dr. Woodward and then analyzing the 2004 paper's appendix A, which has the full M-E derivation in it.  Many people have tried to shoot holes in Dr. Woodward's M-E derivation over the years and they have failed to date.  If you are up to the task and find a credible error in the M-E derivation, Dr. Woodward would love to hear about it.  He can be reached at his CSUF e-mail address or you can ask me for his personal e-mail address if you would prefer that com-link.
There were refinements in recent years IIRC - recognition of the bulk acceleration nature of the effect in the working mass, etc. The 2004 paper would fail to capture those, yes?

Agreed and that is why I included Woodward's & Fern's 2012 paper in my last post where they address the bulk acceleration oversight in the original 2004 Appendix A derivation.  Including that bulk acceleration addition to Woodward's original M-E model now has it predicting forces within one order of magnitude of his shuttler experimental results.

Best, P.M.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/17/2013 12:48 pm
Paul:

You need to let humor into your life.

****************************************

From Sciama 1953:

"We shall assume that matter receding with velocity greater than that of light makes no contribution to the potential, so that the integral in (1) is taken over the spherical radius of c tau.  An assumption of this sort is necessary since we have naievly extrapolated the Hubble law without considering relativistic effects, and should give the correct order of magnitude."

In other words, the naieve extrapolation assumed "should" give the correct order of magnitude of phi.

This is one of the areas that I can't get past.  How can an assumption which only "should" provide a correct order of magnitude, be depended upon for correct results? 

If the radius of the universe is changing, and the mass of the universe is changing, and if all of the mass in the universe hasn't yet been accounted for, what is the validity of the scalar potential phi?

****************************************

I'm not claiming the theoretical ability to float the device into the conference room.  You are.  Based on Woodward's theory and recently also on Shawyer's theory.

I'm happy to have you lecture me on my commenting "responsibilitie" while simultaneously not having reviewed my posting history as evidence of my effort on this subject.

Quote from: Paul
Yes, a functional M-E based thruster matters and it could matter in a big way if we can perfect it.

Yeah, I get that 0.4 N/kWe "would" be a lot.

What are your latest results?  How much power was put into the experimental system and how much thrust was produced by that system and reliably reported, including all the losses?

I am not asking about the "free energy" claims.
John:

I’ll try to remember to smile on occasion…

“This is one of the areas that I can't get past.  How can an assumption which only "should" provide a correct order of magnitude, be depended upon for correct results?”
 
In cosmology any data within an order of magnitude of prediction is considered to be a correct results.  It’s a tribute to the size of the error bars in this field.

“If the radius of the universe is changing, and the mass of the universe is changing, and if all of the mass in the universe hasn't yet been accounted for, what is the validity of the scalar potential phi?”

Good question and only further experimental data from a number of fronts will tell us if Sciama & Woodward’s phi=C^2 conjecture is right, wrong, or close enough.  At the moment the latest NASA and ESA cosmological mapping data suggests that this is the correct assumption.
 
“I'm not claiming the theoretical ability to float the device into the conference room.  You are.  Based on Woodward's theory and recently also on Shawyer's theory.”

Both Woodward’s M-E and White’s QVF conjectures at this time do not preclude the possibility of developing a related thruster with a thrust to weight ratio of greater than 1-to-1.  And that of course is where it really gets interesting.

“I'm happy to have you lecture me on my commenting "responsibilitie" while simultaneously not having reviewed my posting history as evidence of my effort on this subject.”

My point in that quip was that IMO we should all do more reading and understanding of the related papers in this field and less posting until you are familiar with both the pros and cons of the conjecture in question including Woodward’s and White’s.  And no I’m not here to teach you for that is your responsibility.  What I’m trying to do on this forum is to report on what is going on in Woodward’s and White’s labs and try to convey the impacts that these results may have in the aerospace field.
 
“What are your latest results?  How much power was put into the experimental system and how much thrust was produced by that system and reliably reported, including all the losses?”

Most of the test results from various labs working on these types of RF and shuttler like devices save one indicate that 0.1-to-1.0 N/kWe is the current norm for the 1st generation experimental devices, and yes that includes all the resistive losses in the system.  The lab with the exception to this current rule of thumb performance range uses high voltage, low currents, and they are reporting specific force numbers in the 1.0-to-20.0 N/kWe range with possibilities of going up to well over 100.0 N/kWe.  And no I’m not at liberty to say who is doing this or how far along they are in making a reliable thruster that works every time.  NDAs etc.  As to the thrust output range they go from Woodword's single digit micro-Newtons (uN), which is a tribute to Woodward's torque pendulum design and sensitivity, up to just over 10 milli-Newton (mN).   

Best, P.M.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/17/2013 02:12 pm
I’ll try to remember to smile on occasion…

Good.  Remember, Kirk and Spock are thought to be very intelligent individuals.  This inherent intelligence is not always obvious when in completely unfamiliar circumstances.

Quote from: JF
what is the validity of the scalar potential phi?

Quote from: PM
Good question and only further experimental data from a number of fronts will tell us if Sciama & Woodward’s phi=C^2 conjecture is right, wrong, or close enough.

You see, I trust, why I'm hung up on initial assumptions which may be off by an order of magnitude.  Start adding those magnitudes, and results further down the equation food chain start getting iffy.

Chapter 2 of Woodward's book goes on to say that space is "flat", and that the scalar gravitational potential cannot be "localized".  Therefore, Woodward, using Brans' work says:

Quote from: Woodward
This condition on gravitational potential energy reveals Einstein's first prediction quoted above as wrong.

Is that "first prediction" the addition of Einstein's "cosmological constant"?

****************************

Then, if "0.1-to-1.0 N/kWe" is clearly indicated in your all's (a loose term) experimental results, what the problem is?

The problem being flying one of these devices in LEO.

Too much experimental mass, and no clear method of reducing it?  Cooling problems?  Degenerating "flux" capacitors?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: mrmandias on 06/17/2013 03:30 pm
StarDrive,
thanks for the info, and best of luck.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: 93143 on 06/17/2013 08:08 pm
what the problem is?

Too much magnetic field and whatnot in LEO.  You'd need to go to deep space, and even then there are things that could go wrong (electrical interaction with an offgassing component could produce an accidental ion drive or some such).

If the thruster lifetimes haven't gotten any better, straight offgassing (perhaps thermally driven, to explain the close correlation with the power pulses) couldn't be ruled out without close attention to spacecraft design and pre-launch handling...

Also, a space mission is a bit steep for Woodward's budget (he's self-funded, as I recall, and won't accept donations).
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/17/2013 10:43 pm
what the problem is? [with soon flying one of these things in LEO.

Too much magnetic field and whatnot in LEO.  You'd need to go to deep space, and even then there are things that could go wrong (electrical interaction with an offgassing component could produce an accidental ion drive or some such).

If the thruster lifetimes haven't gotten any better, straight offgassing (perhaps thermally driven, to explain the close correlation with the power pulses) couldn't be ruled out without close attention to spacecraft design and pre-launch handling...

Also, a space mission is a bit steep for Woodward's budget (he's self-funded, as I recall, and won't accept donations).

Hold up, there, kemosabe.  Me not savvy.

If this device can produce, free and clear of all resistive, and I forgot to add, magnetic shielding loads, and other loads that I don't know enough about, and still generate 0.4 N/kWe (about 1 1/2 ounces of force per thousand watts of electricity, then it should be able to be used in a LEO experiment of some sort.  I say "should" as an opinion.

If the thrust is thwarted by magnetic fields, then it doesn't seem to be all that powerful.  Either that, or there are some other problems with scaling that have not been discussed yet.

The other thread discussed and found questionable the motivation to actively not seek funding for these efforts.  An idea that cannot be made into a flyable artifact has little pragmatic value.

I realize that the example of Nicola Tesla still has some people nervous regarding the government and really good ideas.

Fortunately, and as an aside, my idea that we should build a lunar base is safe from tht kind of possible government obstruction.

As another aside, I have an idea that with training, an arms manufacturer from the revolutionary war period, could make a serviceable AR-15, by hand, with the technology of that time.  I'm quite eccentric enought to posit the idea, but nowhere near rich enough to implement the idea.  Point being, I know how lack of funds can limit good ideation into the physical world.

Backing up to the "questionable motivation".  Questionable, in that, why wouldn't one attempt to get funding for a good idea based upon a sound theory?

Backing up further:

The device is not as efficient at generating thrust as it needs to be.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: 93143 on 06/18/2013 12:05 am
If the thrust is thwarted by magnetic fields, then it doesn't seem to be all that powerful.

No no no.  What I meant is that people who think this device violates the laws of physics won't be convinced by a demo in an environment where a simple current loop could generate the same thrust.

It's not a question of the device not working due to the magnetic field; it's a question of whether an observed thrust signature could be due to anything other than a Mach effect.  Just putting the thruster in space doesn't necessarily solve all of the experimental control problems.

...

We're very far from reaching the limits of what can be done on the ground.  Jumping from shoestring garage work to deep space isn't necessary right now IMO.  Worse, if the thing failed for some trivial reason - an imperfectly understood design change, a ground handling goof, maybe something that wouldn't have happened if the lab work had progressed further before going for broke -  we might never find that out.  As matters stand now, a failed in-space test might simply cement M-E's reputation as pseudoscience.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/18/2013 01:00 pm
If the thrust is thwarted by magnetic fields, then it doesn't seem to be all that powerful.

No no no.  What I meant is that people who think this device violates the laws of physics won't be convinced by a demo in an environment where a simple current loop could generate the same thrust.

It's not a question of the device not working due to the magnetic field; it's a question of whether an observed thrust signature could be due to anything other than a Mach effect.  Just putting the thruster in space doesn't necessarily solve all of the experimental control problems.

Ahhhh.  I see.  Thanks, kemosabe.

Then that ties into my continued questions about "efficiency".  The thrust levels cannot be "efficiently" generated at 0.4 N/kWe (about 1 1/2 ounces of force per thousand watts of electricity) AND difficult to distinguish from background effects simulataneously.

It's not the problem that I'm not asking the questions, well, efficiently.  It's that the answers are not complete and that the attempts at answering, as most of the erm, scientists, on this site do, appear to be wrapped in "correct" terminology, thwarting the understanding of the questions asked.

Ipso fatso:

The device cannot be efficient and inefficient simultaneously.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: cordwainer on 06/18/2013 08:40 pm
So what you are saying is that you need an environment outside of magnetic fields to verify whether the thruster actually produces work due to Machian effects or some other Lorentzian effect like giganto-magneto resistance or plasma shockwaves. Seems to me John that "ME thrusters" are worth looking at whether the effect is the result of ME or some other effect, the real question is whether such devices produce a discernibly large enough thrust to energy potential. Even if your only getting thrust a magnitude larger than a hall thruster that still means less electrical energy needed and less or no fuel needed for propulsive force.   
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: hop on 06/18/2013 09:10 pm
Even if your only getting thrust a magnitude larger than a hall thruster that still means less electrical energy needed and less or no fuel needed for propulsive force.   
Also notable that a force judged too small to provide conclusive detection could be a magnitude larger than that produced by systems in routine use.

GEO comsats routinely use Hall thrusters for station keeping. If you could provide the same performance with zero propellant, that would indeed be a big deal regardless of the underlying mechanism. Particularly in cases where you needed to make up for a shortfall in lower stage performance!

The performance of IKAROS solar sail (http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2010/07/20100709_ikaros_e.html) was conclusively measured around 1.12 mN for ~300kg spacecraft (albeit in deep space).
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: 93143 on 06/18/2013 11:50 pm
The thrust levels cannot be "efficiently" generated at 0.4 N/kWe (about 1 1/2 ounces of force per thousand watts of electricity) AND difficult to distinguish from background effects simulataneously.

Well, yes - yes they can.

A one-ampere current in a loop a foot wide could produce a few micronewtons of thrust in LEO without expending any power at all beyond making up resistive losses (magnets are like that).  Of course, the exact effect depends on the angle of the loop with respect to the geomagnetic field lines, so in principle it shouldn't be hard to distinguish it - but if you've got currents being induced (either by device operation or by ambient fields) in a part of the structure that wasn't expected to carry them and thus wasn't instrumented, well...

It's probably possible to design an experiment that would be effectively immune to these sorts of effects, and/or run it in such a way as to rule them out.  My point is simply that a space demo is not automatically ironclad proof of principle, even given a reliable thruster that doesn't die off after fifteen minutes of operation...
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: aceshigh on 06/19/2013 12:45 am
Backing up to the "questionable motivation".  Questionable, in that, why wouldn't one attempt to get funding for a good idea based upon a sound theory?

imho its exactly the opposite. Like Andre Rossi trying to get money to his e-cat.

the fact YOU think its a good idea based on a sound theory doesnt change anything. There are tons of people who say its pseudoscience, etc.

Woodward NOT WANTING donations shows exactly the opposite. He is only interested about the science, not about the money.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: aceshigh on 06/19/2013 01:55 am

Most of the test results from various labs working on these types of RF and shuttler like devices save one indicate that 0.1-to-1.0 N/kWe is the current norm for the 1st generation experimental devices, and yes that includes all the resistive losses in the system. The lab with the exception to this current rule of thumb performance range uses high voltage, low currents, and they are reporting specific force numbers in the 1.0-to-20.0 N/kWe range with possibilities of going up to well over 100.0 N/kWe.  And no I’m not at liberty to say who is doing this or how far along they are in making a reliable thruster that works every time.  NDAs etc.  As to the thrust output range they go from Woodword's single digit micro-Newtons (uN), which is a tribute to Woodward's torque pendulum design and sensitivity, up to just over 10 milli-Newton (mN).   

Best, P.M.



No need to. Its quite obvious. They have talked they are investigating warp drives and they are pretty sure they will colonize Mars. And will only go public after starting Mars colonization.

it seems they are sure they can do that before 2030, and to be sure they can do that before 2030, they must really believe they have the tech to do it.

also, few companies are so interested in new processes and in space, and have the time and money to invest in research ME thrusters achieving such disparate results compared to everybody else.

however they still need to reach orbit with reusable rockets since even those very good results are not enough for it... and they are close to doing that with chemical rockets.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: QuantumG on 06/19/2013 02:12 am
No need to. Its quite obvious. They have talked they are investigating warp drives and they are pretty sure they will colonize Mars. And will only go public after starting Mars colonization.

lol. Don't cross the streams!!
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/19/2013 02:40 am
The thrust levels cannot be "efficiently" generated at 0.4 N/kWe (about 1 1/2 ounces of force per thousand watts of electricity) AND difficult to distinguish from background effects simulataneously.

Well, yes - yes they can.

A one-ampere current in a loop a foot wide could produce a few micronewtons of thrust in LEO without expending any power at all beyond making up resistive losses ...

Me still not savvy. 

We're talking about four tenths of a newton per kilowatt of electricity, a good bit more than what you just mentioned, even with my current counting skills.

And if what you just described only works in the Earth's magnetic field in a preferred direction, then it would be limited to utility in that environment only.  All the talk about intergalactic starships should be minimized to, well, stationkeeping in LEO.

Plenty of people raise families and send their kids to college based on money made with satellites in LEO.  So there is some real utility there.

Quote from: 93143
It's probably possible to design an experiment that would be effectively immune to these sorts of effects, and/or run it in such a way as to rule them out.  My point is simply that a space demo is not automatically ironclad proof of principle ...

But that ties back into the pragmatic application of the ME thruster itself; the claim of 0.4N/kWe doesn't seem to apply to a pragmatic problem of immediate utility.

If the device is this good, why not apply it in a space experiment?  That would be the next obvious step.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/19/2013 02:50 am


The lab with the exception to this current rule of thumb performance range uses high voltage, low currents, and they are reporting specific force numbers in the 1.0-to-20.0 N/kWe range with possibilities of going up to well over 100.0 N/kWe.

They have talked they are investigating warp drives and they are pretty sure they will colonize Mars. And will only go public after starting Mars colonization.

One can be sure, in this NSA infested world, that honest efforts will not go unnoticed.

Given the successful operative theory of the drive, there are still many years of scaling up the effort, and there is still the medical restraint on low gravity human living arrangements that will have to be determined empirically, over at least one generation at the earliest.  And to create an offworld government would require a good number of competent people and systems.  No principle of which I would not agree with in theory, remembering that if one is not invited, one is not invited.

They can talk all they want about the 'possibilities' of the drive.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: djolds1 on 06/19/2013 07:19 am
Given the successful operative theory of the drive, there are still many years of scaling up the effort,
It took 51 years to go from the Wright Flyer to the Boeing 367-80 (the prototype for the 707), but SPAD S.VIIs were flying within 12 years. That initial uptick of development and differentiation on the development-evolution/ diminishing returns/ logistic curve is fast and glorious.

and there is still the medical restraint on low gravity human living arrangements that will have to be determined empirically, over at least one generation at the earliest.
Back in his 2005 paper, when he was still calling Mach Effect devices "UFGs," Paul claimed it should be possible to create an artificial gravity gradient using "UFGs." Would 'ease' a number of problems wrt space access, no?

And to create an offworld government would require a good number of competent people and systems.
You're overthinking the matter. Similar to assuming the need for global government before Columbus can be permitted to depart Madrid in discovery of the New World. That is not how the human animal works.

No principle of which I would not agree with in theory, remembering that if one is not invited, one is not invited.
Every major and mid-rate power on Earth would jump these patents once the device is demonstrated. The potential is too vast to allow IP to be respected. Rather like Columbus struggling and failing to get his promised titles and claims to discovered lands respected at the Spanish Court after his voyages of discovery.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: 93143 on 06/19/2013 07:19 am
We're talking about four tenths of a newton per kilowatt of electricity, a good bit more than what you just mentioned, even with my current counting skills.

Key phrase is "per kilowatt".  The M-E thrusters I'm aware of don't use a kilowatt.  The best-controlled experiments I've heard about (Woodward's) register thrusts in the micronewton range.

Quote
And if what you just described only works in the Earth's magnetic field in a preferred direction, then it would be limited to utility in that environment only.  All the talk about intergalactic starships should be minimized to, well, stationkeeping in LEO.

You haven't gone and confused genuine M-E thrust with a magnetically-induced false positive, have you?  M-E works fine pretty much anywhere in the universe, if it works at all.  Magnets only produce thrust in magnetic fields.  What I described is a much closer relative of the electrodynamic tether than of the M-E thruster.

Quote
If the device is this good, why not apply it in a space experiment?  That would be the next obvious step.

First off, because a guy doing self-funded experiments out of his retirement savings isn't about to be able to afford that sort of thing.  (If aceshigh is onto something, on the other hand, that's a whole other ball game...)

Second, because there are still issues that can be worked on the ground.  Let's face it - if the question is whether or not it's real, who's going to pay for a spacecraft and rocket to find out it's not?  If the question is how well does it work, why do we need an in-space test before the bugs have been worked out on the ground?

Last I heard, the average thruster lifetime was about a quarter of an hour of operation before the crystals needed annealing (fortunately this process doesn't require anyone to steal gamma photons from a naval reactor).  And controlling/matching electrical and mechanical resonances in a device that heats up this much during operation is an 'interesting' problem.  There are promising paths forward, but Woodward has been having trouble affording them...
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/19/2013 01:42 pm
We're talking about four tenths of a newton per kilowatt of electricity, a good bit more than what you just mentioned, even with my current counting skills.

Key phrase is "per kilowatt".  The M-E thrusters I'm aware of don't use a kilowatt.  The best-controlled experiments I've heard about (Woodward's) register thrusts in the micronewton range.

Insufficient information for me to make a comparison.  My recollection from one of their early experiments, was that about one thousand watts went into that test article.

Quote from: 93143
M-E works fine pretty much anywhere in the universe, if it works at all.

Quite understood.  It is the "if" you mention, which is always at hand in this discussion.

Quote from: 93143
Last I heard, the average thruster lifetime was about a quarter of an hour of operation before the crystals needed annealing ...  And controlling/matching electrical and mechanical resonances in a device that heats up this much during operation is an 'interesting' problem.

...what the problem is? ...

Too much experimental mass, and no clear method of reducing it?  Cooling problems?  Degenerating "flux" capacitors?

So I properly understood and characterized two out of three problems.

As to the first, there also appears to be too much experimental mass, caused by the vacuum chamber, it's operating mechanism, the shielding, and so forth, particularly as compared to the amount of power you have to send in to the pendulum arm part of the device.

Of course, in that sense, it's not ready to fly.  I'm still not grokking 0.4N/kWe in the experimental apparatus.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/19/2013 02:04 pm
...the fact YOU think its a good idea based on a sound theory doesnt change anything.

Took a more careful read of your comment.  "YOU" as in moi?  There is no "fact" that I think it is based on a "sound theory".  A careful read of my commentary should confirm that.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/19/2013 02:14 pm
Backing up to the "questionable motivation".  Questionable, in that, why wouldn't one attempt to get funding for a good idea based upon a sound theory?

As always, romance without finance don't stand no chance.  They could get funding without me being any the wiser.  If they wanna pull a Sun Tzu and argue that they are impoverished when they are not, that's fine by me in principle.  I have not been invited to their party.

Obviously, if I can figure out the math, anybody could.  The following rings true:

Every major and mid-rate power on Earth would jump these patents once the device is demonstrated. The potential is too vast to allow IP to be respected.

Well certainly.  Like I said:

One can be sure, in this NSA infested world, that honest efforts will not go unnoticed.

Even so, NDA's and the proper lab personell culture, can protect work for a long time:

The lab with the exception to this current rule of thumb performance range uses high voltage, low currents, and they are reporting specific force numbers in the 1.0-to-20.0 N/kWe range with possibilities of going up to well over 100.0 N/kWe.  And no I’m not at liberty to say who is doing this or how far along they are in making a reliable thruster that works every time.  NDAs etc.

However, while it is true that they have talked about colonization:

They have talked they are investigating warp drives and they are pretty sure they will colonize Mars. And will only go public after starting Mars colonization.

... they will have to be very private indeed if they plan to start a colonization effort, along with its expected new government, else why the lack of publicity.

The talk about warp drives seems more to be the gleam in the eye of the rooster.  There's not even an egg yet.  Much less a chicken.

At some point, if there are spaceships involved, the team will have to purchase a volcanic island somewhere, create a retractable lake over the crater, build submarine portals, etc., etc.  All the while looking over their shoulder for an incredibly fit 70 to 80 year old British spy to destroy the whole shebang in twenty minutes, over a bag of popcorn.

All of which is a future game, and which seems unbelievable at the moment.

So my focus is on understanding the theory, sussing out the reality of the 0.4N/kWe statistic, and more mundane stuff like that.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/19/2013 02:14 pm
BTW, in the yet to be answered column:

Quote from: Woodward
This condition on gravitational potential energy reveals Einstein's first prediction quoted above as wrong.

Is that "first prediction" the addition of Einstein's "cosmological constant"?

If Einstein is wrong, then somebody else needs to come out and say this.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: aceshigh on 06/19/2013 02:45 pm

... they will have to be very private indeed if they plan to start a colonization effort, along with its expected new government, else why the lack of publicity.

I am sorry for choosing the wrong words. When I said "going public" after the colonization of Mars, I was talking about an SpaceX IPO.

What I meant is that Musk is obsessed with his objective of colonizing Mars so much he wont even consider an IPO of SpaceX before achieving his objective. Because if SpaceX goes public, it will hinder its efforts on programs that are not uh... seen as very lucrative.

Like for example, investigating Mach Effect or Warp Drives.


Quote
The talk about warp drives seems more to be the gleam in the eye of the rooster.  There's not even an egg yet.  Much less a chicken.

Thats why I think they are first investigating Woodward. In an interview Musk said "a warp drive may come or not come to fruition". And the interview article then mentioned the works of White at Eagle Works.

As soon as I read that article, I had in my mind that Musk had probably contacted Dr White and his team, including Paul March.

Paul´s saying "a laboratory" somewhere, with a NON DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT got such a good result tells me its someone with money to investigate the effect using state of the art materials, the best electric engineers, etc. At least some other discussions I read about the people pursuing Mach Effect in their extra time always involved discussions about what were the best materials, how expensive they were, etc.

Musk of course wont invest many millions pursuing a warp drive he doesnt know if can comes to fruition (nobody knows, even White is trying to investigate if its even plausible).

But if he can select a good team available at SpaceX to do some tests, and he needs to spend lets say U$500k to test Mach Effect, its much more than Woodward, Paul, etc, can spend on their spare time, but for Musk, its probably ok, considering his obsession with colonizing Mars.


Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: simonbp on 06/19/2013 02:46 pm
Most of the test results from various labs working on these types of RF and shuttler like devices save one indicate that 0.1-to-1.0 N/kWe is the current norm for the 1st generation experimental devices, and yes that includes all the resistive losses in the system.  The lab with the exception to this current rule of thumb performance range uses high voltage, low currents, and they are reporting specific force numbers in the 1.0-to-20.0 N/kWe range with possibilities of going up to well over 100.0 N/kWe.  And no I’m not at liberty to say who is doing this or how far along they are in making a reliable thruster that works every time.  NDAs etc.  As to the thrust output range they go from Woodword's single digit micro-Newtons (uN), which is a tribute to Woodward's torque pendulum design and sensitivity, up to just over 10 milli-Newton (mN).   

Have any of those results been published? Submitted? Uploaded to a preprint server?

Hiding behind NDAs about a physical process is an instant red flag that the science isn't working. It's always in the best interest of a new technology company to provide some evidence that their technology actually works. Without that, there's no point in an investor taking any notice.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: aceshigh on 06/19/2013 02:49 pm
...the fact YOU think its a good idea based on a sound theory doesnt change anything.

Took a more careful read of your comment.  "YOU" as in moi?  There is no "fact" that I think it is based on a "sound theory".  A careful read of my commentary should confirm that.


english is not my first language, so sometimes my wording may get a little confusing (as when I talked about SpaceX IPO and it sounded like they wanted to keep it all secret until starting Mars colonization)


I said "you" as in anyone (including Woodward) thinking his theory is good, does not means everyone else thinks the same, thus asking for money may actually be pretty suspicious (just like with Andrea Rossi)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/19/2013 03:31 pm
I said "you" as in anyone (including Woodward) thinking his theory is good, does not means everyone else thinks the same, thus asking for money may actually be pretty suspicious (just like with Andrea Rossi)

No prob.  Thanks for the clarification.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: djolds1 on 06/19/2013 04:11 pm
Every major and mid-rate power on Earth would jump these patents once the device is demonstrated. The potential is too vast to allow IP to be respected.
Well certainly.  Like I said:
One can be sure, in this NSA infested world, that honest efforts will not go unnoticed.
Even so, NDA's and the proper lab personel culture, can protect work for a long time:
Perhaps. IMO, once the Wright Flyer analogue shows up (assuming of course that it does), we're off to the races. Vast monies, governmental and private espionage, outright theft, etc. The initial developers will get some wealth and vast glory, but nothing near to what the original paper should've entitled them.

At some point, if there are spaceships involved, the team will have to purchase a volcanic island somewhere, create a retractable lake over the crater, build submarine portals, etc., etc.  All the while looking over their shoulder for an incredibly fit 70 to 80 year old British spy to destroy the whole shebang in twenty minutes, over a bag of popcorn.
The retractable lake is sooooo dated. The Modern Retro Supervillain Lair (http://pixar.wikia.com/Nomanisan_Island) launches its rockets from the volcano cone.

So my focus is on understanding the theory, sussing out the reality of the 0.4N/kWe statistic, and more mundane stuff like that.
As it should be.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Supergravity on 06/20/2013 03:16 am
No offense, but this seems like fringe-science at best. If Woodward was onto something, then this would have ignited the experimental physics community as it would allow us to probe new physics without the massive energy levels and cost associated with behemoth colliders. Because, this is actually new physics. It is not at all consistent with general relativity, and you certainly won't find any coupling of gravity and electromagnetism at the scales accessible to a table-top experiment. This is just common knowledge. It seems Woodward and the other physicists and engineers working on this are making underlying assumptions they wish were true but are, in fact, not. I guess it just upsets some people, even if they are experts, that the best nature will ever give us are solar sails and fusion rockets. Unfortunately, things like "space drives" or other propellantless proposals are just not consistent with the laws that govern the universe we live in.

Every modern understanding of physics predicts Woodward et al. will not see anything in their experiments.

Also, I remembered this question being asked on Physics.Stackexchange and this is what a notable string theorist and former faculty of Harvard had to say about the Woodward Effect (http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5471/is-the-woodward-effect-real).
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: 93143 on 06/20/2013 05:22 am
Your string theorist is not a reliable authority on the subject.  I doubt such a thing exists at this point in time.  There is certainly some debate about the issue - in fact there is not a universally accepted definition of Mach's principle, and as far as I know there is no widely accepted explanation for inertia in GR.

Physics isn't a one-dimensional wave of advancement that progresses inexorably toward truth and obviates all the ideas it leaves behind.  Rather, it's similar to an evolutionary algorithm, but distorted by the side effects of the herd instinct, and it can miss stuff.  I'm not saying Woodward is right, but some people seem to be a bit hasty in dismissing Mach's principle simply because it is old and because some formulations of it don't seem to be correct.

Woodward's papers have withstood peer review so far, and no critique I'm aware of can say the same.  As a published scientific author I have some experience with peer review, and I don't regard it as an ultimate authority, but it's not nothing.

Have you read any of it?  His papers, his book?

Also, I believe the assertion "He claims his theory can explain virtually every unsolved problem in contemporary physics." is untrue, unless you consider the origin of inertia in a general relativistic sense to be virtually the only thing we don't know yet.  I am aware of no other theoretical claims made by Woodward.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: QuantumG on 06/20/2013 05:45 am
On a spaceflight forum.. if it's related to spaceflight, talk about spaceflight. If it's not, take it elsewhere.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: 93143 on 06/20/2013 05:53 am
if it's related to spaceflight, talk about spaceflight.

I see what you did there.

This forum is not just for talking about spaceflight.  There was plenty of discussion about the sequester.  There's plenty of discussion about the legislative process that's currently hard at work producing NASA's budget.  There's been plenty of discussion about the technical merits of Skylon and certain subsystems thereof.  Lots of discussion about low-altitude lander testbed experiments.  None of these things are spaceflight - but they're related to spaceflight, so we get to talk about them.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: R7 on 06/20/2013 06:12 am
if it's related to spaceflight, talk about spaceflight.

Faulty logic. If it's related to spaceflight, talk about it.

Propellantless in-space propulsion is about the only practical application of the effect, should it and the claimed physics behind it be real.

While at it; hasn't anyone built a 'Woodward drive' large enough to either confirm or disprove the effect without any doubt? I mean big enough (1N or so) so that any positive reading is clear and cannot be mistaken for tremor caused by someone falling of their chair three blocks down the street. If not, why?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: 93143 on 06/20/2013 06:19 am
If not, why?

Apparently it's a bit fiddly getting it to work just right, and Woodward's budget is limited.  Recent results have been pretty consistent, and all his control tests seem to be behaving as expected, but he'd have to get some serious ceramics and custom electronics to do much better, and that takes cash.  Even the PZT stacks he's been using were something of a windfall (EDIT:  actually, I think that was just the first batch.  Regardless, the point stands).

He is apparently working on some devices intended to get higher thrust.  But 1 N is quite a leap from the few μN he's getting now...

Regarding other researchers, IIRC Paul March got low mN results with high-frequency devices, but his experimental controls weren't good.  He says someone has managed ~10 mN, but won't say who...  Personally I think it's entirely understandable for a number of reasons for someone to want to keep this sort of work under wraps at this stage...
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Supergravity on 06/20/2013 09:46 am
Your string theorist is not a reliable authority on the subject.  I doubt such a thing exists at this point in time.
I disagree. While not directly related, a good string theorist will have an eye for good ideas even if there is no experimental verification given the nature of the field they work on.

There is certainly some debate about the issue - in fact there is not a universally accepted definition of Mach's principle, and as far as I know there is no widely accepted explanation for inertia in GR.
Likewise, there isn't a universally accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics. However, the most mainstream interpretation of Mach's Principle is in violation of general relativity which is why Einstein rejected it in 1920. If Mach's principle really carried much physical significance, than the cosmological implications would be stupendous. Unfortunately, it makes no predictions of any cosmological or astrophysical phenomena, and is not at all consistent with general relativity. Hence, any interpretation that is more than philosophical of Mach's principle is not consistent with the universe we know.

As for inertia, this is easily explained by general relativity which posits that inertial effects are the byproduct of matter's interaction with local spacetime.

Woodward's papers have withstood peer review so far, and no critique I'm aware of can say the same.  As a published scientific author I have some experience with peer review, and I don't regard it as an ultimate authority, but it's not nothing.
Peer review means nothing these days unless it is published in one of the few respectable physics journals, such as Physical Review D. Let's not forget, notorious crackpot Harold Puthoff's paper on the Polarizable Vacuum has also been peer-reviewed. These days, the number a paper has been cited by other physicists is one of the few benchmarks that distinguishes ideas with a promising future from pseudo-science.

Have you read any of it?  His papers, his book?

I'll admit, I have not. But I have also not read Tom Bearden's books, but I don't need to in order to conclude that Bearden is a lunatic.

Also, I believe the assertion "He claims his theory can explain virtually every unsolved problem in contemporary physics." is untrue, unless you consider the origin of inertia in a general relativistic sense to be virtually the only thing we don't know yet.  I am aware of no other theoretical claims made by Woodward.
I haven't asserted that Woodward's hypothesis or interpretation explains everything about what we don't know, but rather that a justification for his idea to work clearly requires new physics at best, as it is inconsistent with the most fundamental principles of general relativity. As for inertia, I have stated above that general relativity provides a complete description of it and there really is no need for further explanation.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Chris Bergin on 06/20/2013 12:59 pm
This thread is on incredibly shaky ground. If you think we're going to have a thread that is about "what?" and is calling people "lunatics" then you're on the wrong site.

I'll be back later today to see if we're still on a physics forum or a space flight forum.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/20/2013 01:31 pm
Obviously, if the physics are correct, the implications to HSF are indeed stupendous.

I think the argument for discussing the physics, even on this spaceflight forum outweighs the lazy intellectual excuse of an argument that basically, the math is inscrutable, therefore "take it elsewhere".

More later, if Chris so allows.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: aceshigh on 06/20/2013 09:08 pm
If not, why?
  He says someone has managed ~10 mN, but won't say who...


SpaceX. Not that I have any proof, but the pieces fit quite nicely, with:

A - Elon Musk talking about investigating Warp Drive recently, and saying it might work or not

B - Elon Musk each time more sure he can colonize... NOT JUST VISIT Mars, in a decent timeframe... even saying he wont make an IPO of SpaceX while not COLONIZING Mars. Seriously... to COLONIZE Mars, meanign, taking LOTS OF PEOPLE THERE, Elon Musk is probably looking beyond conventional propulsion means.

C - Woodward Effect being investigated at NASA Eagleworks Laboratory by Paul March and Dr Sonny White... Sonny white of the Warp Drive (which was referenced by Elon Musk in the recent interviews) and Paul March which is quite involved with Woodward Effect and the QVF Thruster... and is the same person telling us "someone" got such good results.

D - the fact these good results probably depended on more MONEY being poured on acquiring the state of the art solid state materials needed for better Woodward Effects, the sort of which Woodward himself doesnt have the money to buy and research.



Anyway, want anything more space related than an propulsion effect being researched at a NASA Laboratory, and probably (my own instincts however) by SpaceX???
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: mrmandias on 06/20/2013 09:49 pm
If not, why?
  He says someone has managed ~10 mN, but won't say who...


SpaceX. Not that I have any proof, but the pieces fit quite nicely, with:

A - Elon Musk talking about investigating Warp Drive recently, and saying it might work or not

B - Elon Musk each time more sure he can colonize... NOT JUST VISIT Mars, in a decent timeframe... even saying he wont make an IPO of SpaceX while not COLONIZING Mars. Seriously... to COLONIZE Mars, meanign, taking LOTS OF PEOPLE THERE, Elon Musk is probably looking beyond conventional propulsion means.

C - Woodward Effect being investigated at NASA Eagleworks Laboratory by Paul March and Dr Sonny White... Sonny white of the Warp Drive (which was referenced by Elon Musk in the recent interviews) and Paul March which is quite involved with Woodward Effect and the QVF Thruster... and is the same person telling us "someone" got such good results.

D - the fact these good results probably depended on more MONEY being poured on acquiring the state of the art solid state materials needed for better Woodward Effects, the sort of which Woodward himself doesnt have the money to buy and research.



Anyway, want anything more space related than an propulsion effect being researched at a NASA Laboratory, and probably (my own instincts however) by SpaceX???

Do you h ave the Musk quote?  I remember something like that, but in an off-hand, joking way that I wouldn't read as a tea leaf.  But I could be wrong.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Supergravity on 06/20/2013 09:53 pm
This thread is on incredibly shaky ground. If you think we're going to have a thread that is about "what?" and is calling people "lunatics" then you're on the wrong site.

I'll be back later today to see if we're still on a physics forum or a space flight forum.

Then you might as well close or delete this thread now. We can only talk about space flight once an experimental phenomenon has been clearly demonstrated and the theoretical aspects of it have been worked out and fully understood. That's how practical applications work. Otherwise, this discussion is always destined to devolve to a debate about fundamental physics.

Honestly, I'm surprised it took you 23 pages to bring up these concerns. If you are that strict on physics discussions not being allowed on this site, you should have locked this thread when it was first started.

In my opinion, this sub-forum should stick with conventional and known physics and its implications, rather than speculative ideas that have no experimental basis (and Woodward's Effect wouldn't even fall under that; it is fringe science).
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: R7 on 06/20/2013 10:05 pm
I'll throw in one more question hoping for an answer before thread closes;

Assuming the effect is real will the drive work only if reaction mass is vibrating linearly back'n'forth? Haven't read much except wiki article said 'proper acceleration' is required. Would centrifugal acceleration qualify as such, enabling the driver to be spinning wheel with capacitors on the rim, charged and discharged in sync with rotation? Could easily enable several hundred kHz frequency with much larger stroke than stack of piezoelectrics, no?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: QuantumG on 06/20/2013 10:15 pm
How to talk about the spaceflight implications: if it works, what would it allow you to do? Actually think about that answer instead of yelling PONIES! and you might come up with something worth talking about.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Cinder on 06/21/2013 05:28 am
I'll throw in one more question hoping for an answer before thread closes;

Assuming the effect is real will the drive work only if reaction mass is vibrating linearly back'n'forth? Haven't read much except wiki article said 'proper acceleration' is required. Would centrifugal acceleration qualify as such, enabling the driver to be spinning wheel with capacitors on the rim, charged and discharged in sync with rotation? Could easily enable several hundred kHz frequency with much larger stroke than stack of piezoelectrics, no?
This sounds like the flywheel that 93143 (?) described a number of times in the Propellentless Propulsion thread where much of the 'Mach/Woodward Effect' discussion took place before this here thread.


This thread is on incredibly shaky ground. If you think we're going to have a thread that is about "what?" and is calling people "lunatics" then you're on the wrong site.

I'll be back later today to see if we're still on a physics forum or a space flight forum.

Then you might as well close or delete this thread now. We can only talk about space flight once an experimental phenomenon has been clearly demonstrated and the theoretical aspects of it have been worked out and fully understood. That's how practical applications work. Otherwise, this discussion is always destined to devolve to a debate about fundamental physics.

Honestly, I'm surprised it took you 23 pages to bring up these concerns. If you are that strict on physics discussions not being allowed on this site, you should have locked this thread when it was first started.

In my opinion, this sub-forum should stick with conventional and known physics and its implications, rather than speculative ideas that have no experimental basis (and Woodward's Effect wouldn't even fall under that; it is fringe science).
You said this already, so why repeat it other than push the thread closer to being locked?  Your argument has already been presented in past discussion of Mach/Woodward Effect here at NSF.

Notice that your language (lunatics etc) is specifically mentioned as cause for locking. Consider that previous much longer thread on this same topic was not locked.  Why spoil it for others who are willing to play by the rules?

How to talk about the spaceflight implications: if it works, what would it allow you to do? Actually think about that answer instead of yelling PONIES! and you might come up with something worth talking about.

Off the wall:  would Space Elevators be feasible with ME thrusters buoying a tether made with more or less current state of the art materials?

On the current unmanned spaceflight budget, couldn't we have quite a swarm of small probes pushed by such thrusters?  Wouldn't that be a seriously compelling science platform?  As I understand it we wouldn't have to get anywhere close to wormholes or other extreme predictions of the Woodward Conjecture.. Just mundane, but really affordable performance away from gravity wells.

But it just seems like putting the cart ahead of the ox, given how the effect is at once dubious and promising and soon to be proven/ruled out experimentally.  There is no other place (as far as I've heard of) on the internet where the Woodward Effect rubber would meet the Spaceflight Industry asphalt as well as here on NSF.  It'd be a shame to lock news, from Paul March or any others, out of here because a few users can't stay civil and/or bother to read thru past discussion to avoid repeating what's already been said.
If nothing else it seems worthwhile to keep the thread open so we can get official updates, the same way we have one for E.G. Grasshopper.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: 93143 on 06/21/2013 06:29 am
How to talk about the spaceflight implications: if it works, what would it allow you to do? Actually think about that answer instead of yelling PONIES! and you might come up with something worth talking about.

It's a thruster that doesn't require the storage of onboard propellant.  Reported experimental results seem to indicate that it is not limited to photon thruster efficiency, and no one has suggested any other plausible theoretical upper limit on performance.  Personally I'd feel a bit obvious trying to spell out why exactly this could be a good thing for spaceflight...

Even if it works, it could end up as no more than a propellantless ion thruster replacement, which would still be good.  But depending on how well it works, the sky's the limit - and we don't have the data yet to speculate on that sort of thing, except in a very general sense.  There's a term in Woodward's mass fluctuation equation that's always negative, which combined with a couple of other ideas means we could seriously get FTL propulsion out of this.  Even without that, a sufficiently high-performance thruster could reduce the whole solar system to a matter of days, at most weeks, of travel time, and easily allow relativistic starships.

It's too wide a range.  Discussing basic theory and experimental results is the best way to stay grounded, I think.

Your string theorist is not a reliable authority on the subject.  I doubt such a thing exists at this point in time.
I disagree. While not directly related, a good string theorist will have an eye for good ideas even if there is no experimental verification given the nature of the field they work on.

I think that's a bit of a stretch given what we know of humans, but even if we go with it, it doesn't mean his word should be taken as gospel on a topic he doesn't specialize in.

I've seen him hold forth on the subject before (http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9325/does-the-unruh-effect-violate-machs-principle).  His opinion is certainly strongly held, but he's not a reliable authority.

His idea of what Mach's Principle is doesn't seem to be comprehensive, for one thing.  There are certainly formulations of it that are false, but the larger question is not settled yet, perhaps because modern physics has been concentrating on extending quantum mechanics while more or less ignoring GR as a settled, complete theory.

Quote
Unfortunately, it makes no predictions of any cosmological or astrophysical phenomena, and is not at all consistent with general relativity.

Sciama's interpretation is a derivation from general relativity, and it does involve a prediction.  Namely, that the total gravitational potential Φ is equal to c².  Which is (so far as we can determine) pretty much true, based on cosmological data Sciama didn't have.

Quote
As for inertia, this is easily explained by general relativity which posits that inertial effects are the byproduct of matter's interaction with local spacetime.

But they aren't emergent from the field equations themselves without something like Sciama's approach.  Inertia is pretty much assumed to work the way it does; its origin is an unsolved problem that people still write papers on now and then.

Quote
I haven't asserted that Woodward's hypothesis or interpretation explains everything about what we don't know

Not you - the first poster at your link.  He misrepresented what he was presenting, making it sound more far-fetched than it actually is.

speculative ideas that have no experimental basis

Woodward's experiments are producing the expected results.  Control experiments expected to produce null results do so.  His non-thrusting rotator experiments showed a signal in opposition to the electrostrictive effect and scaling as predicted.  Recent thruster data shows 2-3 μN from a device the theory says should produce 3.2 μN.

No experimental basis?  I'm a bit leery of his derivation myself, though I haven't given it enough attention yet due to being distracted by other stuff, but his devices do seem to do what they're supposed to.

...

I will note that Woodward's theoretical explanation doesn't strictly have to be correct for his devices to work.  White's QVF-MHD hypothesis supposedly predicts thrust from an M-E thruster, though it's not clear that the two ideas are compatible (Woodward is somewhat contemptuous of QVF).  It also predicts thrust from an EmDrive (for reasons unrelated to Shawyer's explanation), which I believe the M-E hypothesis doesn't - and according to Paul March, multiple experimenters (not all of them in China) claim to have gotten substantial thrust out of EmDrives...

...

It's funny how the actual post that pulled this thread to the top of the section contained a large, relatively information-rich e-mail from Dr. Woodward himself, discussing his experimental results and their practical implications, and no one has commented on it...  I'm not on the mailing list, but I have his book, which shows data plots for numerous experimental runs including null tests and reversal tests, so maybe I should make some time and see if I can see what he's talking about.

Quote
Would centrifugal acceleration qualify as such, enabling the driver to be spinning wheel with capacitors on the rim, charged and discharged in sync with rotation? Could easily enable several hundred kHz frequency with much larger stroke than stack of piezoelectrics, no?
This sounds like the flywheel that 93143 (?) described a number of times in the Propellentless Propulsion thread where much of the 'Mach/Woodward Effect' discussion took place before this here thread.

Not quite, but under the circumstances it seems unwise to get into that...

Woodward made a rotator-type device, but it wasn't designed to produce thrust; it was designed to show predicted aspects of the Mach effect that weren't clear with the linear stack devices.  And it did.

...100 kHz is 6 Mrpm.  That's really fast...
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: R7 on 06/21/2013 07:35 am
...100 kHz is 6 Mrpm.  That's really fast...

Whoops, my bad. Mixed rpm with Hz  :-[

Note to self: don't 'engineer' break-through propulsion at 2am...
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/21/2013 02:06 pm
If not, why?
  He says someone has managed ~10 mN, but won't say who...

SpaceX. Not that I have any proof, but the pieces fit quite nicely, with:

A - Elon Musk talking about investigating Warp Drive recently, and saying it might work or not...

I happen to know one person on their team who has thrown an eyeball on some of Woodward's math and briefly opined here that there could be a there there.  But that person will not share anything more with me.  Or the thread.  And I've asked.

So... not that I have any proof either.

It's a math problem.  Whoever gets the answer right first, gets to make the device first.  Nobody here has the math.  That's a good part of the reason that the word "lunatic" is thrown around.  And a good part of the reason that some questions are not answered, but rather left for the student to figure out.

Like they say, E=mc^2 is not just a good idea.  It's the law.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: D_Dom on 06/21/2013 02:28 pm
If memory serves, the kid correctly answering math questions first was rarely spitballin'. Not saying never, but exceedingly rare.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/21/2013 02:50 pm
If memory serves, the kid correctly answering math questions first was rarely spitballin'. Not saying never, but exceedingly rare.

When I went to school, it was rare indeed that the smartest kid in math class would throw spitballs.  Obviously, classroom behavior has changed today.  I suppose that's a part of the vareious education "innovations" we suffer from.

But back to regularly scheduled programming...
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/21/2013 03:00 pm
I think that's a bit of a stretch given what we know of humans, but even if we go with it, it doesn't mean his word should be taken as gospel on a topic he doesn't specialize in.

I've seen him hold forth on the subject before.  His opinion is certainly strongly held, but he's not a reliable authority.

So uhhhh... which string theorist are you referring to?  I browsed over to that site that you linked, and they were talking about the Unruh effect and its possible relation to Mach's principle.

Thus, for example, an acceleration of 10^22m/s^2 corresponds to a temperature of 1 K. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unruh_effect&oldid=426438327)

I'm supposed to believe this acceleration?

You're making my head hurt, and I will be sending you a bill for the aspirin.

As an aside, I keep saying that the "vacuum state" is the ether.  But hey.

************************************

Anyhow, here's a good link:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20110023492

... to a very interesting article:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110023492_2011024705.pdf
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: 93143 on 06/21/2013 06:54 pm
Okay, calm down.  I've talked to Chris, and he agreed to let the thread live for now.  Just don't drag it off topic with finger-pointing.

which string theorist are you referring to?

Luboš Motl.  You can Google him; he's got a Wikipedia page.  He's the guy Supergravity was referencing for his claim that Mach's principle is wrong.  Very opinionated character.  It could be someone else using his name, but that seems an unnecessary complication...

Quote
a very interesting article:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110023492_2011024705.pdf

That's "Sonny" White's lab.  IINM the "existing Quantum Vacuum Plasma Thruster" they talk about is actually one of Paul March's old high-frequency MLTs.  Like I said, White's hypothesis predicts thrust from Woodward-type devices...
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Supergravity on 06/21/2013 10:23 pm
You said this already, so why repeat it other than push the thread closer to being locked?  Your argument has already been presented in past discussion of Mach/Woodward Effect here at NSF.

Yes, because it is a valid concern and I'd think the majority of mainstream physicists would raise these same issues. If my position is so easily discredited and untenable, then surely it must not be difficult for you to rehash the same rebuttals used against my position. On the other hand, I don't exactly have all the time in the world to go through 23 pages, which is unfortunate.

Notice that your language (lunatics etc) is specifically mentioned as cause for locking. Consider that previous much longer thread on this same topic was not locked.  Why spoil it for others who are willing to play by the rules?

I think you're confused. His concern is that we are not discussing spaceflight but rather physics. If my post was the only problem, then that could easily be remedied by a deletion rather than locking the entire thread.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Supergravity on 06/21/2013 11:05 pm
I think that's a bit of a stretch given what we know of humans, but even if we go with it, it doesn't mean his word should be taken as gospel on a topic he doesn't specialize in.
I agree with you.

His idea of what Mach's Principle is doesn't seem to be comprehensive, for one thing.  There are certainly formulations of it that are false, but the larger question is not settled yet, perhaps because modern physics has been concentrating on extending quantum mechanics while more or less ignoring GR as a settled, complete theory.
The main problem with Mach's principle, or at least the interpretation that most mainstream physicists use, is that it is inconsistent with the core principles of general relativity. This wouldn't be a problem at all if Mach's Principle could explain everything general relativity could and make further predictions that are correct but inconsistent with GR. But, that is clearly not the case. As for the reason why physicists ignore GR is because most have the feeling, with good reason, that a comprehensive theory of quantum gravity will be intrinsically probabilistic. GR, as successful as it is, is still a classically deterministic framework.

Sciama's interpretation is a derivation from general relativity, and it does involve a prediction.  Namely, that the total gravitational potential Φ is equal to c².  Which is (so far as we can determine) pretty much true, based on cosmological data Sciama didn't have.
I'll look into that, but from my understanding so far, Sciama's work on this seems to be using a different mathematical formulation to come to the same results as predicted by GR and not Mach's Principle, which is essentially "spooky action at a distance" and is not limited causally by the speed of light according to the interpretations of Woodward et al. This is clearly at odds with GR and by extension Sciama's work. Is Woodward's Effect limited by the speed of light or is it instantaneous action? According to what I'm seeing of this work, it suggests the latter.

But they aren't emergent from the field equations themselves without something like Sciama's approach.  Inertia is pretty much assumed to work the way it does; its origin is an unsolved problem that people still write papers on now and then.
That is because you are assuming it is a problem. Most mainstream physicists don't and believe inertia simply is what it is. There's really nothing more to it than that. Sometimes, there doesn't need to be an answer to everything. For example, why is the strong interaction stronger than the electromagnetic interaction? There really isn't any way to answer that question at least from a physicist's perspective. It simply just is and let's leave it at that.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: djolds1 on 06/22/2013 02:34 am
But they aren't emergent from the field equations themselves without something like Sciama's approach.  Inertia is pretty much assumed to work the way it does; its origin is an unsolved problem that people still write papers on now and then.
That is because you are assuming it is a problem. Most mainstream physicists don't and believe inertia simply is what it is. There's really nothing more to it than that. Sometimes, there doesn't need to be an answer to everything. For example, why is the strong interaction stronger than the electromagnetic interaction? There really isn't any way to answer that question at least from a physicist's perspective. It simply just is and let's leave it at that.
An exceptionally incurious perspective. Seems inappropriate to a spaceflight board.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: 93143 on 06/22/2013 04:42 am
Hopefully this physics discussion is starting to wind down; it's making me nervous.  It seems to be a question of reading the references, because I suspect neither of us has sufficient expertise to hash it out in detail here even if we were allowed to.

from my understanding so far, Sciama's work on this seems to be using a different mathematical formulation to come to the same results as predicted by GR

Not exactly.  As I understand it, his idea was that the inertial effect in GR can be shown to result from the field solution in the presence of sources, rather than being assumed a priori.

Okay, yes, in his first paper (1953) he derived the effect from a vector theory of gravity that turned out to be an approximation to GR, but the principle is the same.

In a second paper (1969) he and his coauthors worked out a linearized integral form of Einstein's field equations suitable for doing the problem right.  Further work was done by a number of researchers, including Gilman (1970), a coauthor of the 1969 paper, who showed that of a number of different spacetimes (Minkowski, Gödel, etc.), only the Robertson-Walker metric (ie: the set of big-bang cosmologies) was Machian.  Citations of the 1969 paper continue right up to the present day, including work related to Mach's principle (see Hanno Essén, Eur. J. Physics (2013)).

It seems solving the Einstein field equations without approximation techniques can be really really hard...  who knew?

Quote
and not Mach's Principle, which is essentially "spooky action at a distance" and is not limited causally by the speed of light according to the interpretations of Woodward et al.

Woodward describes the interaction with distant matter happening at the speed of light; he conjectures a transactional radiative interaction involving both advanced and retarded waves, but as I understand it this is not assumed in the derivation, which has to do with local effects in the context of the local value of the total gravitational potential (c²).

I have to look into this more, but I've been busy...

I'll emphasize that: Woodward does not posit superluminal interactions.

Quote
Sometimes, there doesn't need to be an answer to everything.

Now you've gone and touched on a philosophical issue...  In any case, you've granted me the point.

Einstein considered Mach's principle to be one of the three pillars of general relativity, along with the equivalence principle and general covariance, and remarked on how odd it was that people kept ignoring it.  He never came up with a good way to include it explicitly, but if Sciama was approximately correct it's just as well.

...

Well, whatever you think of Woodward's mass fluctuation derivation (and I haven't been able to give it enough sustained attention to form a solid opinion yet), the foundation seems to be plausible, and the experiments do seem to be working...
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: R7 on 06/22/2013 12:20 pm
Has MEMS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MEMS) been considered as a way to build a prototype? Individual vibrating masses would be miniscule but manufacturing would enable building large array of them. Microscopic mechanical structures should enable quite high frequency oscillation.

(http://sensing-machines.com/images/mems_img2.jpg)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/22/2013 02:55 pm
If my post was the only problem, then that could easily be remedied by a deletion rather than locking the entire thread.

You don't quite understand the power of a crowd whine on this site.

There really isn't any way to answer that question at least from a physicist's perspective. It simply just is and let's leave it at that.


An exceptionally incurious perspective. Seems inappropriate to a spaceflight board.


An insightful observation.  Good thing, for example, that Galileo had the requisite curiousity in the face of the powerful cognitive infiltrators he had to deal with.

Hopefully this physics discussion is starting to wind down; it's making me nervous. ...

In a second paper (1969) [Sciama] and his coauthors worked out  a linearized integral form of Einstein's field equations ... It seems solving the Einstein field equations without approximation techniques can be really really hard...  who knew?

Well I wouldn't be so nervous, but hey.  If the thread should become silent, with an occasional announcement of experimental results followed by a few posts of "Good Luck!" and "Thanks for the update!"  Then none of us would actually learn anything would we?  It would just be a news site.

So... would you suggest that I focus more on the 1969 paper than the 1953 paper?

Quote from: 93143
Woodward describes the interaction with distant matter happening at the speed of light; he conjectures a transactional radiative interaction involving both advanced and retarded waves, but as I understand it this is not assumed in the derivation, which has to do with local effects in the context of the local value of the total gravitational potential (c²).

The first time I heard about the advanced/retarded wave notion was in Woodward's recent book.  I'm struggling to accept this notion intuitively.  How does that retarded (or is it advanced?) wave know already whether I'm aiming my inertial drive spacecraft left or right?  There's a causality paradox there somewhere.

In the book, he illustrates the stone tossed in the pond, causing a wave:

Quote from: Woodward
Fig 2.2 The top set of frames, reading from left to right, show waves propogating forward in time and space as they spread from a rock thrown into a pond.  when people talk about "advanced" waves, they often remark that waves propagating back in time are those seen by running a movie of the waves shown in reverse, producing the sequence of pictures seen in the bottom row.  However, the bottom row shows waves propagating backwards in space as time goes forward>

In other words, from the "inertial frame" of the stone thrower, there is no way to tell the advanced wave from the retarded wave.  Furthermore, by my take, the advanced wave cannot already know when the stone is tossed, and when, in the past, it must have already started to propagate backwards in time.

In the text, Woodward could be interpreted as using a false humility when he says, "We'll be concerned here with a much more mundane problem:  How exactly do advanced waves work?"  This is not a mundane question.  Just because the man-made equations of relativity have time reversal symmetry, it is by no means known why the arrow of time as experienced, is assymetric.

His subsequent explanation seems facile.  The word "dodge" comes to mind.

Has MEMS been considered as a way to build a prototype?

That is a good question, but too far in the future.  Take the laser.  Remember the size and power of the early models?  Now you can have lasers that can very nearly pop out a coherent photon at a time, and lasers that can shoot down missiles.  From 1960 to 2010 is fifty years.  So if the device can be made to work in a lab, perhaps in fifty years, an array of them could be manufactured to launch 5000 people at a time on an emigration run to Mars.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: R7 on 06/22/2013 06:45 pm
That is a good question, but too far in the future.  Take the laser.  Remember the size and power of the early models?  Now you can have lasers that can very nearly pop out a coherent photon at a time, and lasers that can shoot down missiles.  From 1960 to 2010 is fifty years.  So if the device can be made to work in a lab, perhaps in fifty years, an array of them could be manufactured to launch 5000 people at a time on an emigration run to Mars.

But the technology to mass produce microscopic mechanical devices is here and now, not 50 yrs in the future. new/hobbySpace enjoys the fruits in low cost IMUs. It's similar to semiconductor mfg. And there are intermediate steps between, say, milliNewtons for comsat station keeping and kiloNewtons to propel Mars Ark. But can MEMS process produce the required electrolytedielectriccapacitorthingiecomponent, I don't know.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: 93143 on 06/22/2013 07:57 pm
Woodward didn't invent advanced-wave radiative interaction.  The idea comes from Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory in quantum electrodynamics, and Cramer has used it in his transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: 93143 on 06/22/2013 08:09 pm
That is a good question, but too far in the future.  Take the laser.  Remember the size and power of the early models?  Now you can have lasers that can very nearly pop out a coherent photon at a time, and lasers that can shoot down missiles.  From 1960 to 2010 is fifty years.  So if the device can be made to work in a lab, perhaps in fifty years, an array of them could be manufactured to launch 5000 people at a time on an emigration run to Mars.

But the technology to mass produce microscopic mechanical devices is here and now, not 50 yrs in the future. new/hobbySpace enjoys the fruits in low cost IMUs. It's similar to semiconductor mfg. And there are intermediate steps between, say, milliNewtons for comsat station keeping and kiloNewtons to propel Mars Ark. But can MEMS process produce the required electrolytedielectriccapacitorthingiecomponent, I don't know.

It's an interesting idea.  Especially since these devices don't produce local exhaust, so you could layer them...  It all depends on how the design scales.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/22/2013 08:41 pm
Woodward didn't invent advanced-wave radiative interaction.  The idea comes from Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory in quantum electrodynamics, and Cramer has used it in his transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics.

I know.  Didn't mean to give the impression that I thought Woodward invented it.  His book is clear on that point.

The point I keep coming back to is that with each successive paper, there seem to be new additions of mind bending math being used to either explain or justify previous claims.

I read the Wiki article on the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory.  It still doesn't make causal sense.  Either that, or there is no such thing as free will; the universe is completely deterministic, down to the quantum level.

Again, how can the universe already know which direction I will be chosing to point my inertial drive spacecraft?  The advanced wave has to get started 15 billion years ago, right?  In order to get here tomorrow, when I start my journey in the unannounced direction.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/22/2013 08:48 pm
That is a good question, but too far in the future.  ...  So if the device can be made to work in a lab, perhaps in fifty years, an array of them could be manufactured to launch 5000 people at a time on an emigration run to Mars.

But the technology to mass produce microscopic mechanical devices is here and now, not 50 yrs in the future. new/hobbySpace enjoys the fruits in low cost IMUs. It's similar to semiconductor mfg. And there are intermediate steps between, say, milliNewtons for comsat station keeping and kiloNewtons to propel Mars Ark. But can MEMS process produce the required electrolytedielectriccapacitorthingiecomponent, I don't know.

True, and some of the technology shown in the early ME drive experimental apparatus was also available fifty years ago.  As another example, the transistor was available back then too.  It took several decades before it got shrunk.  Take rockets:  Goddard launched his first one in 1926, but it took forty or more years to scale it up.

What I'm getting at is, grant the clearly working ME drive experimental apparatus, with all of its new take on old physics.  I'm just suggesting that the electrolytedielectriccapacitorthingiecomponent will take a number of decades to scale down to the mems size, and scale up that array of itty bitty devices to the Saturn V size.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: djolds1 on 06/23/2013 12:13 am
That is a good question, but too far in the future.  Take the laser.  Remember the size and power of the early models?  Now you can have lasers that can very nearly pop out a coherent photon at a time, and lasers that can shoot down missiles.  From 1960 to 2010 is fifty years.  So if the device can be made to work in a lab, perhaps in fifty years, an array of them could be manufactured to launch 5000 people at a time on an emigration run to Mars.
Cunard Liner equivalents would be very sweet, but I'll settle for Carrack equivalents, with a "reach" ambition of Victory Ship equivalents. :)

Again, how can the universe already know which direction I will be chosing to point my inertial drive spacecraft?  The advanced wave has to get started 15 billion years ago, right?  In order to get here tomorrow, when I start my journey in the unannounced direction.
I have a reflexive-disgust reaction to retrocausality as well. But if it works, so be it.

True, and some of the technology shown in the early ME drive experimental apparatus was also available fifty years ago.  As another example, the transistor was available back then too.  It took several decades before it got shrunk.  Take rockets:  Goddard launched his first one in 1926, but it took forty or more years to scale it up.

What I'm getting at is, grant the clearly working ME drive experimental apparatus, with all of its new take on old physics.  I'm just suggesting that the electrolytedielectriccapacitorthingiecomponent will take a number of decades to scale down to the mems size, and scale up that array of itty bitty devices to the Saturn V size.
If the effect exists, demonstrate it conclusively in the lab first. The cute innovations can wait.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: 93143 on 06/23/2013 12:32 am
The advanced wave has to get started 15 billion years ago, right?  In order to get here tomorrow, when I start my journey in the unannounced direction.

No, the advanced wave starts in the future, when the distant emitting object receives the retarded wave.

I think...

But the process here depends on the situation here, so the ordinary gravitational propagation that resulted in the local value of the potential is all you really need before anything happens.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Supergravity on 06/23/2013 01:50 am
Hopefully this physics discussion is starting to wind down; it's making me nervous.  It seems to be a question of reading the references, because I suspect neither of us has sufficient expertise to hash it out in detail here even if we were allowed to.
On the contrary, I think it is starting to get interesting. I actually did some research this time around.

Okay, yes, in his first paper (1953) he derived the effect from a vector theory of gravity that turned out to be an approximation to GR, but the principle is the same.
I don't think it completely approximates GR except for maybe for special cases. This formalism, as you likely know, is linear and hence obeys the superposition principle. As you also know, one of the striking features of the field equations is their nonlinearity, which is why it is so difficult to solve. For this reason alone, it is not too difficult to show solutions of Einstein's equations that are completely inconsistent with Sciama's toy model and thus Mach's Principle.

Another thing about Sciama's model is the apparent addition of new fields and forces in order to make it Machian. What mediates this interaction that Sciama is using in his model? This is now the domain of quantum gravity.

Also, this would raise quite a number of fundamental questions. If correct, what does this mean for the Unruh Effect? What would be the cosmological implications of Mach's Principle? If inertia arises from the interactions of gravitating masses, what does this say about the equivalence principle? Why doesn't the gravitational constant depend on the distribution of masses in the universe as Mach's Principle would clearly suggest?

I have also read a few days ago Sciama would later abandon this model, but I have no source for this at this time, unfortunately. Will try to look for it, though.

Woodward describes the interaction with distant matter happening at the speed of light; he conjectures a transactional radiative interaction involving both advanced and retarded waves, but as I understand it this is not assumed in the derivation, which has to do with local effects in the context of the local value of the total gravitational potential (c²).
So, Woodward is essentially suggesting he has found some form of macroscopic coupling of gravity and electromagnetism that occurs on energy scales lower than electroweak symmetry breaking? If so, how does he justify this given the fact no collider or particle physics experiment in the past has seen evidence of such coupling?

Also, if this phenomenon is limited by the speed of light, then it would seem to me that it's applications to space travel would also be similarly limited.

Finally, how does this interaction conserve momentum? Has Woodward shown it does without a preferred reference frame? As all I'm seeing is momentum can only be conserved if such a frame can exist, which obviously incompatible with relativity.


Einstein considered Mach's principle to be one of the three pillars of general relativity, along with the equivalence principle and general covariance, and remarked on how odd it was that people kept ignoring it.  He never came up with a good way to include it explicitly, but if Sciama was approximately correct it's just as well.

Really? From what I've read in the historical literature, Einstein was inspired by Mach's Principle in formulating general relativity but came to reject it entirely later on. There are solutions of Einstein's Field Equations that show just how spectacularly wrong Mach's Principle is, or at least how Einstein and the other major theorists interpreted it at the time. One such solution is Gödel's rotating universe.


Well, whatever you think of Woodward's mass fluctuation derivation (and I haven't been able to give it enough sustained attention to form a solid opinion yet), the foundation seems to be plausible, and the experiments do seem to be working...
Truthfully, I'm just skeptical. No "normal" (I stress normal since Sciama's work isn't exactly mainstream) understanding of physics predicts Dr Woodward will see anything in his experiment, but that is no reason not to do the experiment. At worst, it will be an experimental test of standard GR, which should always be done. At best, Woodward's experiment produces spectacular results that can be replicated and could be the dawn of another physics revolution.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/23/2013 04:33 am
I have a reflexive-disgust reaction to retrocausality as well. But if it works, so be it.

What does the word "if" mean in your comment?  If an authority tells you it is true, you have already committed to belief?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/23/2013 04:36 am
So, Woodward is essentially suggesting he has found some form of macroscopic coupling of gravity and electromagnetism that occurs on energy scales lower than electroweak symmetry breaking? If so, how does he justify this given the fact no collider or particle physics experiment in the past has seen evidence of such coupling?

The layman would say that he converts electrical energy into forward momentum, without using a road or a wheel or a motor.

Quote
...it is not too difficult to show solutions of Einstein's equations that are completely inconsistent with Sciama's toy model and thus Mach's Principle.

It appears to be too difficult to show those solutions on this thread, however.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/23/2013 04:41 am
The advanced wave has to get started 15 billion years ago, right?  In order to get here tomorrow, when I start my journey in the unannounced direction.

No, the advanced wave starts in the future, when the distant emitting object receives the retarded wave.

I think...

But the process here depends on the situation here, so the ordinary gravitational propagation that resulted in the local value of the potential is all you really need before anything happens.

Not quite, as I understand Woodward's telling.

Forget the spacecraft.  Stick with the rock in the pond.  I threw that rock in the pond yesterday.  Remember that a portion of that wave (let's just call it retarded, ok?) has to come from the edge of the causal universe.  It had to have started 15BYA, in order to get here yesterday, since it can only travel at c.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: MP99 on 06/23/2013 07:59 am
For example, why is the strong interaction stronger than the electromagnetic interaction? There really isn't any way to answer that question at least from a physicist's perspective. It simply just is and let's leave it at that.

Surely, one of the great unanswered questions in cosmology.

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/23/2013 01:46 pm
For example, why is the strong interaction stronger than the electromagnetic interaction? There really isn't any way to answer that question at least from a physicist's perspective. It simply just is and let's leave it at that.

Surely, one of the great unanswered questions in cosmology.

Cheers, Martin

Nothing happening here.  Move along.  Move along.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: djolds1 on 06/24/2013 01:41 am
I have a reflexive-disgust reaction to retrocausality as well. But if it works, so be it.
What does the word "if" mean in your comment?
Retrocausality.

If an authority tells you it is true, you have already committed to belief?
I have little to no respect for the authority of credentials. I have great respect for the authority of demonstrated ability and demonstrated results. In the scientific context, demonstrated results demand empirical laboratory verification of claims. Thus IMO, most of cosmology for the last 40 years has been little more than third-rate metaphysics. And whether he's correct or not, Woodward has been laying out all his assumptions, hypotheses, and hardware testing for the world to judge for going on 20 years now; if nothing else, that's good science. If those hardware test stands can demonstrate the effects he claims, then his foundational assumptions and hypotheses needs must be credited, or at least examined with a much more accepting eye. If the effect he hypothesizes cannot be demonstrated however? (Shrug) 'Too bad. So sad. Next?'

From a philosophical viewpoint, I would much rather retrocausality be ruled out - as I said, it repulses me. From a practical standpoint, I can adjust if physical results demonstrate that it needs to be ruled in.

So, Woodward is essentially suggesting he has found some form of macroscopic coupling of gravity and electromagnetism that occurs on energy scales lower than electroweak symmetry breaking? If so, how does he justify this given the fact no collider or particle physics experiment in the past has seen evidence of such coupling?
No. Woodward's explicit claim is that his approach does NOT couple gravity and electromagnetism in the typical Left Field "electrogravitic" vein.

The layman would say that he converts electrical energy into forward momentum, without using a road or a wheel or a motor.
Woodward insists on calling the thrust mechanism "recycled propellant propulsion," as distinct from the more typical "reactionless propulsion." In practical terms there is no effective difference, but Woodward insists the former is the more technically correct.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/24/2013 12:45 pm
I have a reflexive-disgust reaction to retrocausality as well. But if it works, so be it.
What does the word "if" mean in your comment?
Retrocausality.

Sorry to go all grammatical on you.  That's what the word "it" means.  You may indeed have great respect for "the authority of demonstrated ability", but that doesn't make "if" true in and of itself.

No question, if there is such a thing as retrocausality, the dictators of yesterday and today will rejoice at the new possibilities.

The layman would say that he converts electrical energy into forward momentum, without using a road or a wheel or a motor.

Woodward insists on calling the thrust mechanism "recycled propellant propulsion," as distinct from the more typical "reactionless propulsion." In practical terms there is no effective difference, but Woodward insists the former is the more technically correct.[/quote]

He's pumping electricity into it, and expects the damn thing to foat across the conference table.  Technical that.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: djolds1 on 06/24/2013 03:20 pm
I have a reflexive-disgust reaction to retrocausality as well. But if it works, so be it.
What does the word "if" mean in your comment?
Retrocausality.
Sorry to go all grammatical on you.  That's what the word "it" means.  You may indeed have great respect for "the authority of demonstrated ability", but that doesn't make "if" true in and of itself.
De nada. I can go Grammar-Nazi myself at times. ;D

No question, if there is such a thing as retrocausality, the dictators of yesterday and today will rejoice at the new possibilities.
The political dictators don't worry me so much. Not immediately, at any rate. But the philosophers who over decades and centuries shape the intellectual climates in which societies, sensibilities and novel political implications develop? The effective death of free will will allow THEM to go hog wild, and the creeds they create to be eventually exploited by the political dictators will be a severe problem.

Woodward insists on calling the thrust mechanism "recycled propellant propulsion," as distinct from the more typical "reactionless propulsion." In practical terms there is no effective difference, but Woodward insists the former is the more technically correct.
He's pumping electricity into it, and expects the damn thing to float across the conference table.  Technical that.
The current level of output, if accurately reported, certainly isn't going to be floating across conference tables. OTOH, technical qualifications of that nature are precisely the type of answer you want to see out of the physics end of the equation that (hopefully) results in practical applications.

A great cartoon from a few years ago (no longer have the link), to paraphrase:
Philosophy Conferences: "Does STUFF exist?"
Physics Conferences: "Is the universe made of STUFF?"
Engineering Conferences: "Can we make GREAT STUFF into GREATER STUFF?" :)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: 93143 on 06/24/2013 08:21 pm
The effective death of free will

If God can see the universe in Einstein Block format without destroying free will, retrocausality won't do it either.

And that is all I'm going to say about that in this thread.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: 93143 on 06/24/2013 11:04 pm
I don't think it completely approximates GR except for maybe for special cases.

That's kinda the whole point of an approximation...

Quote
This formalism, as you likely know, is linear and hence obeys the superposition principle. As you also know, one of the striking features of the field equations is their nonlinearity, which is why it is so difficult to solve.

Which could be why there seem to be a number of different approximate solutions for Sciama-type inertia that all require that the universe have a density parameter "of order of magnitude unity", but don't match each other exactly.

Quote
For this reason alone, it is not too difficult to show solutions of Einstein's equations that are completely inconsistent with Sciama's toy model and thus Mach's Principle.

Of course; Gilman (1970) said as much.  Mach's principle isn't inherent in GR; it's just that a non-empty FRW cosmology happens to show an effect that acts exactly like inertia.

Quote
What mediates this interaction that Sciama is using in his model?

Gravity waves, presumably.  Woodward touches on this in his book.  Accelerating an object produces a kink in its gravitational field that propagates outward at c, etc.

Quote
Finally, how does this interaction conserve momentum?

This is the easy one.  If there is a force interaction (however delayed) between an object and the distant universe, momentum is transferred between them, which trivially results in conservation.

...hold on, you aren't talking about the M-E thruster, are you?  You mean basic inertial reactions, right?  I don't see the problem, and I certainly don't see why an absolute velocity reference frame is necessary (the universe has an average velocity, and this factors into the derivation, but the result doesn't depend on it).  Remember that forces don't just show up out of nowhere and push on stuff; they're exerted by other stuff that also has inertia.  My brain's a bit fried at the moment, but I can't imagine it not adding up.

Quote
No "normal" (I stress normal since Sciama's work isn't exactly mainstream) understanding of physics predicts Dr Woodward will see anything in his experiment, but that is no reason not to do the experiment. At worst, it will be an experimental test of standard GR, which should always be done. At best, Woodward's experiment produces spectacular results that can be replicated and could be the dawn of another physics revolution.

Well, hopefully we do get spectacular results.  But you're talking as though he hasn't done any experimentation yet.  He's been doing experiments for decades; sure, the early ones were a mix of "why doesn't it work?" and "why doesn't it work as well as it's supposed to?" but refinements to the theory and device design have resulted in repeatable thrust measurements that approximately match theoretical predictions.  There was also the rotator work, which showed the expected effect at the proper harmonic and scaling as expected.

I'm about halfway through trying to understand his book.  Unfortunately it isn't the only substantial demand on my mind right now...

Stick with the rock in the pond.  I threw that rock in the pond yesterday.  Remember that a portion of that wave (let's just call it retarded, ok?) has to come from the edge of the causal universe.  It had to have started 15BYA, in order to get here yesterday, since it can only travel at c.

No, it's travelling at -c.  It starts in the far future, and arrives yesterday.  And it's called advanced, not retarded.  The retarded wave is the ripple from the rock.

Now, if you could rig the rock to cause an advanced-wave ripple itself, that would propagate backward in time to trigger a retarded-wave response.  But due to wave cancellation or something, that's not supposed to happen...
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/25/2013 01:25 am
Stick with the rock in the pond.  I threw that rock in the pond yesterday.  Remember that a portion of that wave (let's just call it retarded [edit: advanced, then], ok?) has to come from the edge of the causal universe.  It had to have started 15BYA, in order to get here yesterday, since it can only travel at c.

No, it's travelling at -c.  It starts in the far future, and arrives yesterday.  And it's called advanced, not retarded.  The retarded wave is the ripple from the rock.

Now, if you could rig the rock to cause an advanced-wave ripple itself, that would propagate backward in time to trigger a retarded-wave response.  But due to wave cancellation or something, that's not supposed to happen...

Plus c, minus c.  Same speed, by the numbers, assuming time symmetry.  No such thing as minus c in this universe, given the direction of time's arrow.

I'm not sure I buy this at the moment.

So the retarded wave is yesterday's wave, created by the rock in the pond.  And the "advanced" wave would be the one from the far future, timed from the edge of the universe with a radius sized to the case of that future, traveling at -c, which is a speed not included in reality, but included in the what I would call a careless rendering of the universe as being time symmetric, back to the past, yesterday, when I cast the rock.  Even now, today, those waves propagate across the pond.

If there is free will, then there must be a simulataneous time transaction which begins here, yesterday with my rock tossing actions, and some time in the distant future, with the universe being compelled, at that distant, not previously determined future, to fire off a wave, from that un-previously known distance, so that it would conserve the momentum I created by tossing that rock.

If there is not free will, then I have already been constrained by the universe to toss that rock, and it would stand to then reason that the future universe would have been constrained to send back that advanced wave.

This strains the credulity of common sense.

Stand at the other end of the universe, at that distant moment in space and in the future, for a sec.  From that viewpoint, at some random point in time, a wave would be generated, moving backwards in time at -c, in order to conserve the momentum that I tweaked in firing up my ME thruster.  As my spaceship zigs and zags thru the universe, day after day, then at that point in the future, day after day, their instruments would be reflecting the bizarre back and forth readings of the sudden momentum waves (or whatever they're called) back in time to this present.

One might think, in that advanced future situation, that that civilization would be able to tweak the past, had they free will.  With their presumably advanced technology, why couldn't they send a wave back in time to create ripples in the pond, somehow compelling me to toss that rock in the first place?

This is the paradox of retrocausality.  If this is true, then there is magic in the universe after all.  Anybody can be made to do anything by any magician who knows how to cast the spell.

This cannot be the case.  Woodward seems to be grasping at straws to hold in all seriousness, that causality can be violated to conserve momentum.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/25/2013 01:48 am
I have a reflexive-disgust reaction to retrocausality as well. But if it works, so be it.

What does the word "if" mean in your comment?

Retrocausality.

Sorry to go all grammatical on you.  That's what the word "it" means...
De nada. I can go Grammar-Nazi myself at times.[/quote[

No question, if there is such a thing as retrocausality, the dictators of yesterday and today will rejoice at the new possibilities.

Quote from: DJ
The political dictators don't worry me so much. ... But the philosophers who over decades and centuries shape the intellectual climates in which societies, sensibilities and novel political implications develop? The effective death of free will will allow THEM to go hog wild, and the creeds they create to be eventually exploited by the political dictators will be a severe problem.

Which is what I'm getting at in fewer words.  The dictators pick up on the philosophies when they are seen to be pragmatically useful. In some ways, we are in the early stages of a philosophy of compulsion, with the insistance on correct speech from either side of the aisle.

The good news is that the universe is autonomous from the dictator.  A famous example being Stalin's insistance on the adoption of Lysenko's theories.  Today's dictators are better at listening to the scientific oligarchy.  But we digress.

Woodward insists on calling the thrust mechanism "recycled propellant propulsion," as distinct from the more typical "reactionless propulsion." In practical terms there is no effective difference, but Woodward insists the former is the more technically correct.

He's pumping electricity into it, and expects the damn thing to float across the conference table.  Technical that.

Quote from: DJ
The current level of output, if accurately reported, certainly isn't going to be floating across conference tables. OTOH, technical qualifications of that nature are precisely the type of answer you want to see out of the physics end of the equation that (hopefully) results in practical applications.

Don't care about the output level; the first I/C engine was a good bit less powerful than the I/C engines of today.

I'm talking about the conversion of electricity to forward momentum, which this device purports to do, plain and simple.

I had not heard the "recycled propellant propulsion" meme yet, but it is not true.  He puts electrical energy in, and expects the device to move forward.  If he can do that, he can conserve energy by converting it into an equivalent forward momentum, less resistive and other losses.

Also, there are other claims of "free energy" which I mention in passing.

Quote from: DJ
A great cartoon from a few years ago ...

A case where a few words can substitute for a picture.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: 93143 on 06/25/2013 02:00 am
Stand at the other end of the universe, at that distant moment in space and in the future, for a sec.  From that viewpoint, at some random point in time, a wave would be generated, moving backwards in time at -c, in order to conserve the momentum that I tweaked in firing up my ME thruster.

Not a random point in time.  The exact point in time that the retarded wave from the thruster's action reaches the matter "at the other end of the universe", which then generates the advanced wave in response.  Nothing has to know anything beforehand.

Quote
Woodward seems to be grasping at straws

This isn't even his idea, as I've said before - it's been used already in quantum mechanics, to explain "spooky action at a distance" that manifestly occurs in experiments.

Wavefunction collapse in quantum entanglement has been shown to happen much faster than lightspeed - at least four orders of magnitude faster, last I heard, which is probably a lower limit due to the precision of the measuring apparatus.  Clearly not everything that happens is limited by a naïve application of lightspeed propagation in forward time.

he can conserve energy by converting it into an equivalent forward momentum, less resistive and other losses.

You can't do that, because energy and momentum are not the same thing and are not mathematically interchangeable.  It is fundamentally impossible to define an equivalence.

No, without the interaction with the distant universe (which conserves both momentum and energy, separately), Woodward's got nothing.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/25/2013 02:14 am
Stand at the other end of the universe, at that distant moment in space and in the future, for a sec.  From that viewpoint, at some random point in time, a wave would be generated, moving backwards in time at -c, in order to conserve the momentum that I tweaked in firing up my ME thruster.

Not a random point in time.  The exact point in time that the retarded wave from the thruster's action reaches the matter "at the other end of the universe" that generates the advanced wave in response.  Nothing has to know anything beforehand.

Quote
Woodward seems to be grasping at straws

This isn't even his idea, as I've said before - it's been used already in quantum mechanics, to explain "spooky action at a distance" that manifestly occurs in experiments.

From the POV of the inhabitants of that distant time and place.  Without cause, seemingly at random, a retarded wave from the past would be there, and instantaneously an advanced wave would go back at -c.

It don't make sense.

When I said Woodward seems to be grasping at straws, you seem to misinterpret that as my saying that he invented the idea.  He is grasping at some other idea, the Feynman thingy, to support his contentions.  He suggests exchanging "spooky action at a distance" for "spooky action at some time in the future", in  a universe whose growth rate we still do not know.

I'm not sending in $10 bucks for a selfie in front of the thruster.  Not that he's asking.  Just saying.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: 93143 on 06/25/2013 06:02 am
From the POV of the inhabitants of that distant time and place.  Without cause, seemingly at random, a retarded wave from the past would be there, and instantaneously an advanced wave would go back at -c.

From the point of view of a mirror, without cause, seemingly at random, a retarded electromagnetic wave from the past would be there, and instantaneously another retarded wave would go back at c.

Okay, it's not a perfect analogy, but it seems that what you're really objecting to is the concept of an advanced wave.

And if the concept is valid in quantum electrodynamics, why shouldn't a little-studied branch of gravity physics exhibit similar behaviour?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/25/2013 01:14 pm
From the POV of the inhabitants of that distant time and place.  Without cause, seemingly at random, a retarded wave from the past would be there, and instantaneously an advanced wave would go back at -c.

From the point of view of a mirror, without cause, seemingly at random, a retarded electromagnetic wave from the past would be there, and instantaneously another retarded wave would go back at c.

Okay, it's not a perfect analogy, but it seems that what you're really objecting to is the concept of an advanced wave.

And if the concept is valid in quantum electrodynamics, why shouldn't a little-studied branch of gravity physics exhibit similar behaviour?

Running with the admittedly flawed but still somewhat useful mirror analogy:

Images appear in the mirror, seemingly at random and without cause.  The reverse of the vampire effect.  The work of the noted vampire scientist Bella Lugosi, posited that vampires do not leave images in mirrors in the causal light cone of the vampire.  The reverse effect would be a vampire appearing in the mirror with no vampire in the causal light cone of that mirror.

So yeah, I am objecting to the concept of an advanced wave.  It flies in the face of causality, and the arrow of time.

You ask, "if the concept is valid in quantum electrodynamics", why shouldn't a derivable concept apply to "gravity physics", and it's a fair question to ask, but it's not the right question, I think.  The pragmatic object is to remove the "if" from the equation.  Then and only then, are starships possible.

The claim that there are actually advanced waves from the future, penetrating our bodies every second is extraordinary enough to require the claimant to prove its existence, and not ask the questioner to prove its non-existance.

There's no such thing as an "advanced wave" which would interact with a starship carrying people, in such a way as to have pragmatic utility.

The device shown so far, does not give unambiguous evidence of the ability to convert electricity directly into forward momentum, at a useful efficiency, by taking advantage of a more detailed understanding of inertia.

As an aside, I have no problem with taxpayer dollars being used to research such possibilities in an appropriate fashion.  It seems certain that such research cannot take place on a desktop, but will require a facility at least as complex as the CERN facility.  At the current time, the physics community does not believe that this work on "retrocausality" and "advanced waves" has sufficient theoretical merit for such a funding level.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: cuddihy on 06/25/2013 06:25 pm
On causality:
The blanket rejection of retarded/advanced waves on the point of causality is a bit of a red herring, especially on the basis of a conception that isn't essential to the actual theory.

Within the confines of Woodward's conception of reaction-at-a-distance, there's not even a theoretical way for an observer in the future to directly generate a wave that will propagate backwards in time, no matter what the level of technology of the person in the future.

The advanced waves that would be required in order to cancel out the original retarded wave, for it to appear 'instantly', have to match the retarded wave --is produced via interaction with all the mass in the universe, not via local interactions with handy mass in the future. Additionally, to be self-consistent, any such attempt would also produce a reaction propagating into its own future and the consequent advanced wave that would cancel out the attempt to send a wave unbidden into the past.

On the other hand, if the conception is taken properly--as a conceptual device that helps our three dimensional brains in a one-way arrow of time comprehend how such effect could be consistent with the limitation on propagation of everything at the speed of light--it gets a lot less silly. The math works either way and doesn't require causality.

*update to clarify. What I'm trying to get at here is that the speed-of-light and arrow-of-time objections are red herrings because both objections are based on an implicit rejection of Mach's Principle, which is dishonest in an argument that starts from the assumption that Mach's Principle is valid.

If you accept the original assumption at the beginning of Mach's principle: i.e. that inertial forces are due to a [gravitation like] interaction between the object that is disturbed and the distribution of ALL the mass in the universe
*then the apparent instantaneity of reaction and interaction of all matter follow
*as does the relationship between phi and c.

How the gravitation like interaction occurs and propagates is in fact an aside to the actual question of whether or not it occurs at all

To return to the thread title, clearly the Woodward Effect, not the Mach Effect is the proper name, and yes, it is all about space flight.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: aceshigh on 06/25/2013 06:28 pm
how about multiverses to solve these questions? You can go back in time and kill your own father. So what? Its just one of an infinite number of branches of time. In an infinite number of them, you never came back in time. In others, you were not even born, simply because a different spermatozoa fecunded your mothers egg, so another person was born and that person became a dentists instead of someone travelling faster than light in a warp drive.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: cuddihy on 06/27/2013 05:30 am
how about multiverses to solve these questions? You can go back in time and kill your own father. So what? Its just one of an infinite number of branches of time. In an infinite number of them, you never came back in time. In others, you were not even born, simply because a different spermatozoa fecunded your mothers egg, so another person was born and that person became a dentists instead of someone travelling faster than light in a warp drive.

Interesting as a sci-fi concept but no relation whatsoever to the Woodward effect or to any other physical laws in this universe.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: cordwainer on 06/28/2013 03:55 am
Cuddihy is right I don't believe that Mach effect has anything to do with retro-causality. After all if you change the pressure of water in a pipe does that violate causality? When people talk about Mach effects of "spooky action a distance" it is usually better to visualize the Universe in terms of fluid dynamics and not our limited physical view of 4 dimensions which is only limited to what is within our physical ability to sense(whether with our own senses or with our devices). We can't sense dark energy/matter(at least not directly) or the Dirac seas but that doesn't mean they don't exist. That being said one could visualize quantum fluctuations as ripples of a past or future event in the Dirac seas. Whether a Mach effect thruster is utilizing the effects of those events on physical space time via their manifestation of energy as one of the 4 physical forces of the Standard Model(electromagnetism, gravity, nuclear forces) or if it is taking advantage of zero-point energy or space time curves in some way is irrelevant. What matters is whether the effect is quantifiable, measurable and can do useful work. We can figure out the exact reason why it works in due time.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: D_Dom on 06/28/2013 02:28 pm
... I will give you a hint.  The electrodynamic Hall thruster that is the M-E thruster's nearest conventional electric rocket analog has a maximum specific force of ~0.05 N/KWe with a specific impulse (Isp) of ~2,500 seconds dependent on anode voltage.  The M-E device I built back in 2003 not only had a specific force almost an order of magnitude larger than the best Hall thrusters, see below URL, its equivalent Isp based on energy flow into the device where mass = E/c^2 , yields an equivalent Isp of over 1x10^12 seconds.  Yes, a functional M-E based thruster matters and it could matter in a big way if we can perfect it.

http://www.busek.com/technologies__hall.htm

I believe that surpasses the goal of "quantifiable and measurable" work. The biggest problem seems to be repeatability. By that I mean overcoming the engineering challenge of building a device that operates reliably over time. That will be very useful indeed.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: cordwainer on 06/28/2013 07:56 pm
Well, repeatability may be an issue for other reasons as well. If the Mach effect is the result of some external force or "open system" then the amount of useful work might directly relate to the environment around it. Wind energy is inconstant, ancient mariners often found themselves at latitudes where wind and ocean currents were slow. If quantum fluctuations our inconstant and subject to a "doldrum" effect then calculating their actual specific force may be difficult.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: cordwainer on 06/29/2013 09:32 pm
One question? In more relatable layman's terms. When you say an ME thruster would have an order of magnitude greater than a Hall thruster you really mean that you would have the equivalent of a high efficiency MHD thruster that never needs fuel and needs very little maintenance, correct. You should be able to save mass in both fuel and in the size of any onboard power generator and theoretically you can accelerate for as long as you have a power source available(nuclear, solar) or a very long time. Question two? Would the time curve effect or mach effect provide a cumulative or multiplying kinetic effect. In other words would you draw more energy from the effect the longer you accelerate,(Like drawing energy from a steady wind or water current) after all the potential kinetic energy well could be nearly as infinite as the expansionary forces of the Universe.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: cuddihy on 07/15/2013 07:35 pm
One question? In more relatable layman's terms. When you say an ME thruster would have an order of magnitude greater than a Hall thruster you really mean that you would have the equivalent of a high efficiency MHD thruster that never needs fuel and needs very little maintenance, correct. You should be able to save mass in both fuel and in the size of any onboard power generator and theoretically you can accelerate for as long as you have a power source available(nuclear, solar) or a very long time.

Correct.

Quote
Question two? Would the time curve effect or mach effect provide a cumulative or multiplying kinetic effect. In other words would you draw more energy from the effect the longer you accelerate,(Like drawing energy from a steady wind or water current) after all the potential kinetic energy well could be nearly as infinite as the expansionary forces of the Universe.

For the mach effect, or more properly the Woodward effect, yes, theoretically, if you had a fully superconducting Woodward effect device, you could continuously increase your kinetic energy with no limit.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 07/15/2013 09:17 pm
On causality:

The blanket rejection of retarded/advanced waves on the point of causality is a bit of a red herring, especially on the basis of a conception that isn't essential to the actual theory.

Woodward brought up this particular red herring, in his book.  I would hope that he brought it up to shed light on his theory and explain it, not for other reasons.

Quote from: cuddihy
The advanced waves that would be required in order to cancel out the original retarded wave, for it to appear 'instantly', have to match the retarded wave --is produced via interaction with all the mass in the universe, not via local interactions with handy mass in the future. Additionally, to be self-consistent, any such attempt would also produce a reaction propagating into its own future and the consequent advanced wave that would cancel out the attempt to send a wave unbidden into the past.

You may think that this makes sense, but I do not. 

I'm driving my starship.  It is made out of "handy mass" in the local present.  As I travel left and right in my erratic trip thru the galaxy, these advance waves have to be there to meet me in, well, advance, somehow predicting my whimsical left and right turns.

It makes no sense.

Quote from: cuddihy
On the other hand, if the conception is taken properly--as a conceptual device that helps our three dimensional brains in a one-way arrow of time comprehend how such effect could be consistent with the limitation on propagation of everything at the speed of light--it gets a lot less silly. The math works either way and doesn't require causality.

Fine.  If all one is doing is playing around with "conceptual" math to no pragmatic purpose, then go for it.

Quote from: cuddihy
*update to clarify. What I'm trying to get at here is that the speed-of-light and arrow-of-time objections are red herrings because both objections are based on an implicit rejection of Mach's Principle, which is dishonest in an argument that starts from the assumption that Mach's Principle is valid.

Fine.  Have it your way.  Start from whatever assumption you wish.

Quote from: cuddihy
How the gravitation like interaction occurs and propagates is in fact an aside to the actual question of whether or not it occurs at all.

To return to the thread title, clearly the Woodward Effect, not the Mach Effect is the proper name, and yes, it is all about space flight.

Unless there is instantaneous action at a distance, with all the mass in the universe, no matter which direction your fancy takes you, no starships here, move along.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: cuddihy on 07/18/2013 05:49 am

Quote from: cuddihy
The advanced waves that would be required in order to cancel out the original retarded wave, for it to appear 'instantly', have to match the retarded wave -- is produced via interaction with all the mass in the universe, not via local interactions with handy mass in the future. Additionally, to be self-consistent, any such attempt would also produce a reaction propagating into its own future and the consequent advanced wave that would cancel out the attempt to send a wave unbidden into the past.

You may think that this makes sense, but I do not. 

I'm driving my starship.  It is made out of "handy mass" in the local present.  As I travel left and right in my erratic trip thru the galaxy, these advance waves have to be there to meet me in, well, advance, somehow predicting my whimsical left and right turns.

It makes no sense.

. . .<snip> . . .

Unless there is instantaneous action at a distance, with all the mass in the universe, no matter which direction your fancy takes you, no starships here, move along.

it makes no sense to you...

"somehow predicting my whimsical left and right turns" is not correct. Just because you can't personally travel into the future and then reflect back into the past doesn't mean a gravitational interaction can't, or more to the point that it perhaps must in order for inertia to be gravitationally derived. There is no prediction taking place, the GI interactions at light speed are going as far into the future as they are into the past. So it's not predicting where you're going to be -- the wave at time t0+time at->hubble limit at the very temporal edge of the interaction is propagating based on where you have already been at t0+1, t0+2, etc. The future does not have to be predetermined for this to work conceptually, gravity is not a chaotic system on the macro scale, and the fact that you're interacting with ALL the matter in the universe through all time makes that clear. The distribution of mass in the universe just has to keep relatively the same macro shape to return the correct reflection of the retarded wave.

"handy mass" in the local present is not the point either. It's the mass the advanced wave is interacting with in the future that the "no local handy mass" applies to.

The point is that you cannot even conceptually "design" a wave to go into the past at all, no matter how smart you are about it. You are bound by the shape and distribution of mass in the universe as it really is to only produce interactions that propagate forward & backwards in time like the GI interactions described. Trying to produce a non-cancelling wave in the future would be akin to trying to pull yourself off the ground by your shoelaces and holding it there.

There's no way to stand outside the system and interact within the system. Since the interaction is with ALL the mass in the universe over ALL time, it's not even possible to design an intertial force-producing interaction that does not have the appearance of instantaneity, except transiently...as the Woodward effect does!
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 07/18/2013 12:28 pm
Just because you can't personally travel into the future and then reflect back into the past doesn't mean a gravitational interaction can't, or more to the point that it perhaps must in order for inertia to be gravitationally derived.

Perhaps it must.

You are going to have to delete the "perhaps" from your sentence, and do so with demonstrable, independently repeatable proof.

Not me.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: cordwainer on 07/18/2013 08:25 pm
If the "Woodward effect"(still think it should be called Mach effect) is based on stochastic dynamics interpretation of space time curves, then wouldn't quantum fluctuations result as an interaction between masses as they curve the space around them or when two or more large masses interfere with each other gravitationally? Essentially or in a virtual sense, a mach effect thruster would simple make a craft fall faster towards an object than local gravity effects allow by "surfing" a trough of "zero point energy" created by a gravity waves propagation. Since gravity is either the product of a particle or the product of interactions between particles(Higg's Brane theory or Quantum Loop Gravity theory, take your pick) then gravity waves are constantly being created and propagated and cannot be thought of a single wave. That means that fluctuations and peaks in actual gravitational energy should appear, effects like a large potential gravity well, harmonic resonance created through interference of two waves etc. merely create the illusion of a physically constant gravitational pull. So in theory one should be able to make use of this rising and falling of gravitational energy in some way just not as a future wave bouncing back to the past. It's more like riding a wake board in a weak sea of currents and small troughs. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: cuddihy on 11/11/2013 03:25 am
I'm not sure how to fit these two ideas together. It's a lot of back and forth between the macro Mach effects and the quantum effects that occur at a very micro scale. It's part of what I've always been a bit confused about the quantum vacuum fluctuation effects that Dr. White proposes -- I don't really understand the connection between the two ideas. But then I've always had problems grasping how macro effects work on the quantum scale...
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: cuddihy on 12/03/2013 02:03 pm
Anyone heard any news lately from Woodward or Fearn's work?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: aceshigh on 12/04/2013 01:15 pm
news are quite scarce since Paul March started working with Dr Sonny White.

I think people who are in Dr Woodward´s mail list may have some news, but truth is that Dr Woodward seems to be in no rush to prove anything to anyone, and he is content with his slow paced self funded research.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: cuddihy on 12/16/2013 04:28 am
so on the causality front, at least as it relates to how we look at space-time, there's been some interesting news.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/12/amplituhedron-jewel-quantum-physics/2/

money quote:
Quote
Beyondial making calculations easier or possibly leading the way to quantum gravity, the discovery of the amplituhedron could cause an even more profound shift, Arkani-Hamed said. That is, giving up space and time as fundamental constituents of nature and figuring out how the Big Bang and cosmological evolution of the universe arose out of pure geometry.


Basically the amplituhedron research suggests that there really is nothing untoward about the (apparent) time-traveling nature of Mach Effect interactions. The geometry works regardless.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 12/16/2013 11:14 pm
From:

https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20130917-a-jewel-at-the-heart-of-quantum-physics/

Quote
Artist’s rendering of the amplituhedron, a newly discovered mathematical object resembling a multifaceted jewel in higher dimensions. Encoded in its volume are the most basic features of reality that can be calculated — the probabilities of outcomes of particle interactions.

The jewel is a mathematical object, not a thing.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 02/03/2014 02:53 pm
Jim Woodward gave an interview about Mach effect warp drives and stargates, for the TV series "Ancient Aliens".
The show aired on History Channel January 24, 2014.
The interesting 7 mn edit can be watched at http://vimeo.com/85105575
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Stormbringer on 02/05/2014 10:48 am
hey! the NIAC 2014 had a presentation on mach drives and mach related stuff :)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: xanmarus on 02/05/2014 11:04 am
hey! the NIAC 2014 had a presentation on mach drives and mach related stuff :)
Hmm, i don't see it in the shedule on http://www.livestream.com/niac2014
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Stormbringer on 02/05/2014 11:10 am
it was there the speaker just before lunch.

probably this:  11:30
Invited Speaker
Gary Hudson, Space Studies Institute
“A Matter of Some Gravity"

i didn't catch the very beginning. and i see no way to download it. i do have a desktop screen video grabber though. i may get it later.
 
ACK! Dr Winglee was also there and he did not speak about the M2P2. :(
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 02/05/2014 01:48 pm
Gary is a forum member here too.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: HMXHMX on 02/05/2014 05:04 pm
it was there the speaker just before lunch.

probably this:  11:30
Invited Speaker
Gary Hudson, Space Studies Institute
“A Matter of Some Gravity"

i didn't catch the very beginning. and i see no way to download it. i do have a desktop screen video grabber though. i may get it later.
 
ACK! Dr Winglee was also there and he did not speak about the M2P2. :(

I've been told you can view my talk here:

http://www.livestream.com/niac2014/video?clipId=pla_bd9c1386-03c5-4c18-8349-1fb8ce972be7&utm_source=lslibrary&utm_medium=ui-thumb

...starting at the 1 hr 4 min point.  I have not checked this out, though so can't confirm.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 02/05/2014 05:49 pm
I've been told you can view my talk here:
http://www.livestream.com/niac2014/video?clipId=pla_bd9c1386-03c5-4c18-8349-1fb8ce972be7&utm_source=lslibrary&utm_medium=ui-thumb
...starting at the 1 hr 4 min point.  I have not checked this out, though so can't confirm.
Yupp just checked, is there. :)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: D_Dom on 02/05/2014 06:33 pm
Now I know why "Space is hard", Nivens law. The perversity of the universe tends towards maximum.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: grondilu on 02/05/2014 08:27 pm
I think the John Cramer's talk mentioned in Hudson's presentation is this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZG1LK0KjKs

It's in the Q&A section, t=2403s
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 02/06/2014 05:47 pm
And the specific 15 mn edit from Gary Hudson's NIAC 2014 presentation about Mac Effect research (the Exotic Propulsion Initiative) is available on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8YyH4O5DVg
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: SteveKelsey on 02/07/2014 01:36 pm
Thank you for posting out-takes from the talks, it's great so see what was shared.

I hope you don't mind me asking a question about a problem that has been bugging me for some time. :o

I get the Mach principle and how it is applied. I understand the argument regarding the conservation of energy and it makes sense to me. I understand Dr Woodward’s  experimental methods.

I have the book and can’t find the answer there.

What is bugging me is how the results are presented.

I have included  a screen grab from the presentation at about 10.44. and a second image where I have used Photoshop to strip out the power and heat trace for clarity.
 

I am going to use the term ‘positive’ to apply to a trace moving towards the top of the graph, and ‘negative’ to a trace moving towards the bottom of the graph.

Looking at the (brown) thrust trace, as the power is applied there is an initial negative going spike . It's a little tricky to see as the positive ( blue ) power spike is co-incident in time with the negative going spike.

As the power reduces to zero there then follows a positive thrust spike of approximately the same size but with a fractionally longer duration compared to the negative thrust spike.

This is followed by a third negative going thrust spike of lower amplitude but  longer duration.

This pattern is more or less repeated  with the second pulse which I take as an indication this is a typical response.

What is not clear to me is how the net thrust signal is derived. Initially the first two thrust spikes look to me as if they cancel out, which leaves the third negative going spike as the net thrust.
But looking closer I am not so sure. If you sum the areas under the curves, which can only estimate from the graph, I am not sure how the net thrust is derived.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not looking to knock the research; I really want this approach to work.

Can someone who knows throw me a bone on how to read this properly?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: burnout002 on 02/07/2014 06:21 pm
in this video http://vimeo.com/85105575 woodward says we can build prototypes of stargates in a decade or 2,         
if he have a enough funding and resources. Why do we not spent all our money on this. That would be great. We     
can go to the stars in our lifetime.

Why doesn't nasa fund this project to build stargates ?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 02/07/2014 06:40 pm
in this video http://vimeo.com/85105575 woodward says we can build prototypes of stargates in a decade or 2,         
if he have a enough funding and resources. Why do we not spent all our money on this. That would be great. We     
can go to the stars in our lifetime.

Why doesn't nasa fund this project to build stargates ?
Because a lot of people are skeptical of Woodward's claims. It is not quite mainstream physics. If Woodward can proof his theory, then getting funding for this should be a lot easier. It is a bit of a chicken and egg problem. Woodward has very little funding for proofing his idea, but he cant get more funding until he has proven his idea.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: QuantumG on 02/07/2014 09:16 pm
Why doesn't nasa fund this project to build stargates ?

Welcome to the forum.

We can't even get NASA to talk about space settlement. Vast swaths of NASA don't even see it as their goal.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: 93143 on 02/07/2014 09:47 pm
Can someone who knows throw me a bone on how to read this properly?

Woodward isn't using a load cell; he has to measure the deflection of a torsion balance.  It seems to me that the observed behaviour is probably a mechanical resonance.  That is, the thrust pushes the balance out of position, and when it's turned off the balance behaves like the damped oscillator it is.  The transient behaviour of the Mach effect itself is pretty much totally undetectable below the kHz range, so that can't be it.  And it's noted in his book that the balance has a settling time "on the order of 5 s".

There's also the fact that switching transients have been observed to create larger thrusts than ordinary AC operation (since it's actually the time derivative of the power that matters in the impulse term of the Mach-effect equation), which may explain the excessive-looking amplitude of the peak occurring immediately after the device is turned off.

Don't quote me on this...
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: SteveKelsey on 02/07/2014 10:11 pm
Thanks for the reply!

I agree the waveform to the right of the major positive pulse  looks similar to a resonant decay. I had forgotten he was using a torsion balance.

I won't quote you though!
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: 93143 on 02/07/2014 10:15 pm
Why doesn't nasa fund this project to build stargates ?

They are funding Sonny White's "Q-thruster" project, which is [*cough*] related.  His lab is/was also attempting to generate and detect a small warp field...

But in general, it's correct to say that there isn't the necessary confidence in Woodward's work for image-conscious bureaucrats to pour serious money in quite yet.  It's not really novel physics as such, but it is at least a non-mainstream interpretation of existing physics, and so people tread carefully around it.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: HMXHMX on 02/07/2014 11:21 pm
Thank you for posting out-takes from the talks, it's great so see what was shared.

I hope you don't mind me asking a question about a problem that has been bugging me for some time. :o

I get the Mach principle and how it is applied. I understand the argument regarding the conservation of energy and it makes sense to me. I understand Dr Woodward’s  experimental methods.

I have the book and can’t find the answer there.

What is bugging me is how the results are presented.

I have included  a screen grab from the presentation at about 10.44. and a second image where I have used Photoshop to strip out the power and heat trace for clarity.
 

I am going to use the term ‘positive’ to apply to a trace moving towards the top of the graph, and ‘negative’ to a trace moving towards the bottom of the graph.

Looking at the (brown) thrust trace, as the power is applied there is an initial negative going spike . It's a little tricky to see as the positive ( blue ) power spike is co-incident in time with the negative going spike.

As the power reduces to zero there then follows a positive thrust spike of approximately the same size but with a fractionally longer duration compared to the negative thrust spike.

This is followed by a third negative going thrust spike of lower amplitude but  longer duration.

This pattern is more or less repeated  with the second pulse which I take as an indication this is a typical response.

What is not clear to me is how the net thrust signal is derived. Initially the first two thrust spikes look to me as if they cancel out, which leaves the third negative going spike as the net thrust.
But looking closer I am not so sure. If you sum the areas under the curves, which can only estimate from the graph, I am not sure how the net thrust is derived.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not looking to knock the research; I really want this approach to work.

Can someone who knows throw me a bone on how to read this properly?


I did ask Jim for his explanation, and he replied:

"The answer is fairly straight forward.  In addition to steady thrust once stable operating conditions are achieved, thrust switching transients are predicted as the mass fluctuation goes as dP/dt, not simply as the power.  These transients are often much larger than the steady thrust as dP/dt from switching can be much larger than the dP/dt of steady operation.  In fact, the data you chose to present shows nothing but switching transient thrusts.

When the power is switched on, there is a large negative going thrust spike that only persists for the one second powered interval, followed by a positive going spike which is a switching transient from turning off the power.  That is followed by nearly critically damped decay of the thrust transeints produced by switching the power.  The same pattern is repeated for the second powered interval.

Had the power been left on following either one second pulse, and conditions remained stable, the thrust would have swung to a positive value and remained steady for the duration of the application of power.  When the power is switched off, there would have been a positive going switching transient.  I note by the way that this only works for switched AC, as dP/dt integrated over a switched DC voltage is roughly zero.

I presented data at STAIF II last year, and Heidi at the IAC last fall, going into some detail on exactly this point.   Your questioner has good taste.  :-) "


One  of our ambitions is to build and power a larger device where the magnitude of the delivered thrust is unambiguously visible to the naked eye.  But that will likely require resources we don't currently enjoy.  See www.ssi.org to help.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Stormbringer on 02/08/2014 01:03 am
i don't know about the stargate. but i think Dr White's set up* could be crowd funded with ease. maybe woodward could run periodic crowd funding efforts if he isn't already.

*it looks for all the world like the test articles are made in some eccentric home experimenter's garage. i mean hand wound coils and capacitors likely wound on a homemade wooden jig? i could get the plans for that at rex research or information unlimited for pete's sake. not that that's a bad thing at all. I like the fact that it looks like it could have been built by "crazy uncle jay" in his garage as part of his free energy device he is about to become rich on. it's just the giggle factor comes in. :)

really if it's cheap and easy then it makes it likely thousands of people will try it with all the experimental variation and inventiveness that means.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: IslandPlaya on 02/08/2014 01:36 am
I really hope the Mach effect as explored by Woodward is true. However, I would expect DARPA and deeper black projects to be all over this.
If true I would expect a grand reveal a-la B2 with a floating drone at some point in the future...
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: 93143 on 02/08/2014 02:27 am
really if it's cheap and easy then it makes it likely thousands of people will try it with all the experimental variation and inventiveness that means.

Well...  it's cheap, yes, but not especially easy.  Lots of people have tried and failed, possibly because they tried to get "inventive".  Even Woodward has only been able to get consistent, repeatable results well above the noise floor relatively recently.

I really hope the Mach effect as explored by Woodward is true. However, I would expect DARPA and deeper black projects to be all over this.

According to both Woodward (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1461456223/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1461456223&linkCode=as2&tag=spacstudinst-20) (pg. 127) and Mahood (http://www.otherhand.org/home-page/physics/graduate-studies-in-physics-at-cal-state-university-fullerton/) ("Fun with the National Labs"), the Sandia/Oak Ridge folks behaved very oddly after testing the idea themselves...
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: SteveKelsey on 02/08/2014 02:27 pm
Thanks for that  HMXHMX and please pass on my thanks to Dr Woodward for taking the time to answer my question, I am sure he has better things to do  :)

I found his  JPC 2012 conference paper http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/JPC2012.pdf  and it contains examples of longer power durations of ten seconds which show  thrust traces of longer duration. The signal is a lot clearer than the one used in the NIAC 2014 presentation and the thrust signal is very obvious, it is shown reversed too!

You can still see the resonance decay from the torsion balance but it no longer dominates the signal.

I have added an image with the power and temperature traces removed using Photoshop below the original.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: HMXHMX on 02/08/2014 03:04 pm
Thanks for that  HMXHMX and please pass on my thanks to Dr Woodward for taking the time to answer my question, I am sure he has better things to do  :)

I found his  JPC 2012 conference paper http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/JPC2012.pdf  and it contains examples of longer power durations of ten seconds which show  thrust traces of longer duration. The signal is a lot clearer than the one used in the NIAC 2014 presentation and the thrust signal is very obvious, it is shown reversed too!

You can still see the resonance decay from the torsion balance but it no longer dominates the signal.

I have added an image with the power and temperature traces removed using Photoshop below the original.



I should also add it was I who selected the image used in the NIAC talk, from the same paper, so any confusion is my fault and not Professor Woodward's.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: cuddihy on 02/08/2014 06:06 pm
Thanks Mr Hudson for getting engaged in this! Most people are afraid to handle the topic fairly for fear they'll be laughed at. Best of luck with the SSI! BTW, is it a non-profit you can claim on tax as charity?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: HMXHMX on 02/08/2014 06:28 pm
Thanks Mr Hudson for getting engaged in this! Most people are afraid to handle the topic fairly for fear they'll be laughed at. Best of luck with the SSI! BTW, is it a non-profit you can claim on tax as charity?

SSI is a US 501(c)3, so donations are fully tax-deductible.  Essentially 100% of contributions go to SSI's exempt purpose; no one associated with it takes a salary.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: IslandPlaya on 02/09/2014 02:16 am
Any thrust obtained is game-changing and Nobel prize stuff..
What am I missing here?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Cinder on 02/09/2014 04:16 am
Unequivocal magnitude.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: IslandPlaya on 02/09/2014 04:57 am
Yes. Woodward reports a signal above the noise floor. How much above this would you consider unequivocal?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: 93143 on 02/09/2014 06:05 am
A lot of people find it difficult to completely trust a measurement that small (micronewtons) when such significant electromagnetic activity is present.  Woodward has been trying his best to eliminate potential sources of spurious thrust, but it's like LENR - you can't just show an effect that probably shouldn't have happened according to conventional theory; you have to show an effect that's large enough that it couldn't possibly have been due to conventional sources, because there could still be something you missed.

It helps to show specific agreement with your hypothesis that doesn't align with the conventional explanation.  Proper scaling of the effect with input parameters and quantitative agreement with theoretical predictions (both of which Woodward has apparently observed) would strengthen your claims, because they are unlikely to be the result of experimental error.  But when you're working this far out of the mainstream, people still tend to be suspicious.

EDIT:  I will not be adding back the contentious part of this post at this time.  Things have gotten plenty fun without additional fuel.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Cinder on 02/09/2014 07:19 am
people seem to be actively pessimistic about this stuff.  It's like they don't want it to be true.  The Morris-Thorne wormhole metric only got published by masquerading as a purely hypothetical pedagogical tool rather than a method for rapid starflight.  And people seem to respond the same way to Woodward's stuff, as though the mere fact that it could result in a really nice practical application or two means it can't be true.  (The argument that Woodward's work is untrustworthy because he himself is avowedly trying to create a space drive is somewhat more defensible, but still unscientific.)

Even stuff like hot fusion and Skylon get this - people artificially exaggerate the obstacles, perhaps because they think everything must have been tried already and have prematurely given up, and as I said before no one really likes to be proven wrong...
It's the same elsewhere.  E.G. extension of healthy life aka not-immortality..  It upsets people's conveniently settled moral foundations and outlook (e.g. "death trance", "illusion of control").  The mind bendingly vast possibilities beyond the little territory of beaten paths that homo sapiens c.2000 A.D. has fenced itself into, are just too much for most people -- they not only don't ponder them, they dismiss them outright.

Does this sound off-topic because outside of the scope of this discussion?  It's not: this is the reason there has not been the - by all accounts - small amount of $$$ it would take to once and for all rule out the effect, or prove its practical viability.  And that, even by mundane contemporary standards, is what keeps us from the proper scientific treatment that this conjecture deserves, and what potentially could right here (Earth; specifically the bottom of its gravity well) and now keep from our grasp the stars... Literally (!). 
Even the more modest projections of ME thrusters would open up the solar system, almost overnight(!).  The wormhole conjecture goes yet further up the scale of orders of magnitude.

That reason for this Space Flight calamity isn't rockety nor really sciency and definitely not particular to NASA, but it is one of, if not the main reason.  So I hope that satisfies the rules for staying on topic. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 02/09/2014 08:13 am
It's the same elsewhere.  E.G. extension of healthy life aka not-immortality..  It upsets people's conveniently settled moral foundations and outlook (e.g. "death trance", "illusion of control").  The mind bendingly vast possibilities beyond the little territory of beaten paths that homo sapiens c.2000 A.D. has fenced itself into, are just too much for most people -- they not only don't ponder them, they dismiss them outright.

That's awfully insulting to anyone who is skeptical.  You're claiming anyone who doesn't have your fringe beliefs holds those opinions because they are small minded and it upsets them to consider the possibility.

Have you considered the alternative -- that the skeptics have good reason to be skeptical and that it's the fringe theorists who are mistaken?

Those in the mainstream of scientific thought have been bringing us amazing leaps of technology year after year that continue to have huge effects in the real world for the last century and before.  Those with fringe anti-conventional-science views -- not so much.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: a_langwich on 02/09/2014 09:36 am
It's the same elsewhere.  E.G. extension of healthy life aka not-immortality..  It upsets people's conveniently settled moral foundations and outlook (e.g. "death trance", "illusion of control").  The mind bendingly vast possibilities beyond the little territory of beaten paths that homo sapiens c.2000 A.D. has fenced itself into, are just too much for most people -- they not only don't ponder them, they dismiss them outright.

That's awfully insulting to anyone who is skeptical.  You're claiming anyone who doesn't have your fringe beliefs holds those opinions because they are small minded and it upsets them to consider the possibility.

Have you considered the alternative -- that the skeptics have good reason to be skeptical and that it's the fringe theorists who are mistaken?

Agreed.  It's not that people don't want them to be true.  I think there's a Feynman quote about how you need to be extra-skeptical about the things you want to be true, because it's so easy to fool ourselves in those situations.

People don't "trust" micronewton forces when massive electromagnetic fields are present, because they are properly humble about the myriad ways those fields, or fly farts, or miniscule temperature variations, or sensor circuit noise, or too many other things to enumerate, can produce micronewton forces.  Not only that, but observing from a distance, there is certainly no way to know how rigorous a claimant is about designing and constructing a test environment, whether they are reporting things honestly and fully, or whether they are even capable of applying the necessary amount of skepticism to their own results or are they prone to wishful thinking and selective vision.

In this case, who needs to prejudge, other than a potential investor or grant selection committee?  Micronewtons will do nothing, so come back when the effect starts to produce results closer to the usable range:  that takes care of both proving/disproving, and scale-up difficulties.

Are you really upset about people "dismissing" their ideas, or about not giving them money, which is utterly different?

(I'm quite skeptical about life extension, but since it's off topic I'll stay focused for once.)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: MikeAtkinson on 02/09/2014 09:59 am
Proper scaling of the effect with input parameters and quantitative agreement with theoretical predictions (both of which Woodward has apparently observed) would strengthen your claims, because they are unlikely to be the result of experimental error. 

My understanding is that the experiments observe an effect much smaller (an order of magnitude?) than predicted. Have I got that wrong?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Cinder on 02/09/2014 10:18 am
That's awfully insulting to anyone who is skeptical.  You're claiming anyone who doesn't have your fringe beliefs holds those opinions because they are small minded and it upsets them to consider the possibility.
It's not insulting.  It's human nature to prefer static to perpetually fluid circumstances.. Look around you at just about anyone. I don't see why calling a human, human, is insulting.
And my beliefs aren't fringe but that's off topic.
Quote
Are you really upset about people "dismissing" their ideas, or about not giving them money, which is utterly different?
I'm not one bit upset.  Just puzzled by, very strictly, one aspect of it all:
Woodward/Mach Effect conjecture is fringe?  Conceded for argument's sake.  Does the signal look dubious? Debatable but IMHO it sure looks like either a bug to squash or yet another tool to add to space propulsion toolbox.  In former case we squelch a distraction, latter case we have at very least something on par with Hall Effect thrusters.  Really, skepticism needs to be balanced: not just skepticism of something so unexpected being real, but skepticism that a single lab (Woodward's since White's is reportedly something different) IE a single data point is supposed to be enough.
Quote
I think there's a Feynman quote about how you need to be extra-skeptical about the things you want to be true, because it's so easy to fool ourselves in those situations.
Just what about (for instance) Woodward's methodology is inadequate in this respect?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 02/09/2014 10:57 am
That's awfully insulting to anyone who is skeptical.  You're claiming anyone who doesn't have your fringe beliefs holds those opinions because they are small minded and it upsets them to consider the possibility.
It's not insulting.  It's human nature to prefer static to perpetually fluid circumstances.. Look around you at just about anyone. I don't see why calling a human, human, is insulting.
And my beliefs aren't fringe but that's off topic.

Just because you claim something is human nature doesn't mean it's not insulting.  Your claims about people who disagree with you, which you consider to be the vast majority of people, are not only insulting, but without any evidence to back them up.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: SteveKelsey on 02/09/2014 11:57 am
Unequivocal magnitude.

I agree this would be definitive.

There is a high bar for proof for proposals that fall outside the mainstream and there can be a cultural bias that has to be overcome. Skylon is a case in point. REL's Mark Hempsel stated very clearly in the presentation recently posted by t43562  in the Skylon thread  that  that the challenges that Skylon faces are manufacturing ones. There is nothing new about the technology employed, its making the critical components that requires new thinking and development. However, the Skylon SSTO claim is a big one, and it has attracted a lot of criticism. Some of it has been uninformed, some of it has been skepticism without logic.

A high degree of scepticism for a breakthrough is to be expected, but I would have thought scepticism has to be based on fact and logic to be valid and helpful.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 02/09/2014 01:28 pm
The path to increase power and thrust is still going on. For the past few years, Pr. Woodward tried to 1/ replicate the effect repeatedly, and 2/ eliminate any spurious cause for the measured thrust. It wasn't that easy but they now both seem to be quite mastered.

An important thing to note is the ceramic used in Mach-effect thruster test articles for years, PZT (lead zirconate titanate) could soon be replaced by another material, PMN (lead magnesium niobate). Yet it is extremely difficult to lay hands on any sample of this new and expensive high-k material. It's been more than one year that Pr. Woodward hunts for a small amount of raw PMN powder, contacting labs worldwide. Those act as if they were OK to sell finished products, but don't want to sell their raw material.

And after you get this, you have to carefully press and sinter this powder, trying your best to not contaminating it, building thin disks stacks for MET test articles. Once it's done, the electric circuit could be tuned to account for the different features exhibited by this material (it's more difficult to tune the circuit for PMN because it is electrostrictive, whereas PZT is piezoelectric) and finally you can increase the power and operating frequency. We'll then see if the thrust signatures are also increased or not.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: grondilu on 02/09/2014 04:37 pm
If his research depends on a material that takes years to obtain, then he's doing it wrong.

We want an experiment that would be reasonably easy to reproduce.

PS.  Well, unless of course the result he gets are spectacular enough to motivate others into overcoming the difficulties of getting the material.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: HMXHMX on 02/09/2014 04:55 pm
If his research depends on a material that takes years to obtain, then he's doing it wrong.

We want an experiment that would be reasonably easy to reproduce.

PS.  Well, unless of course the result he gets are spectacular enough to motivate others into overcoming the difficulties of getting the material.

You mean like U-235 or Pu?  Though I acknowledge your PS presumably covers that.  :)

Please understand we are doing science, not yet development, and with only two people, both part time.  Someone quoted Sagan's dictum about "extraordinary results require exceptional proof" so I'll add a line from Contact: "Small steps, Ellie, small steps."
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: MP99 on 02/09/2014 05:14 pm
A lot of people find it difficult to completely trust a measurement that small (micronewtons) when such significant electromagnetic activity is present.  Woodward has been trying his best to eliminate potential sources of spurious thrust, but it's like LENR - you can't just show an effect that probably shouldn't have happened according to conventional theory; you have to show an effect that's large enough that it couldn't possibly have been due to conventional sources, because there could still be something you missed.

It helps to show specific agreement with your hypothesis that doesn't align with the conventional explanation.  Proper scaling of the effect with input parameters and quantitative agreement with theoretical predictions (both of which Woodward has apparently observed) would strengthen your claims, because they are unlikely to be the result of experimental error.  But when you're working this far out of the mainstream, people still tend to be suspicious.

ISTM any electric or magnetic side effects would be interacting with ambient / external fields.

Have the external electric / magnetic fields been varied to confirm how / whether the observed effect varies?

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: HMXHMX on 02/09/2014 06:05 pm
I'm reposting this 2012 JPC paper to help answer questions related to exclusion of mundane effects.  It probably won't cover everyone's questions but it may help.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 02/09/2014 06:34 pm
An important thing to note is the ceramic used in Mach-effect thruster test articles for years, PZT (lead zirconate titanate) could soon be replaced by another material, PMN (lead magnesium niobate). Yet it is extremely difficult to lay hands on any sample of this new and expensive high-k material. It's been more than one year that Pr. Woodward hunts for a small amount of raw PMN powder, contacting labs worldwide. Those act as if they were OK to sell finished products, but don't want to sell their raw material.

And after you get this, you have to carefully press and sinter this powder, trying your best to not contaminating it, building thin disks stacks for MET test articles. Once it's done, the electric circuit could be tuned to account for the different features exhibited by this material (it's more difficult to tune the circuit for PMN because it is electrostrictive, whereas PZT is piezoelectric) and finally you can increase the power and operating frequency. We'll then see if the thrust signatures are also increased or not.
This part is really curious to me. So from what I understand it is both difficult to obtain raw materials and to make the test articles. So why not ask the labs that make the PMN to make the test article to Woodwards spec? Would the cost be too high? What sort of sums are we talking about here?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: gospacex on 02/09/2014 07:28 pm
It's the same elsewhere.  E.G. extension of healthy life aka not-immortality..  It upsets people's conveniently settled moral foundations and outlook (e.g. "death trance", "illusion of control").  The mind bendingly vast possibilities beyond the little territory of beaten paths that homo sapiens c.2000 A.D. has fenced itself into, are just too much for most people -- they not only don't ponder them, they dismiss them outright.

That's awfully insulting to anyone who is skeptical.  You're claiming anyone who doesn't have your fringe beliefs holds those opinions because they are small minded and it upsets them to consider the possibility.

Have you considered the alternative -- that the skeptics have good reason to be skeptical and that it's the fringe theorists who are mistaken?

There are good reasons to be skeptical.

One, sometimes people are self-deceived pursuing a scientific goal. They can be honestly thinking they are onto something, and they just need a bit better equipment to nail it down, while in reality it is just not there.

And second, sadly, history provides a long list of scammers of all sorts claiming that they invented an amazing machine which will provide infinite energy, or turn lead to gold, etc.
For each real unexpected discovery (such as, say, superconductivity) there were dozens of bogus "amazing discoveries".

Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: cuddihy on 02/09/2014 07:32 pm
Given the way the experiment is set up, external effects have to be pretty minimal. As 93143 said, however, the scale of the thrusts is so small in comparison to the amount of power that it's tough to eliminate other effects.

Thomas Mahood who had a big hand in the early experiments and articles himself said that it is worrying that as the experiment got more refined, the signal got smaller, not larger. But at the same time, it could just be that it's more complex what's going on in the device than what one would naively calculate from the basics of the impulse term equation.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: 93143 on 02/09/2014 08:42 pm
A high degree of scepticism for a breakthrough is to be expected, but I would have thought scepticism has to be based on fact and logic to be valid and helpful.

This.

First off, obviously there's nothing wrong with caution, especially by those involved.  If the Pons and Fleischmann mess taught us nothing else, it should have taught us that.

But there is something wrong with publicly denigrating something you aren't involved in without first learning enough about it to have an informed opinion.  That's not caution, and it's not proper skepticism in the philosophical sense; it's unjustified dismissiveness, which is at best unhelpful and can be counterproductive.

Also, there appears to be an endemic... pessimism, one might say, that reaches even into the ranks of people who really do know stuff.  Look at the wormhole example.  Why should you have to explicitly disavow the plausibility of the idea you're presenting in order to get it published?  There's certainly such a thing as the "giggle factor", but it's not a valid scientific criterion.

...

On second thought, I am not adding back the parts of my previous post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1158409#msg1158409) that I took out last night.  At this point I don't think it would help much.

Proper scaling of the effect with input parameters and quantitative agreement with theoretical predictions (both of which Woodward has apparently observed) would strengthen your claims, because they are unlikely to be the result of experimental error. 

My understanding is that the experiments observe an effect much smaller (an order of magnitude?) than predicted. Have I got that wrong?

The observed effect used to be multiple orders of magnitude smaller than predicted, and it got smaller as the experiment was refined.  But that thrust prediction was derived rather simplistically and wasn't really useful in a quantitative sense.

Recently, a more sophisticated theoretical prediction of the thrust was derived, and I believe the latest experiments consistently match it within an order of magnitude or so.  I was pretty sure I had run across a reference to an experiment that got 2-3 μN when the prediction was 3.2 μN, but I've had trouble finding it again...

The new prediction still makes a couple of somewhat unrealistic simplifying assumptions; Woodward figures that due to the specifics of the case they should more or less cancel each other out...
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: cuddihy on 02/10/2014 11:45 am
It's in the paper HMXHMX reposted above.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 02/10/2014 02:36 pm
This part is really curious to me. So from what I understand it is both difficult to obtain raw materials and to make the test articles. So why not ask the labs that make the PMN to make the test article to Woodwards spec? Would the cost be too high? What sort of sums are we talking about here?

Because the firms involved here build actuators only, and for themselves only. Completely different business, nevertheless suspicious of everyone else, because they think anyone interested in PMN could be a competitor.

Woodward usually needs 2mm thick disks to build his stacks. The only quote he managed to get by this time last year was about 10 times the price that it ought to be for a 10th of the powder volume he'd need… so the goal is trying to get more powder to press oneself later.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 02/10/2014 02:47 pm
This part is really curious to me. So from what I understand it is both difficult to obtain raw materials and to make the test articles. So why not ask the labs that make the PMN to make the test article to Woodwards spec? Would the cost be too high? What sort of sums are we talking about here?

Because the firms involved here build actuators only, and for themselves only. Completely different business, nevertheless suspicious of everyone else, because they think anyone interested in PMN could be a competitor.

Woodward usually needs 2mm thick disks to build his stacks. The only quote he managed to get by this time last year was about 10 times the price that it ought to be for a 10th of the powder volume he'd need… so the goal is trying to get more powder to press oneself later.
Sigh...
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: 93143 on 02/10/2014 08:59 pm
I was pretty sure I had run across a reference to an experiment that got 2-3 μN when the prediction was 3.2 μN, but I've had trouble finding it again...
It's in the paper HMXHMX reposted above.

So it is.  Excellent.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: cuddihy on 02/18/2014 02:12 pm
Brian Wang's site is relaying discovery of a high dielectric, high (77deg C) operating temperature superconductor.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/02/high-dielectric-constant-enables.html

So the next question for Mach Effect aficionados is, what are piezoelectric and electrostrictive constants for the material?

*corrected temp to Celcius
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: mheney on 02/18/2014 06:15 pm
Actually, it says 77C / 170F.  Which is even more impressive ...
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 02/18/2014 06:21 pm
The problem with Joes superconductors right now is volume fraction. He should put more effort into that.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/18/2014 06:58 pm
The mind bendingly vast possibilities beyond the little territory of beaten paths that homo sapiens c.2000 A.D. has fenced itself into, are just too much for most people -- they not only don't ponder them, they dismiss them outright.

I cannot handle this language.  If I have a two pack a day cigarette habit, then it can be credibly argued that I am "fencing" myself into a shortened lifespan.

Every last person who has lived, with a few "miraculous" exceptions, has died regardless of the healthiness of their lifestyle.  Anecdotally, almost everybody would prefer to live long and prosper.

Quote from: Cinder
Does this sound off-topic because outside of the scope of this discussion?  It's not: this is the reason there has not been the - by all accounts - small amount of $$$ it would take to once and for all rule out the effect, or prove its practical viability.

I get a fair amount of grief for voicing my hypothesis that in spite of the financial, technical and natural resources available, we have not yet established a lunar or martian colony using chemical rocketry, probably by governmental intention.  There are sound political reasons for discouraging the establishment of an off world government, which would be the only result of a successful colonization effort.

In the case of novel propulsive technologies, I would countenance some validity to your supposition that governmental financial support has not been forthcoming for these technologies, thereby hampering their development.  The researchers do not appear to be courting that money, however.  In this way, they are "fencing" themselves in.

Quote
Even the more modest projections of ME thrusters would open up the solar system...

I think the researchers in this area would do better to focus on pragmatic work such as this.  The talk of 'stargates', when the device cannot float above a table is worse than premature; it is counter productive.  No wonder there is so much skepticism.

Not only that, but observing from a distance, there is certainly no way to know how rigorous a claimant is about designing and constructing a test environment

It cannot be overlooked that some of the experimental setups look "for all the world like the test articles are made in some eccentric home experimenter's garage".  Goddard's first rocket experiments had this look, but they worked, and the scaling was "merely" a matter of engineering.

As to the materials, it seems that lead magnesium niobate is available for sale $321/25g, ships on 2/18/14:

http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/aldrich/672874?lang=en&region=US

I'm not in charge of pricing, BTW.  I'm pretty sure these people set the price for their product according to their own business model.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: D_Dom on 02/19/2014 02:20 pm
Nearly seven times the price of gold, wonder how much he needs.
 It remains to be seen how far terrestrial governments  will go in "discouraging the establishment of an off world government". I would guess some will stop at nothing. I am hoping that government "of, by and for the people" will prove to be more supportive of the colonization effort. All we really need to do is convince enough of the people.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/19/2014 06:43 pm
Nearly seven times the price of gold, wonder how much he needs.
 It remains to be seen how far terrestrial governments  will go in "discouraging the establishment of an off world government". I would guess some will stop at nothing. I am hoping that government "of, by and for the people" will prove to be more supportive of the colonization effort. All we really need to do is convince enough of the people.

Well, take a googol on the term "lead magnesium niobate for sale", and there are a number of providers.  If you think you can make the stuff cheaper, well, you know one person who'd be interested.  Everybody's gonna complain about your price tho.  Part of the capitalistic way, don'tcha know.

As to the convincing of the governed:  I share your desire generally, but the governed don't seem to.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: grondilu on 02/20/2014 04:09 am
Considerations on space colonization and alleged reluctance from governments to support it, are off-topic here, nevertheless I'd risk stating that the tough part in colonizing a celestial body is not much about getting there, but rather sustaining life there with non-prohibitive costs.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/20/2014 12:16 pm
Considerations on space colonization and alleged reluctance from governments to support it, are off-topic here, nevertheless I'd risk stating that the tough part in colonizing a celestial body is not much about getting there, but rather sustaining life there with non-prohibitive costs.

Pretty funny about that there "alleged" governmental reluctance.   But in general, I agree.  Perhaps there could be some discussion on the "allegedly", per the googol, widespread availability of PMN, and the "allegedly" free market forces which determine it's price.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Stormbringer on 02/28/2014 07:46 pm
i had an epiphany of good ol' fringey goodness thanks to those videos about Dr. Woodward's wormholes.

i hesitated to post it because it may not comport with this forum's editorial policy. but i'll give it a shot. lately there have been several articles on synthetic or emergent monopole like phenomenon in condensed matter and solid state physics.

in those articles a string or tube like topology can be treated for all intents and purposed as a magnetic monopole when the ends of the tube or filament has an isolated magnetic charge.

additionally i was thinking of the filament or tube like topologies involved in nuclear strong force binding and weak force mediated decay.

and i was also discussing Woodward, Mach and wormholes elsewhere and quantum back pressure came up in my mind in the normal senses of constraining (chronology preservation) traversible wormholes and then manipulating the size and position of worm hole apertures.  i was turning all these topics over in my mind and it just occurred to me that besides moving a wormhole and destroying a worm hole it could create a wormhole with the same properties as those emergent filament or tube monopoles. you should be able to create a wormhole with a discrete magnetic chage at the mouths via back pressure. and monopoles of various proposed species or classes have all sorts of science fiction-esque uses which you guys know but i probably shouldn't go into here.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Stormbringer on 02/28/2014 09:18 pm



(http://warriorfitness.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/confused.jpg)

not sure if that was a question or not so:

well the video Kramer's i think mentioned the issues with quantum back pressure on wormholes. it does some neat things but is most often invoked as a constraint at the least on what can be done with wormholes. in fact it is sometimes said by critics of traversible wormholes that if a quantum gravity theory emerges it must surely forbid traversible wormholes likely by unknown aspects of quantum back pressure to preserve chronology.

but since QG is not even a thing yet quantum back pressure thus far only constrains mucking about with worm holes it does not forbid it. Anyway when you send stuff through a worm hole quantum backpressure sets up a back reaction. so if you sent charged particles the end of the worm hole developes that charge. furthermore it's not just charge but all other properties including some surprising ones. amgnetic charge is not too surprising butt hings like  mass, inertia and momentum are. but via quantum back pressure you can alter a wormholes properties in a way that leads to being able to steer them, move them at will and perhaps enlarge them.

that's in the video too.

but if you have a tube or filament with a magnetic charge on one or both ends you have a de facto monopole. the end of the tube is a point like magnetic charge even if the other end has the opposite polarity charge.

over the past few years there have been at least two peer reviewed papers that claimed emergent monopoles in condensed matter physics and solid state physics. in one the monopole arose unexpectedly and in the other they tweaked their material to force monopole like properties and behavior. the experiments had two different set ups and particulars as well. so because of these prior art articles it appears that if  you have a tube with a magnetic charge on the end it is functionally the same as a monopole.

as there are several whole families of proposed monopoles and among them are the ends of a "froze out" cosmic string resulting in a permanent topological vacuum defect in space time this assertion seems to be acceptable.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: D_Dom on 02/28/2014 09:24 pm
two peer reviewed papers that claimed emergent monopoles in condensed matter physics and solid state physics.

Link?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Stormbringer on 02/28/2014 09:32 pm
two peer reviewed papers that claimed emergent monopoles in condensed matter physics and solid state physics.

Link?
yeah. I'll edit at least one of 'em in here as soon as a find them again :)

NM. here is one of them. still looking for the second.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140129164807.htm

edit actually that not it either the article in question should be at least 1 year probably 2 or three old. :(

I'll keep looking.

well i don't hink this type was one but it could be because it has the filament thing. but it does not look like the pictures i recall from when i read the article a few years ago.

http://phys.org/news/2010-10-scientists-capture-images-theoretically-magnetic.html

it may have been but i know the articles i looked at only one had to do with spin ice. but so far this comes closest: http://www.psi.ch/sls/ScienceResearch_HighlightsEN/moving_monopoles_01.pdf

because of the moving pictures and clear reference to a filament with  discrete magnetic charge on either end of opposite polarity.




Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Stormbringer on 03/07/2014 11:23 pm
OK; while researching Woodward and wormholes i ran into some of the relativistic and quantum restrictions on wormholes and i found something that appears to be a contradiction to some related articles i was reading. you know the articles that recently said gravity and entanglement require wormholes to work?

well that would mean a vast so as to be uncountable number of wormholes in close proximity. but one of the restrictions on wormholes that allow information or stuff through is that only one wormhole of can exist in the distance traversed by the wormhole. so if you had a wormhole between here and some place 1000 light years away no other worm hole could be opened within 1000 light years. if you did both would explode. in the Kramer video he and a questioner from the audience joked about it being a unique way to probe for alien civilizations.

but how does that square with the wormhole gravity and wormhole entanglement idea?

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Hanelyp on 03/09/2014 01:32 am
... but one of the restrictions on wormholes that allow information or stuff through is that only one wormhole of can exist in the distance traversed by the wormhole. ...
Sounds like you came across a garbled presentation of the chronology protection conjecture, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_protection_conjecture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_protection_conjecture)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Stormbringer on 03/09/2014 02:34 am

Sounds like you came across a garbled presentation of the chronology protection conjecture, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_protection_conjecture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_protection_conjecture)

i really doubt a professor emeritus of physics such as Kramer would have a garbled understanding of any relevant topic concerning what he was presenting. Nor was his interlocutor likely to have a garbled understanding of it since he was a physicist too and one of the physcists on the team consulted on what a wormhole would look like for Carl Sagan's Contact movie.  :)

I may have a garbled understanding of the topic. they likely don't. :) and i was basically relaying exactly what they said.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZG1LK0KjKs

EDIT:  its the first questioner from the audience itself. the one in the blue shirt at 30 minutes 34 seconds. it is chronology protection though. and he was not the physicist that was on Thorne's team for Sagan's movie; that was the 4th questioner at: 37 minutes and 5 seconds.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 03/09/2014 01:45 pm
... but one of the restrictions on wormholes that allow information or stuff through is that only one wormhole of can exist in the distance traversed by the wormhole. ...
Sounds like you came across a garbled presentation of the chronology protection conjecture, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_protection_conjecture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_protection_conjecture)

I wouldn't question Kramer's credentials.  But I would question the grammar of the clause, "only one wormhole of can exist".  Only one wormhole of what can exist?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Stormbringer on 03/09/2014 07:51 pm


I wouldn't question Kramer's credentials.  But I would question the grammar of the clause, "only one wormhole of can exist".  Only one wormhole of what can exist?

all of this over a typo left because i tried to remove a dependent clause i was not sure of?

the missing bit was going to speak of a wormhole of the opposite polarity. i dropped it because it the polarity isn't really the thrust anyway; it concerns allowing a second wormhole which would allow a causality violation by time travel into the past. and i was going by memory and i didn't trust my memory to get the facts straight but didn't want to go look it up at the time.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Hanelyp on 03/09/2014 10:18 pm
all of this over a typo left because i tried to remove a dependent clause i was not sure of?

the missing bit was going to speak of a wormhole of the opposite polarity. ...
In this case the dropped qualification makes a big difference, between no second wormhole allowed vs. no second wormhole if it has certain qualifications.

I have no idea who the people are who gave the presentation described, and assumed the description was accurate.  I've seen far too many presentations of science topics that make just that sort of goof.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 03/09/2014 10:33 pm
... But I would question the grammar of the clause, "only one wormhole of can exist".  Only one wormhole of what can exist?

all of this over a typo left because i tried to remove a dependent clause i was not sure of?

Say what you mean.  Just fix the typo and move on, instead of asserting somehow that the nonsensical sentence made sense.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Rocket Science on 03/09/2014 10:45 pm
... But I would question the grammar of the clause, "only one wormhole of can exist".  Only one wormhole of what can exist?

all of this over a typo left because i tried to remove a dependent clause i was not sure of?

Say what you mean.  Just fix the typo and move on, instead of asserting somehow that the nonsensical sentence made sense.
Ya just had to open "a can of wormholes"... ::)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: kch on 03/09/2014 11:13 pm
... But I would question the grammar of the clause, "only one wormhole of can exist".  Only one wormhole of what can exist?

all of this over a typo left because i tried to remove a dependent clause i was not sure of?

Say what you mean.  Just fix the typo and move on, instead of asserting somehow that the nonsensical sentence made sense.
Ya just had to open "a can of wormholes"... ::)

Looks like the catalog of astronomical objects just got a hole lot Messier ... ;)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Stormbringer on 03/10/2014 04:01 am
anyway; as i said i am not a physicist but i don't see how a wormhole network could cause a CTL that would cause a causality violation in the way that is commonly meant. firstly because the one wormhole only goes back in time to the point it was created.  and i would think that if you opened a second wormhole rather than going back through the one you arrived from (why even bother since the first one is perfectly serviceable?)  it would start and end later than the first wormhole anyway. you could not go back and tell someone about their future or interdict history with foreknowledge in any way.

in several proposals where time travel of various sorts was a side effect or a main effect (Ronald Mallet) the time travel only worked from the inception point of the wormhole or device (In Mallet's case) on into the future where it terminated operation.

I think that if you did create a CP violation (by arriving in the timeline with foreknowledge of future events from the point in the timeline you inserted yourself into) the change would occur in a parallel universe and not have any effect in the original time line anyway.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 03/10/2014 11:38 am
Looks like the catalog of astronomical objects just got a hole lot Messier ...

Whut?  You mean they haven't updated the catalog since 1771?  Sheesh.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: MP99 on 03/10/2014 06:58 pm
Brian Wang's site is relaying discovery of a high dielectric, high (77deg C) operating temperature superconductor.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/02/high-dielectric-constant-enables.html

77K doesn't sound very impress...

Wait, what?! 77oC! Holy moly!

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Hanelyp on 03/11/2014 07:30 pm
anyway; as i said i am not a physicist but i don't see how a wormhole network could cause a CTL that would cause a causality violation in the way that is commonly meant. firstly because the one wormhole only goes back in time to the point it was created.  and i would think that if you opened a second wormhole rather than going back through the one you arrived from (why even bother since the first one is perfectly serviceable?)  it would start and end later than the first wormhole anyway. you could not go back and tell someone about their future or interdict history with foreknowledge in any way.

Presume 2 wormholes going opposite directions, overlapping, each with one end time dilated relative to the other.  Enter wormhole A send from a distant star towards us.  At the other star enter wormhole B we sent that direction.  End up before you started.

Or take a single wormhole.  Hold one end still and time dilate the other into the future in a particle accelerator.

The chronology protection conjecture holds that you can't create such a configuration.  A wormhole will collapse at the threshold of a closed timelike curve.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Stormbringer on 03/11/2014 08:26 pm


Presume 2 wormholes going opposite directions, overlapping, each with one end time dilated relative to the other.  Enter wormhole A send from a distant star towards us.  At the other star enter wormhole B we sent that direction.  End up before you started.

Or take a single wormhole.  Hold one end still and time dilate the other into the future in a particle accelerator.

The chronology protection conjecture holds that you can't create such a configuration.  A wormhole will collapse at the threshold of a closed timelike curve.

well what about static wormholes after the worm hole has arrived at the distant station? there is a divergence of the time line of the near station and the far station if the wormhole traveled at relativistic speeds. and (according to Dr Kramer) you can go from the future (at the far station) back through the worm hole and to the original time the worm hole was started plus an interval of relativistic time as experienced when the wormhole was traveling (a few weeks.) that is still time travel but you cannot do anything to change the past that way because you always arrive after you left and of course after the wormhole was created.

but the freaky thing is the wormhole is fully useable (again according to Kramer) once the the amount of time the wormhole would experience in the accelerated reference frame (from time dilation) elapses even if you are in the stationary reference frame.  meaning it should take the wormhole 1200 years in his example to get to the distant star. but in a few weeks or months you can step through the wormhole and get to it's ultimate target even though according to time as experienced at the stationary end) the thing has 1,199 year left to even get to the far station. never mind that from the point of view of the near station the wormhole could meet with an accident or the machinery breakdown before the traveling wormhole end gets to the  destination which should take 1200 years. yet it is usable after the relativistic time lapse.

thanks for taking the time to try to explain it anyway. :)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: aceshigh on 07/24/2015 02:13 am
Hedi Fearns paper that is being presented at AIAA

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/280134421_New_Theoretical_Results_for_the_Mach_Effect_Thruster (http://www.researchgate.net/publication/280134421_New_Theoretical_Results_for_the_Mach_Effect_Thruster)




-----------------------

SpaceShow interview with Dr Woodward about Mach Effect
http://thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=2509

"We welcomed back Dr. Jim Woodward to the program to discuss the Mach Effect, Mach thrusters and drive, and breakthrough propulsion. During our discussion, Dr. Woodward mentioned his book, "Making Starships and Stargates which you can order at http://ssi.org/exotic-propulsion-initiative as this allows SSI to get a royalty payment on the sale of the book. If you buy the book through Amazon using TSS/OGLF portal, The Space Show gets a percentage of the sales price of the book. In addition, the Charles Platt article, "Strange thrust: the unproven science that could propel our children into space" can be found here: http://boingboing.net/2014/11/24/the-quest-for-a-reactionless-s.html. Finally, Dr. Woodward mentioned the paper written by Dr. Heidi Fearn, "New Theoretical Results for the Mach Effect Thruster." You can download this paper at http://www.researchgate.net/publication/280134421_New_Theoretical_Results_for_the_Mach_Effect_Thruster. Note that in the final minutes of our program, Dr. Woodward spoke very softly and we were unable to get some of what he said as part of his final comments. While the 1 hour 56 minute program was divided into two segments, this summary will be in one segment only and short as the papers above tell the story. I urge you to read them and become familiar with Dr. Woodward's work either before or after listening to this discussion which was at times very technical and heavy in the theoretical physics fields for gravitational forces, electromagnetic forces and more as he described the Mach Effect. In addition to the physics, since Dr. Woodward's work is dependent on funding so he spent a good amount of time in both segments answering questions and telling us what it was like trying to get funding, approved proposals, etc. for cutting edge work or even work considered to be out of the box or on the fringe. His realistic assessment of the challenges posed by his and similar work goes to the point of why we don't see more out of the box science & advanced projects being financed. In addition to the physics and funding discussions, we talked timelines for his having commercial uses for small Mach thrusters which would start off servicing satellites. This discussion covered both segments. Please post your comments/questions on TSS blog above. You can contact Dr. Woodward through me at [email protected] or his Cal State Fullerton website."
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Stormbringer on 07/24/2015 05:09 am
Thank you.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: HMXHMX on 07/24/2015 03:52 pm
Hedi Fearns paper that is being presented at AIAA

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/280134421_New_Theoretical_Results_for_the_Mach_Effect_Thruster (http://www.researchgate.net/publication/280134421_New_Theoretical_Results_for_the_Mach_Effect_Thruster)




-----------------------

SpaceShow interview with Dr Woodward about Mach Effect
http://thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=2509

"We welcomed back Dr. Jim Woodward to the program to discuss the Mach Effect, Mach thrusters and drive, and breakthrough propulsion. During our discussion, Dr. Woodward mentioned his book, "Making Starships and Stargates which you can order at http://ssi.org/exotic-propulsion-initiative as this allows SSI to get a royalty payment on the sale of the book. If you buy the book through Amazon using TSS/OGLF portal, The Space Show gets a percentage of the sales price of the book. In addition, the Charles Platt article, "Strange thrust: the unproven science that could propel our children into space" can be found here: http://boingboing.net/2014/11/24/the-quest-for-a-reactionless-s.html. Finally, Dr. Woodward mentioned the paper written by Dr. Heidi Fearn, "New Theoretical Results for the Mach Effect Thruster." You can download this paper at http://www.researchgate.net/publication/280134421_New_Theoretical_Results_for_the_Mach_Effect_Thruster. Note that in the final minutes of our program, Dr. Woodward spoke very softly and we were unable to get some of what he said as part of his final comments. While the 1 hour 56 minute program was divided into two segments, this summary will be in one segment only and short as the papers above tell the story. I urge you to read them and become familiar with Dr. Woodward's work either before or after listening to this discussion which was at times very technical and heavy in the theoretical physics fields for gravitational forces, electromagnetic forces and more as he described the Mach Effect. In addition to the physics, since Dr. Woodward's work is dependent on funding so he spent a good amount of time in both segments answering questions and telling us what it was like trying to get funding, approved proposals, etc. for cutting edge work or even work considered to be out of the box or on the fringe. His realistic assessment of the challenges posed by his and similar work goes to the point of why we don't see more out of the box science & advanced projects being financed. In addition to the physics and funding discussions, we talked timelines for his having commercial uses for small Mach thrusters which would start off servicing satellites. This discussion covered both segments. Please post your comments/questions on TSS blog above. You can contact Dr. Woodward through me at [email protected] or his Cal State Fullerton website."

The last two paragraphs are fairly important [my emphasis]:

"We have shown that by inclusion of the event horizon [14] as a natural cutoff, that the advanced
waves in the Hoyle-Narlikar (HN) theory no longer yield a divergent integral [17]. The event hori-
zon is a manifestation of the accelerating universe and was only recently discovered by Reiss [25].
Einstein understood Mach's principle, as a gravitational interaction between a test particle and the
rest of the mass-energy of the universe, to be of a radiative nature and to act instantaneously. This
is made possible if the gravitational interaction is carried by advanced waves as in the HN-theory.

"In summary we have shown the Woodward result [20] for mass fluctuations can be derived from
first principles from HN-theory. This is a generalization of Einstein's General Relativity to include
radiative effects and advanced waves. The advanced waves explain how momentum can be con-
served in our devices. Experimentally we have shown that the thrust produced by these devices is
not due to heating and it is not a Dean Drive type effect. The thrust is only seen in devices that
have the first and second harmonic frequencies in phase. Finally the thrust appears to be consistent
with a quartic power law for voltage, which is a signature of Mach effects."
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: aceshigh on 07/24/2015 05:40 pm
I am not familiar with HN Theory, so I googled it and one of the first hits was this

https://books.google.com.br/books?id=BGYcivB1EtMC&pg=PA64&lpg=PA64&dq=hn+theory&source=bl&ots=5FyhisGipj&sig=uG6dR2qTjB52btDbNGNP-dQmoSg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAWoVChMIwtS8s6f0xgIVSAuQCh1X5gKA#v=onepage&q=hn%20theory&f=false

3.6 Hoyle Narlike Theory

In the 6th line they mention Mach's Principle.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 07/24/2015 07:11 pm
its kinda sad that the EmDrive is sucking up most of the air. It is nice to see the theoretical picture of MET shaping up so nicely. Cant wait for the updated edition of Woodwards book. Wish there was some way we could speed up the tests on the new devices.

I must say though that I am a bit disappointed that there was no information about the new designs they plan on utilizing in their next test runs. Granted if I understand what Woodward was saying in the interview. They are waiting on the results of some computer modeling before they invest any time in manufacturing new designs. The only interesting information about what the new MET's would look like is that, It is Woodward's belief that they need to be smaller and placed in an array.


On a space applications note. if one were to assume that MET's can scale to be useful inspace propulsion for robotic and human missions. It occured to me that in all the sci-fi movies we have seen where their is some sort of exhaust coming out of the ship. You would instead have glowing radiators. The only thing I never liked about any of the more realistic depictions showing such radiators is that the reactor and radiators seem to be flimsily attached to the crew habitat. I get the motivation of putting the crew far away from the source of radioactive fission reactor. But considering that Space is already wickedly radioactive I think it is a little wierd to not assume that we would have come up with a better solution for shielding that would at least allow us to put the reactor and turbine closer to the hab in case the crew needs to fix something. The radiators can be off in the rear since the worst case scenario is they get punctured and it means that we would need to throttle down the reactor to account for the reduced cooling capacity.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tchernik on 07/26/2015 02:01 am
As per the reported thrust, Mach effect thrusters are still in the race with the Emdrive. These things having very low thrust is not such a big deal for space applications, if the thrust is real.

Wasn't it Paul March who believed they could be manifestations of a same phenomenon?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 07/26/2015 02:44 am
As per the reported thrust, Mach effect thrusters are still in the race with the Emdrive. These things having very low thrust is not such a big deal for space applications, if the thrust is real.

Wasn't it Paul March who believed they could be manifestations of a same phenomenon?

Agreed. I am not so worried about the scaling of MET's the theoretical work that woodward has done and headi is building on lays a pretty convincing argument that the only problem with scaling thrust will be one of material science. that is, fining materials that not only have a strong piezoelectric effect but also a strong electrorestrictive effect and also can last a long time.

As for the emDrive as far as I am concerned the most that I am ok agreeing on is that there is most likely a real effect. How that effect gets scaled up is an entirely different question. What I am secretly hoping for is that both work for different theoretical reasons.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: aceshigh on 07/28/2015 09:11 pm
Live Blogging of Heidi Fern's presentation on Mach Effect, by Dr Bagel Bites

36 minutes agoNext up, Mach Thruster with Heidi Fearn. /u/DrBagelBites
35 minutes agoThis is not a Dean drive, and it is not a thermal effect. /u/DrBagelBites
33 minutes agoBrass disk, pzt stack held togeether by stainless steel bolt with an aluminum cap. /u/DrBagelBites
33 minutes agoAll in a Faraday cage.  /u/DrBagelBites
32 minutes agoUsing what seems like a torsion balance. /u/DrBagelBites
31 minutes agoUSC/ARC style thrust balance.  /u/DrBagelBites
31 minutes agoTalking about calibration of device using the balance. /u/DrBagelBites
30 minutes agoFlexural bearings were used.  /u/DrBagelBites
29 minutes ago
Showing graph of newtons v frequency.
Turn on, the torsion balance "swings" for a moment and then "swings" back /u/DrBagelBites
28 minutes agoOverlaid temperature in previous graph. Increasing in time as expected. /u/DrBagelBites
25 minutes agoWhy is it not a Dean drive? Dean drive relies on a sort of "ratcheting" effect. /u/DrBagelBites
23 minutes agoLearned that as it heats up, the resonant frequency changes. So, they tested by sweeping through a frequency range between two straight pulses at a single frequency. /u/DrBagelBites
22 minutes agoData was averaged. Forward-reverse thrust in order to cancel out some extraneous data. /u/DrBagelBites
21 minutes agoTwo accelerometers in each stack. /u/DrBagelBites
20 minutes agoBit of a spike mid-sweep. Thrust is still in noise. /u/DrBagelBites
19 minutes agoAt 180 V, there were multiple transient effects. /u/DrBagelBites
18 minutes ago
At 220-230 V, nothing really happened.
Pulse is happening transiently.  /u/DrBagelBites
17 minutes agoShows temperature vs effect. Little to no correlation. So, temperature is not responsible. /u/DrBagelBites
14 minutes agoWhy did one device not show data and the other one did? V and V2 were in phase on the device with the effect. Not in phase on the other. /u/DrBagelBites
14 minutes agoAround 37 and 35 kHz /u/DrBagelBites
12 minutes agoDiscussing the Mach effect equation now. /u/DrBagelBites
12 minutes agoQuantifies the magnitude of the predicted mass fluctuations in accelerated objects. /u/DrBagelBites
11 minutes ago Plug for Making Starships and Stargates. /u/DrBagelBites
10 minutes ago Talking about Mach's Principle and action at a distance and cosmology. /u/DrBagelBites
9 minutes ago Take limit of smooth fluid approximation of the universe, and you get Einstein field equations. /u/DrBagelBites
8 minutes ago Mass equation from HN-theory.  /u/DrBagelBites
8 minutes ago Thrust vs. voltage. Not linear, not quadratic, not quite cubic, fits V4 /u/DrBagelBites

Presentation cut short. Room is absolutely at capacity. /u/DrBagelBites




Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 07/29/2015 01:33 am
Congrats to Heidi Fearn and James Woodward on finally publishing their paper.
This looks really promising and I hope it will finally get James work the popularity and funding that it needs.
Cudos to Gary Hudson and SSI for helping with the funding of this important research!
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: aceshigh on 09/05/2015 02:56 am
The Space Show radio program had an interview with Dr Heidi Fern, Mach Effect researcher...

http://thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=2545

"In the second segment, Robert Jacobson and I drove down to Cal St. Fullerton to see Dr. Woodward's lab and to talk with Dr. Heidi Fearn about their mach thruster work. The lab was very small & most the equipment was made by Dr. Woodward years ago. Heidi showed us a mach thruster and explained how to see the effect on the computer that measures the small amount of movement from the thruster. She explained it very well so while you won't be able to see what she is talking about, I believe you can easily follow along. We walked over to the vacuum cylinder which she explained, she then talked about the floating tables and why the need for them, plus we talked about scaling up mach thrusters. I asked her several questions about their out of the box work at Cal St. Fullerton, students, delivering papers, and her reception by her peers. You will find her responses to these questions to be very interesting. Later during the tour, she turned on the experiment and Robert and I could clearly see the computer recording the movement over the background noise. We have a cell phone picture of it which I will put on the blog for this show. Near the end of our 45 minute tour and discussion with Heidi, we asked her about funding and timelines. She suggested a timeline for going to Alpha Centauri which sounded way too soon to me but she explained why she thought it was plausible."

Dr. Heidi Fearn
Dr. Heidi Fearn is at California State University in Fullerton, CA. Her areas of special interest include Electromagnetism, Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics and Theoretical Physics. She works with Dr. Jim Woodward on research with Mach Thruster technology. You can see her most impressive CV with her list of publications and papers at http://physics.fullerton.edu/~heidi.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Stormbringer on 09/05/2015 04:27 pm
1:08~

Two independent replication efforts  have positive results and will publish soon. Researchers in Austria and Canada.

EDIT:  and she started the thing to demonstrate it to the interviewers. it is my understanding that they used to have an issue with burning the stacks out. I guess they no longer have that issue or else she would not waste a PZT stack on a demonstration for an interview.

the advanced and retarded waves theory have been successfully folded into Dr Woodwards older equations.

^1:17 or so

Hehehe: (Time travel) She's embarrassed by the connotations of advanced and retarded waves. and a bit uncertain.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star One on 09/05/2015 06:53 pm
Why does this get so little interest compared to the EM drive?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/05/2015 07:12 pm
Why does this get so little interest compared to the EM drive?

I guess because of two things:

- thrust magnitude vs background noise: The EmDrive has repeatedly reached several hundreds of millinewtons, while Woodward is stuck in the micronewton range. Even if he managed to carefully get rid of spurious effects and repeatedly showed thrust signatures above the noise, I think people are waiting for some clear scaling.

- Nobody in the scientific community paid attention to Shawyer's EmDrive for decades before the replication experiment done at NASA JSC by Eagleworks, which triggered the interest. Even the experiments done by NWPU in China didn't change anything before Eagleworks' results.

So it is a good think Woodward's METs are currently investigated by other scientists, with a peer-reviewed paper in the end. Let's hope it will also trigger the interest worldwide.

BTW what did Heidi Fearn say about "how to scale the thrust" in the future?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Stormbringer on 09/05/2015 07:41 pm
There is stuff about scaling prediction work towards the end from various angles. I didn't understand it on my first run through it because i am not where i can listen to it with my full attention. I think it had to do with checking various forms of scaling equations verses what their observed scaling is from the experimental data so far. Some of the perspective scaling equations hit it from a frequency perspective and others use different parameters.

i will try to listen to it again with peace and quiet and fewer distraction going on later.

its at the very end of the recording just before the bit about funding requests and contest entries like the break out prize thing.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: aceshigh on 09/06/2015 06:24 pm
Why does this get so little interest compared to the EM drive?

Not sure... participants in the EM Drive thread are discussing swimming in space without no new physics, and yet Dr Heidi Fern says in the interview that no new physics are used in Mach Effect... that the retarded waves from the future thing, which comply with conservation laws, are inn the cover of a Wheelers book...
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Stormbringer on 09/07/2015 12:59 am


We haven't found evidence of gravitons and relativity works without gravitons. Relativity was supposed to have Mach's principle folded into it but Einstein was forced to give up on that.

But i read about Zvi levi, Lance Dixon and the rest of that team's Sakurai prize winning work with amplitudes and unitarity Where Dr Dixon said this:

Quote
Along the way, Zvi, John Joseph and Henrik, thanks to the time-honored method of “just staring at” the loop integrand provided by unitarity, also stumbled on a new property of gauge theory amplitudes, which tightly couples them to gravity. They found that gauge theory amplitudes can be written in such a way that their kinematic part obeys relations that are structurally identical to the Jacobi identities known to fans of Lie algebras. This so-called color-kinematics duality, when achieved, leads to a simple “double copy” prescription for computing amplitudes in suitable theories of gravity: Take the gauge theory amplitude, remove the color factors and square the kinematic numerator factors. Crudely, a graviton looks very much like two gluons laid on top of each other. If you’ve ever looked at the Feynman rules for gravity, you’d be shocked that such a simple prescription could ever work, but it does.


http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/10/03/guest-post-lance-dixon-on-calculating-amplitudes/

So what if the gravity/inertia/mach's principle mechanism works on the strong force since at least superficially a graviton looks like two gluons on top of each other? what if it's not so superficial a resemblance?

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 09/07/2015 07:05 pm
Why does this get so little interest compared to the EM drive?

I guess because of two things:

- thrust magnitude vs background noise: The EmDrive has repeatedly reached several hundreds of millinewtons, while Woodward is stuck in the micronewton range. Even if he managed to carefully get rid of spurious effects and repeatedly showed thrust signatures above the noise, I think people are waiting for some clear scaling.

- Nobody in the scientific community paid attention to Shawyer's EmDrive for decades before the replication experiment done at NASA JSC by Eagleworks, which triggered the interest. Even the experiments done by NWPU in China didn't change anything before Eagleworks' results.

So it is a good think Woodward's METs are currently investigated by other scientists, with a peer-reviewed paper in the end. Let's hope it will also trigger the interest worldwide.

BTW what did Heidi Fearn say about "how to scale the thrust" in the future?

most of the scaling they talk about exploiting is frequency based. the problem is the frequency dependency in the equations is higher than the experimental results. Doesnt mean that there isnt a frequency dependence, Since they have done work showing that their is a clear frequency dependence. According to the woodward interview it looks like they plan on investing time in modeling to figure out a better design to do more scaling tests. They suspect that the frequency scaling is to the 3rd power of the frequency; where as the equations show a higher power for the frequency.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Stormbringer on 09/07/2015 07:50 pm
the equations may be wrong but it may be that the equations are right and thier design is not optimized and not tapping the full potential?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Mezzenile on 09/23/2015 01:48 pm
In his work James Woodward refers to the landmark paper of D. W. Sciama :"ON THE ORIGIN OF INERTIA" published in 1953 by the Royal Astronomical Society. In this paper Sciama constructs a tentative theory to account for the inertial properties of matter taking the Mach's principle as a guide.

The summary at the begining of this paper ends as follows :"The present theory is intended only as a model. A more complete, but necessarily more complicated theory will be described in another paper".

Does somebody know if this announced second paper on the subject of Inertia exists and how can it be retrieved ?

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/23/2015 04:06 pm
In his work James Woodward refers to the landmark paper of D. W. Sciama :"ON THE ORIGIN OF INERTIA" published in 1953 by the Royal Astronomical Society. In this paper Sciama constructs a tentative theory to account for the inertial properties of matter taking the Mach's principle as a guide.

The summary at the begginning of this paper ends as follows :"The present theory is intended only as a model. A more complete, but necessarily more complicated theory will be described in another paper".

Does somebody know if this announced second paper on the subject of Inertia exists and how can it be retrieved ?

Yes, see Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect#Gravity_origin_of_inertia):
"A formulation of Mach's principle was first proposed as a vector theory of gravity, modeled on Maxwell's formalism for electrodynamics, by Dennis Sciama in 1953, who then reformulated it in a tensor formalism equivalent to general relativity in 1964."

The first paper:
Sciama, D. W. (1953). "On the Origin of Inertia". Royal Astronomical Society 113: 34–42. doi:10.1093/mnras/113.1.34 (http://mnras.oxfordjournals.org/content/113/1/34)

The second, more refined paper:
Sciama, D.W. (1964). "The Physical Structure of General Relativity". Rev. Mod. Phys. 36 (1): 463–469. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.36.463 (http://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.36.463)

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Mezzenile on 09/23/2015 05:18 pm
Yes, see Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect#Gravity_origin_of_inertia):
"A formulation of Mach's principle was first proposed as a vector theory of gravity, modeled on Maxwell's formalism for electrodynamics, by Dennis Sciama in 1953, who then reformulated it in a tensor formalism equivalent to general relativity in 1964."

The first paper:
Sciama, D. W. (1953). "On the Origin of Inertia". Royal Astronomical Society 113: 34–42. doi:10.1093/mnras/113.1.34 (http://mnras.oxfordjournals.org/content/113/1/34)

The second, more refined paper:
Sciama, D.W. (1964). "The Physical Structure of General Relativity". Rev. Mod. Phys. 36 (1): 463–469. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.36.463 (http://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.36.463)

Thank you for the link.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 09/24/2015 08:19 am
I did my thesis on the nature of the magnetic field and we were trying to detect if it could rotate axially.  The idea was to take a solenoid and rotate it axially and imagine the magnetic field lines would rotate axially with it.   As a result by (v x B) of these rotating magnetic field lines an electric field should come off the solenoid with a 1/r^2 dependence.  We set up a capacitor and estimated what we should see.  The experiment was done with a permanent magnet and solenoid.  Both resulted in a negative indication of magnetic field line rotation.  After some investigation it became more obvious that the magnetic field shouldn't rotate but rather radiates to change orientation.  The nature of information is to radiate in a radial direction and if you look into the electric field of a charge moving in a circle, you will notice the electric field doesn't rotate with the charge.  The magnetic field being what describes the relativistic behavior of the electric field (Edward Purcell Electricity and Magnetism: electric field pancaking) it becomes obvious that the magnetic field of a charge also can't rotate but rather also radiates to change orientation. 

After this it became evident the speed limits in changes of the magnetic field (time retarded information) and that electromagnetic propulsion should be possible.  I began with a diagram of current in two wires and mapped out the time retarded behavior of two wires a distance of 1/4 lambda which had their currents 90 degrees out of phase and got a unidirectional force.  Later, it was realized a current flows because of charge separation and current flow induces charge separation so this was later included in the wire diagram.  A unidirectional force from the static charge was also found but appears to oppose the magnetic unidirectional force on the wires.  It turns out this dual wire diagram is a phased array antenna and indeed you do get propulsion even with the opposing forces (magnetic and static electric) which is photon propulsion.  Phased array antennas can direct radiation in desired directions just by modifying the phase of currents in straight antenna.  I latter stumbled across a patent, the EM drive and the Woodward effect which I highly suspect is connected to what I am dealing with.  No idea what is behind the EM drive but maybe they are connected. 

After watching the EM drive for a while it became evident of a way to cancel the opposing static electric force using resonating cavities.  That is if I take the antenna of the phased array antenna and loop it then for a standing wave I cancel the charge separation and only the magnetic force works.  This happens inside of a resonant cavity for transverse electric fields, one mode being TE011 for a cylindrical cavity.  Instead of energy alternating in the cavity between current and charge separation (magnetic and capacitance) you get energy alternating between current and light stored in the cavity (J and -dB/dt=light=curl E).  To excite this mode I suspect we would need an antenna inside the cavity shaped in the shape of the mode we want to excite.  That is the wire should be in the shape of the mode induced and 1/4 lambda from the inside plate for constructive interference of reflected energy.  I don't consider myself an expert in microwave engineering so remember that.  I am using my intuition but I know the electric field will be oriented in the direction of the wire and that will induce the currents in the cavity. 

The other issue is matching the frequency of two adjacent cavities.  For TE modes with no current flow from the flat circle plate to the side walls we don't have to worry about electrical connectivity of one of the end plates.  Changing the distance of an end plate changes the frequency in the cavity.  We can monitor the frequency in one cavity and match it with the other cavity.  We can then control the phase to the current by the phase of the injected radiation and also by increasing or decreasing the frequency of one cavity by moving the cavity plate then moving the plate back and leaving the light slightly out of phase  (probably easier to control the phase of the injected radiation).  Current in one cavity perceives the current in the lower cavity as repulsive (magnetic).  The cavity plates are separated by a distance of 1/4 lambda (wavelength).  Due to information delay of apparent current and the phase relation the current in the other cavity perceives its partner to be attractive.  So we have an asymmetry in force over complete cycles (see paper 1 for diagrams).  Essentially we are playing with time and space and taking advantage that the information can not travel beyond a speed limit of light.  Considering only the magnetic force is now pulling, we may get forces beyond photon propulsion and we may find out there is a connection to space time manipulation or gravitational in nature.  What is interesting about the dual cavity experiment proposed is that there might be no radiation (dynamic magnetic field -dB/dt) emitted as the radiation should be trapped inside the cavities. At the same time there isn't really a reason why the magnetic force between the cavities shouldn't be there as they should still observe the relativistic dipole distribution of current associated with the static magnetic field.  This static magnetic field should be observable outside a resonant cavity just by holding up a magnetic field sensor to the base.  A voltage should be observed to osculate at the frequency of the current in the cavity.  This is because the magnetic field sensor uses current in motion inside the sensor to sense the dipole redistribution of other currents (the magnetic field) (i.e. dipole electric fields and magnetic fields both decrease by 1/r^3) (see paper 1). 

I would like to propose this as a possible test of the Woodward effect if indeed it is just dealing with time retarded information.  Dual resonant cavities (paper 1) The file is attached below as "magnetic propulsion.pdf".  I think it has potential and appears simple enough to allow understanding of what is happening.  Power in simplicity.

There is a possibly related patent I mentioned earlier but does not deal with resonant cavities though should be possible with radio frequencies and dielectrics: http://goo.gl/khN10H (Edited link to be shorter.)

I also believe DavidWaite is also onto the same thing and you can see his video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqC3AVcuFaE
In his case he flips the solenoid and the static electric field so that they both provide propulsion in the same direction but I suspect in his case you are also dealing with emitted radiation.

If I had the money or connections I would be trying to develop this myself but I am not that fortunate and I don't want to see this possibility pass us by.  I'd at least like to make the connections to see if it will really work. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Stormbringer on 09/24/2015 01:15 pm
just curious have you seen the NBF article:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/08/theory-explaining-electromagnetic.html

it seems topical to your post.

also in away topical to Woodward's book where he is talking about electron modeling and the problems of eliminating divergences or infinities.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 09/24/2015 04:50 pm
just curious have you seen the NBF article:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/08/theory-explaining-electromagnetic.html

it seems topical to your post.

also in away topical to Woodward's book where he is talking about electron modeling and the problems of eliminating divergences or infinities.

I would imagine that is how radiation is contained in the cavity.  Currents in the cavity cancel the radiation from the injecting antenna.  Notice in the Anapole the currents in the toroid flow in the same direction as the outer torrid.  He mentions they are out of phase.  They are also separated by space so you have the space time relation ship of delayed information.  I would think the radiation emitted by each should have opposite electric polarization but overlapping.  You can imagine both types of radiation escaping through the cavity but effectively canceling each other out as they travel.  The distances of the currents in the anapole don't look exactly the same and symmetric but maybe it works for far field cancellation or the drawing is a bit off from the paper.  In our case with the cavity we are using transverse electric field where as the type they are using is transverse magnetic as you can tell from the circular magnetic field inside the toroid.  This configuration would lead to charge separation inside the cavity. 

Maybe the nucleus reacts in such a way as to emit radiation that cancels light emitted from the electron but I couldn't say for sure. 

I would think it more of a possibility for the atom that the electron is like a string that unravels it self around the atom.  The electron then encompassing the atom as a rotating symmetric string should then not emit radiation?  Just a guess on my part. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: aceshigh on 09/24/2015 10:30 pm
Dustinthewind, maybe you should try to join Woodward's mailing list?

I did my thesis on the nature of the magnetic field and we were trying to detect if it could rotate axially.  The idea was to take a solenoid and rotate it axially and imagine the magnetic field lines would rotate axially with it.   As a result by (v x B) of these rotating magnetic field lines an electric field should come off the solenoid with a 1/r^2 dependence.  We set up a capacitor and estimated what we should see.  The experiment was done with a permanent magnet and solenoid.  Both resulted in a negative indication of magnetic field line rotation.  After some investigation it became more obvious that the magnetic field shouldn't rotate but rather radiates to change orientation.  The nature of information is to radiate in a radial direction and if you look into the electric field of a charge moving in a circle, you will notice the electric field doesn't rotate with the charge.  The magnetic field being what describes the relativistic behavior of the electric field (Edward Purcell Electricity and Magnetism: electric field pancaking) it becomes obvious that the magnetic field of a charge also can't rotate but rather also radiates to change orientation. 

After this it became evident the speed limits in changes of the magnetic field (time retarded information) and that electromagnetic propulsion should be possible.  I began with a diagram of current in two wires and mapped out the time retarded behavior of two wires a distance of 1/4 lambda which had their currents 90 degrees out of phase and got a unidirectional force.  Later, it was realized a current flows because of charge separation and current flow induces charge separation so this was later included in the wire diagram.  A unidirectional force from the static charge was also found but appears to oppose the magnetic unidirectional force on the wires.  It turns out this dual wire diagram is a phased array antenna and indeed you do get propulsion even with the opposing forces (magnetic and static electric) which is photon propulsion.  Phased array antennas can direct radiation in desired directions just by modifying the phase of currents in straight antenna.  I latter stumbled across a patent, the EM drive and the Woodward effect which I highly suspect is connected to what I am dealing with.  No idea what is behind the EM drive but maybe they are connected. 

After watching the EM drive for a while it became evident of a way to cancel the opposing static electric force using resonating cavities.  That is if I take the antenna of the phased array antenna and loop it then for a standing wave I cancel the charge separation and only the magnetic force works.  This happens inside of a resonant cavity for transverse electric fields, one mode being TE011 for a cylindrical cavity.  Instead of energy alternating in the cavity between current and charge separation (magnetic and capacitance) you get energy alternating between current and light stored in the cavity (J and -dB/dt=light=curl E).  To excite this mode I suspect we would need an antenna inside the cavity shaped in the shape of the mode we want to excite.  That is the wire should be in the shape of the mode induced and 1/4 lambda from the inside plate for constructive interference of reflected energy.  I don't consider myself an expert in microwave engineering so remember that.  I am using my intuition but I know the electric field will be oriented in the direction of the wire and that will induce the currents in the cavity. 

The other issue is matching the frequency of two adjacent cavities.  For TE modes with no current flow from the flat circle plate to the side walls we don't have to worry about electrical connectivity of one of the end plates.  Changing the distance of an end plate changes the frequency in the cavity.  We can monitor the frequency in one cavity and match it with the other cavity.  We can then control the phase to the current by the phase of the injected radiation and also by increasing or decreasing the frequency of one cavity by moving the cavity plate then moving the plate back and leaving the light slightly out of phase  (probably easier to control the phase of the injected radiation).  Current in one cavity perceives the current in the lower cavity as repulsive (magnetic).  The cavity plates are separated by a distance of 1/4 lambda (wavelength).  Due to information delay of apparent current and the phase relation the current in the other cavity perceives its partner to be attractive.  So we have an asymmetry in force over complete cycles (see paper 1 for diagrams).  Essentially we are playing with time and space and taking advantage that the information can not travel beyond a speed limit of light.  Considering only the magnetic force is now pulling, we may get forces beyond photon propulsion and we may find out there is a connection to space time manipulation or gravitational in nature.  What is interesting about the dual cavity experiment proposed is that there might be no radiation (dynamic magnetic field -dB/dt) emitted as the radiation should be trapped inside the cavities. At the same time there isn't really a reason why the magnetic force between the cavities shouldn't be there as they should still observe the relativistic dipole distribution of current associated with the static magnetic field.  This static magnetic field should be observable outside a resonant cavity just by holding up a magnetic field sensor to the base.  A voltage should be observed to osculate at the frequency of the current in the cavity.  This is because the magnetic field sensor uses current in motion inside the sensor to sense the dipole redistribution of other currents (the magnetic field) (i.e. dipole electric fields and magnetic fields both decrease by 1/r^3) (see paper 1). 

I would like to propose this as a possible test of the Woodward effect if indeed it is just dealing with time retarded information.  Dual resonant cavities (paper 1) The file is attached below as "magnetic propulsion.pdf".  I think it has potential and appears simple enough to allow understanding of what is happening.  Power in simplicity.

There is a possibly related patent I mentioned earlier but does not deal with resonant cavities though should be possible with radio frequencies and dielectrics: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=4&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=electromagnetic.TI.&s2=propulsion.TI.&OS=TTL/electromagnetic+AND+TTL/propulsion&RS=TTL/electromagnetic+AND+TTL/propulsion

Please pardon the horribly long link. 

I also believe DavidWaite is also onto the same thing and you can see his video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqC3AVcuFaE
In his case he flips the solenoid and the static electric field so that they both provide propulsion in the same direction but I suspect in his case you are also dealing with emitted radiation.

If I had the money or connections I would be trying to develop this myself but I am not that fortunate and I don't want to see this possibility pass us by.  I'd at least like to make the connections to see if it will really work.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Cinder on 09/26/2015 09:50 pm

Please pardon the horribly long link. 
https://goo.gl/

Mods can delete this post once that's fixed...

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 09/29/2015 04:28 pm
Dustinthewind, maybe you should try to join Woodward's mailing list?


I contacted Woodward myself by e-mail and the impression I got is that he seemed discouraged anything greater than photon propulsion was possible unless gravity was involved.  In my case I would suspect that we might find that it is involved but I would have to probably solve some time dependent field solution of Einsteins field equations which include the electric and magnetic fields.  That would take some practice and research on my part.  One guy I suspect is good at Einsteins field equations relating to electricity and magnetism, and I tried contacting him about it, was WaiteDavidMSPhysics on youtube whose video i posted.  I am not sure he is interested.  I am not sure what Woodward thinks of the EM drives and the apparent forces they get from those yet.  Some of those forces I am sure are convection currents of course but there was one vacuum test by NASA. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Mach1 on 09/29/2015 07:26 pm
Dustinthewind, maybe you should try to join Woodward's mailing list?


I am not sure what Woodward thinks of the EM drives and the apparent forces they get from those yet.  Some of those forces I am sure are convection currents of course but there was one vacuum test by NASA.

Hi there.

This is my first post on this forum. Please bear with me, as I am a layman as far as physics is concerned, but a layman who has followed Woodward's work with interest for years.

With regards to your question in the post above, in his recent (as in a few months ago) interview with the Space Show, Woodward was asked about the EMdrive, and my understanding was that he was fairly dismissive of it, without being impolite.

He seems to be fairly sure that the EMdrive researchers are barking up the wrong tree, and that other than accidental Mach Effects that may be generated in their device, it will ultimately prove to be a futile endeavour.

At least, that was my take from listening to the interview.


Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/29/2015 07:45 pm
Let me summarize this, as I've read what Woodward thinks about the EmDrive: he does not believe that an EmDrive without a dielectric within can work at all; and while he thinks an EmDrive with an internal electrostrictive dielectric could work because of some Mach effect, he denies the reality of any quantum vacuum plasma-based propulsion.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: aceshigh on 09/30/2015 12:45 am
I was just going to tell DustInTheWind to listen to Woodward's interview on the Space Show, when I saw Mach1 post.


anyway, here are the links

James Woodward interview
http://thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=2509

Heidi Fern interview
http://thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=2545
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Mezzenile on 11/06/2015 04:39 am
Has James Woodward confirmed that after a sufficient time of operation, the acquired kinetic energy of his standalone device (observed from the initial referential) will overpass the total amount of energy used to operate it ?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 11/06/2015 09:34 pm
Has James Woodward confirmed that after a sufficient time of operation, the acquired cinetic energy of his standalone device (observed from the initial referential) will overpass the total amount of energy used to operate it ?

Not at all: Jim Woodward strongly says Mach Effect Thrusters do NOT violate energy and momentum conservation, and can't become overunity free-energy machines. Let me summarize this thought below.

The mistake starts noting that a steady input of power into an ideal Mach effect device should produce a steady thrust.  So the energy required to produce that thrust for some specified length of time is just the power times the length of time it is supplied.  Now, power is dE/dt, so this point of view amounts to the assertion that:

    dE/dt = K F                                                                (1)

where F is the force corresponding to the thrust and K is a constant of proportionality that we can set equal to one with suitable choice of units.  Notice that this relationship can be rearranged to:

    dE = F . dt                                                                 (2)

which, as a mechanical statement, is wrong.  The correct relationship between energy and force in a mechanical system is dE = F . ds

We set aside the fact that Equation (2) is wrong, for though it is mechanically incorrect, and even though proceed with this argument.

Consider the motion of a massive object to which this thruster is attached.  What is the equation of motion?  Newton's second law:  F = ma = m dv/dt.  We can rearrange the equation of motion to:

    dv = (F/m) . dt                                                         (3)

Note that Equation (3) can also be stated as dp = m dv = F . dt, the "impulse" version of the second law.  When F and m are constants, as they are in simple circumstances, Equation (3) can be integrated to:

    v = (F/m) t                                                               (4)

v and t in this equation are to be understood as the final minus initial velocity and final minus initial time.  That is, velocity is a steadily increasing (linear) function of elapsed time when a steady force accelerates an object.

Now some people state that the kinetic energy acquired by the body as it is accelerated is proportional to v^2.  Given the linear dependence of velocity and energy input to the thruster on time, and the fact that the kinetic energy of the body depends on the square of the velocity, thinking so would point out that eventually, no matter what the detailed conditions supposed are, the kinetic energy of the body must exceed the energy put into the thruster to produce the acceleration.  Therefore, you would argue that Mach effect thrusters violate energy conservation.  Then you would believe that you should reject Mach effects because of their alleged violation of a well-known conservation principle.

But this argument is wrong, and Woodward and others have tried to explain why. Others have tumbled to this flawed argument and tried to spread it as well.  Please note that this argument doesn't simply apply to Mach effect systems (of which you may be suspicious).

Consider a rocket motor attached to a rotor arm. (This example can be done with linear motion, but then you have to invoke a lot improbable ideal apparatus) Fuel is delivered to the motor through tubes in the rotor arm at a steady rate -- satisfying the condition of steadily delivered energy to the motor. The rotor is in a vacuum and the bearings are frictionless.  The motor fires and it is accelerated at a constant rate. (We're ignoring the vector properties of acceleration and velocity here, and the centripetal acceleration that keeps the motor from flying off in a straight line. The usual vector properties would obtain if we were doing the linear example.) The velocity of the motor increases as a linear function of time. The kinetic energy of the motor is (1/2) m v^2, so it increases as the square of the time, just as in the Mach thruster case.  Guess what? Eventually the kinetic energy of the motor exceeds the input energy in the fuel. Another violation of energy conservation!

Now, since that specious argument leads to energy conservation violations for both Mach systems and easily envisaged normal systems, it should be obvious that the problem is NOT that energy conservation is being violated.

The correct way to do the calculation is to consider very small increments of time -- increments so small that the kinetic energy acquired by the accelerating body in the interval remains a small fraction of the input energy.  One then sums the input and kinetic energies for the intervals over the duration of the application of the thrust. Since the kinetic energy never exceeds the input energy in any interval, the summed kinetic energy increments cannot exceed the input energy increment sum. No conservation violation. Reasonable physics.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Paul451 on 11/07/2015 01:46 am
The correct way to do the calculation is to consider very small increments of time -- increments so small that the kinetic energy acquired by the accelerating body in the interval remains a small fraction of the input energy.  One then sums the input and kinetic energies for the intervals over the duration of the application of the thrust. Since the kinetic energy never exceeds the input energy in any interval, the summed kinetic energy increments cannot exceed the input energy increment sum. No conservation violation. Reasonable physics.

Uh, no. If you use a consistent frame of reference, then the rate of change of velocity and rate of change of energy are instantaneous measures, not cumulative. At any velocity above 1/alpha - where alpha is the devices efficiency in newtons of thrust per watt of input power - increase in output energy exceeds rate of energy input. Your objection doesn't hold.

Similarly...

Consider a rocket motor attached to a rotor arm. [...] Fuel is delivered to the motor through tubes in the rotor arm at a steady rate [...]
Guess what? Eventually the kinetic energy of the motor exceeds the input energy in the fuel. Another violation of energy conservation!

No, the angular momentum of the fuel being fed through the arm needs to increase from zero at the hub, to r*m*v at the rocket - this creates a decelerating force on the arm that is also proportional to tangential velocity. The net energy output therefore never exceeds the energy content of the fuel.

This applies to all conventional systems, in different ways, there's always a second system you need to account for. A jet/prop interacts with the medium it's pushing against. A magnetic/electrical system interacting with a fixed field. Etc etc.

The only exception is a perfect photon drive. However the velocity above which a photon emitter gains energy faster than it consumes it is exactly 'c'.

With a reactionless thruster, such as an MET or EMDrive, the overunity velocity occurs at much more mundane speeds. At the oft quoted alpha of 4 newtons per kilowatt, the overunity velocity is just 250 m/s.

Now, since that specious argument leads to energy conservation violations for both Mach systems and easily envisaged normal systems, it should be obvious that the problem is NOT that energy conservation is being violated.

And since your argument was wrong... it should be obvious that... ?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: 93143 on 11/07/2015 04:44 am
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.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Mezzenile on 11/07/2015 06:12 am
Has James Woodward confirmed that after a sufficient time of operation, the acquired cinetic energy of his standalone device (observed from the initial referential) will overpass the total amount of energy used to operate it ?
Not at all: Jim Woodward strongly says Mach Effect Thrusters do NOT violate energy and momentum conservation, and can't become overunity free-energy machines. Let me summarize this thought below ...
Sorry but your main example of a conventional rotary thruster device does not resist to the analysis of Paul451. As Paul said, you have missed the point that energy is required to bring the propelant at the speed of the thruster nozzle before it can produce its thrust !

I raised this question on kinetic energy because I have not managed to find in Woodward papers any reference to this subject. For me this is a bit surprising ...

I know that the General Relativity of Einstein does not impose a conservation of energy at the level of the universe and has even great difficulty to define a local conservation of energy when gravitational tidal forces are acting. So I don't think that the Mach hypothesis is challenged by this phenomena. Simply  I was expecting Woodward to comment this rather amazing consequence of his Mach thruster discovery  !  :)
   
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Mezzenile on 11/07/2015 07:58 am
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

...
...

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.
Thank you for the links.  :)

Concerning energy and General Relativity there is a theorem which says that the total energy of an isolated system cannot be negative (theorem of the 80's). So this seems to bounds the amount of energy that can be radiated away in the form of gravitational radiation from any closed system. May be this can at least prevent our Mach thruster to pump an infinite energy from the remaining whole universe  by putting it in a state of more and more local negative energy  :).  But whatever, this let great margins to do very interesting things with the device of Woodward  !  ;)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: 93143 on 11/07/2015 08:11 am
Just to be extra clear (since some people have trouble with this sort of thing), this all depends on the M-E thruster actually working as claimed, which as far as I know does not yet appear to be beyond reasonable doubt.

If it does work, yes, it'll be great.

Also, please note that since the thruster is supposed to be interacting with the distant universe via gravinertial transactional radiation, it is not an isolated system...
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Mezzenile on 11/07/2015 08:27 am
Just to be extra clear (since some people have trouble with this sort of thing), this all depends on the M-E thruster actually working as claimed, which as far as I know does not yet appear to be beyond reasonable doubt.

If it does work, yes, it'll be great.

Also, please note that since the thruster is supposed to be interacting with the distant universe via gravinertial transactional radiation, it is not an isolated system...

You right, it should be made clear what is the definition of an isolated system in the theorem I refer to,  as in term of Machian gravitation, at soon as an object is accelerated it seems to interact with the whole causally connected universe.

I imagine also that the energy transfer from the Universe to a Mach thruster must have an impact on the entropy side and so have thermodynamic consequences. Here also I imagine that Woodward has something to talk about ...
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Paul451 on 11/07/2015 08:53 am
Also, please note that since the thruster is supposed to be interacting with the distant universe via gravinertial transactional radiation, it is not an isolated system...

Too much of a handwave explanation. Similar to Shawyer objecting to the people calling his device "reactionless" because he put a second arrow on his diagram labelled "reaction".
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: 93143 on 11/07/2015 08:01 pm
The whole point of this device is that it works because Mach's Principle is true.

And if Mach's Principle is true (as suggested by the correspondence between the theoretical requirements and recent cosmological measurements), then it's not just M-E thrusters that work via interaction with the distant universe - it's inertia itself.

The mechanism has been described as quadrupole gravity radiation generated by the system consisting of the object in question and the rest of the causally-connected universe.  The transactional bit might have been a bit of a handwave (though it made sense and had a theoretical precedent), but apparently Hoyle-Narlikar gravity (slightly modified to harmonize it with modern cosmology) explicitly describes this mechanism.  So there is a theoretical basis.

This is not at all like drawing an extra arrow on a free body diagram to obscure the fact that your idea violates Newton's Third Law.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Katana on 11/08/2015 02:42 pm
Breaking basic physical laws should be a topic of theoretical physics instead of aerospace engineering.

Have anybody asked relevent questions to Stephen Hawking?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 11/08/2015 08:35 pm
Breaking basic physical laws should be a topic of theoretical physics instead of aerospace engineering.

Have anybody asked relevent questions to Stephen Hawking?

Have you done your homework and reviewed all of the published papers from Woodward, and more recently heidi fearn?

[edited]

I am not trying to be confrontational. But unlike the EmDrive Woodwards Mach Effect is being developed by people who do theoretical physics, from my perspective. assuming you havent been aware of the latest published papers I would refer you to the following link. You can follow the references to get an understanding of the theory behind the effect they are observing in experiments.

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/280134421_New_Theoretical_Results_for_the_Mach_Effect_Thruster (http://www.researchgate.net/publication/280134421_New_Theoretical_Results_for_the_Mach_Effect_Thruster)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 11/08/2015 11:24 pm
Theory of a Mach Ef ect Thruster 2 is now out published in Journal of Modern Physics just like Part 1

Theory of a Mach Effect Thruster I (http://file.scirp.org/Html/8-7502397_59659.htm)

Theory of a Mach Effect Thruster II (http://file.scirp.org/Html/15-7502411_60696.htm)

from my first read it looks...

1. Woodward and Fearn now have a derivation of Woodward's force equation which he derived from GR equations using HN Theory.
a. Also derived the mass fluctuation equations from HN-Theory and transformed it to be more engineer friendly

2. Also seem to have a better justification for why the scaling will be w^3/w^4 instead of w^6. Compared to the gut feeling expectation discussed in Part 1

3. Also have a much clearer explaination for not only how the mass fluctuations manifest but how it is rectifed into a consistent force. Along with the requirements for making it happen.(Definately get the impression that they now have not only the theory down but also the engineering paramters).

4. Also included in their conclusion is that there are two successful replications. One is from Nembo Baldrin in Austria and the other is from someone in Canada. From what I can tell in the paper both replicators used MET's built by James Woodward, Headi Fearn, and Keith Watsner (JFW)

[edit]
I made a mistake I originally thought part 1 was the paper headi presented at the AIAA conference earlier this year. Where as Part 1 is beginning of what she promised at the end of her AIAA paper which is a complete derivation of Mach effects from HN Theory.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 11/09/2015 04:26 am
Theory of a Mach Ef ect Thruster 2 is now out published in Journal of Modern Physics just like Part 1

The Journal of Modern Physics is not a peer-review publication.  It is one of 244 publications of SCRIP, a company that makes money by charging people to publish their articles and publishing anything that an author will pay them to publish.  It's based in Wuhan, China.  In 2012, it accepted for publication a math paper generated by a random text generator (though the paper wasn't actually published because the author refused to pay the fee to have to published).

In other words, having a paper published in any SCRIP publication is meaningless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Research_Publishing#Controversies
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 11/09/2015 02:28 pm
Theory of a Mach Ef ect Thruster 2 is now out published in Journal of Modern Physics just like Part 1

The Journal of Modern Physics is not a peer-review publication.  It is one of 244 publications of SCRIP, a company that makes money by charging people to publish their articles and publishing anything that an author will pay them to publish.  It's based in Wuhan, China.  In 2012, it accepted for publication a math paper generated by a random text generator (though the paper wasn't actually published because the author refused to pay the fee to have to published).

In other words, having a paper published in any SCRIP publication is meaningless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Research_Publishing#Controversies

So first off no where in my comment did I claim that the journal the papers were published on were peer-reviewed. I included the name of the journal along with links to the papers to be helpful to all concerned parties.

That said, the fact that both of these papers are published in the Journal of Modern Physics is not meaningless. Maybe the journal doesn't carry the arbitrarily defined importance as other Journals. But from my perspective given the topic being discussed in this thread the importance factor of a journal isnt that important, at least to me. What is important is Woodward, and Fearn publicly publishing a theory of operation for their proposed Mach Effect Thruster. Their work is by no means complete as they really do need to begin showing more data points in their thrust prediction and scaling.

Given their efforts to build a space drive. I doubt any one will accept their work completely without them being able to show that their experiments match their theoretical predictions and they are able to either scale the output of a single MET to ION thruster levels or  build an array that shows thrust in the ION Thruster range.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Mezzenile on 11/09/2015 02:29 pm

You right, it should be made clear what is the definition of an isolated system in the theorem I refer to,  as in term of Machian gravitation, at soon as an object is accelerated it seems to interact with the whole universe.
 ...
In fact I have found in the litterature that in General Relativity an isolated system is asymptotically flat and that it has a Minkowski geometry in its asymptotic region.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Mezzenile on 11/09/2015 03:21 pm
Breaking basic physical laws should be a topic of theoretical physics instead of aerospace engineering.

Have anybody asked relevent questions to Stephen Hawking
?

Stephen Hawking is not at all the right person to ask question about Transactional Physics !
In his young age he refused the proposition made to him by D. Sciama to work on this subject. He computed that the advanced field would have infinite energy due to the blue shift divergence caused by the universe expansion and that was sufficient for him to disqualify the proposal of Sciama.
As Stephen Hawking has a natural tendency to have a big ... big Ego, he could not imagine he had not seen everything of Sciama's idea. In fact his computation was false in the case of the actual accelerating expansion of our universe.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 11/09/2015 03:53 pm
...
 In fact his computation was false in the case of the actual accelerating expansion of our universe.

Which is the point raised in

Theory of Mach Effect Thruster I (http://file.scirp.org/Html/8-7502397_59659.htm)

that allows them to claim that Energy and Momentum are conserved with the usage of a MET.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Mezzenile on 11/09/2015 03:58 pm
In other words, having a paper published in any SCRIP publication is meaningless.
One of the poorest rationale I have ever read on this forum. When the honest work of thought is replaced by some bureaucratic mechanism of the mind...  >:(
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Mezzenile on 11/09/2015 04:17 pm
...
 In fact his computation was false in the case of the actual accelerating expansion of our universe.

Which is the point raised in

Theory of Mach Effect Thruster I (http://file.scirp.org/Html/8-7502397_59659.htm)

that allows them to claim that Energy and Momentum are conserved with the usage of a MET.
So Woodward was more than right not to ask any permission of thinking to Hawking !!  ;) True discoveries are made by people who believe in their own lights.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 11/09/2015 04:35 pm
...
 In fact his computation was false in the case of the actual accelerating expansion of our universe.

Which is the point raised in

Theory of Mach Effect Thruster I (http://file.scirp.org/Html/8-7502397_59659.htm)

that allows them to claim that Energy and Momentum are conserved with the usage of a MET.
So Woodward was more than right not to ask any permission of thinking to Hawking !!  ;) True discoveries are made by people who believe in their own lights.

Agreed, but I think the main reason Woodward may turn out to be right is because his history background has given him alot of context that I dont think alot of physicists have. I think the only reason he persevered was because he knew that Einstein supported a machian description of inertia. Unfortunately it looks like what Einstein didnt have is a way to explain the instantaenous communication of local matter with matter far away. Hoyle and Narlikar built such a theory leveraging advanced/retarded waves but without knowledge of accelerating expansion of the universe couldnt prove it would work.

Now while JFW (James, Fearn, Watsner) work on getting more data to support their force predictions from their theory. I would love to see some meaningful attempts to disprove it.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: aceshigh on 11/09/2015 04:58 pm
it´s important to note that Woodward didn´t got his PhD with something like "History of Barbarian Invasions of Ancient Rome"...

it was History of PHYSICS.

History yes, but totally related to physics.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: synchrotron on 11/09/2015 05:04 pm
In other words, having a paper published in any SCRIP publication is meaningless.
One of the poorest rationale I have ever read on this forum. When the honest work of thought is replaced by some bureaucratic mechanism of the mind...  >:(

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”  ― Isaac Asimov

Peer review is the gold standard, baby.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Mezzenile on 11/09/2015 05:22 pm
Peer review is the gold standard, baby.
I am afraid there is little hope for your case : you seem to have chosen to turn in round forever !  ;) ;)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 11/09/2015 06:24 pm
it´s important to note that Woodward didn´t got his PhD with something like "History of Barbarian Invasions of Ancient Rome"...

it was History of PHYSICS.

History yes, but totally related to physics.

LOL, my bad. I should have been much clearer on that.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 11/09/2015 06:33 pm
In other words, having a paper published in any SCRIP publication is meaningless.
One of the poorest rationale I have ever read on this forum. When the honest work of thought is replaced by some bureaucratic mechanism of the mind...  >:(

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”  ― Isaac Asimov

Peer review is the gold standard, baby.

I don't think anyone here disagree's that the work Jim and Heidi are doing requires peer-review. What I believe there is disagreement on is whether or not it makes sense to publish anything if it is not in a mainstream accepted journal. From my perspective I would say where you publish is less consequential than the fact that you actually put in the effort to document your theories, experimental results and lobby other scientists to review them and provide replications of your experiments; even if those replications are negative.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 11/10/2015 04:07 am

You right, it should be made clear what is the definition of an isolated system in the theorem I refer to,  as in term of Machian gravitation, at soon as an object is accelerated it seems to interact with the whole universe.
 ...
In fact I have found in the litterature that in General Relativity an isolated system is asymptotically flat and that it has a Minkowski geometry in its asymptotic region.

I just noticed the quote in bold and underlined which I have to disagree with.  The suggestion that an object accelerated then interacts with the while universe (maybe I am mistaken here) but it seems to smack of instantaneous information transfer.  Maybe if the quote is saying, "it interacts with the delayed information with the rest of the universe", but then again what doesn't?  In a sense every system is isolated for an instant in time before its information can propagate.  Electrodynamics is all about delayed information.  That is what light is all about.  It is a time delayed propagation of change in the magnetic field of an accelerating charge.  With out that delay, we wouldn't have light.  That time retarded information isn't a disadvantage but rather an advantage, and can be used as a form of propulsion.  Normally for every force there is an equal and opposite force as given by Newton's 3rd law but with delayed information we can flip that on its head (although it requires fairly high frequencies to achieve small distances).  I am pretty sure I have figured out how to induce propulsion greater than photon forces as it was related to my thesis but only an actual test will show it to be true.  Unfortunately life would have me currently be ridiculously broke even though I put forth a good effort.  Hope things change. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Mezzenile on 11/10/2015 07:49 am

You right, it should be made clear what is the definition of an isolated system in the theorem I refer to,  as in term of Machian gravitation, at soon as an object is accelerated it seems to interact with the whole universe.
 ...
In fact I have found in the litterature that in General Relativity an isolated system is asymptotically flat and that it has a Minkowski geometry in its asymptotic region.

I just noticed the quote in bold and underlined which I have to disagree with.  The suggestion that an object accelerated then interacts with the while universe (maybe I am mistaken here) but it seems to smack of instantaneous information transfer ...
Apart the fact that I should have written "as soon as an object is accelerated it seems to interact with the whole causally connected universe", this thesis is in fact the core of the transactional interpretation of the radiative physics which encompass electromagnetism, quantum field theory, quantum mechanics, special and general relativity, all theories for which mathematics give both retarded and forward solutions to their wave equations. Retarded and forward components can be interwined to provide immediate correlation while preventing instantaneous transfert of information.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Paul451 on 11/10/2015 11:53 pm
That said, the fact that both of these papers are published in the Journal of Modern Physics is not meaningless. Maybe the journal doesn't carry the arbitrarily defined importance as other Journals.
What I believe there is disagreement on is whether or not it makes sense to publish anything if it is not in a mainstream accepted journal. From my perspective I would say where you publish is less consequential than the fact that you actually put in the effort to document your theories

The issue isn't that they made their work public, there are plenty of ways to do that, even if you can't get into a peer-reviewed journal. There's arxiv.org or even just putting a pdf on your own website or google-docs.

The concern is that they instead went out of their way to pay to have their work published in a fake journal. JoMP isn't just "non-mainstream" or "arbitrarily unimportant", it's a pretend scientific journal designed to trick people into thinking your work has "been published in a scientific journal".

As an analogy: Say you have two people, one person has no higher degree, no doctorates for example. The second person claims a PhD and calls himself "Dr. Surname", but it turns out he merely bought a fake doctorate from a fake "university" operating out of a POBox in Florida. Who would you trust more? The honest, but unqualified; or the deliberate fraud?

(It's possible that they simply didn't understand that JoMP was fake. Perhaps responding to spam or fake online reviews for JoMP, and got suckered in. Some people are that naive. But it wouldn't exactly reduce people's skepticism if they have so little connection with genuine academia or science that not one person they knew said, "Uh, that's not actually a real journal...")
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 11/11/2015 02:02 am
That said, the fact that both of these papers are published in the Journal of Modern Physics is not meaningless. Maybe the journal doesn't carry the arbitrarily defined importance as other Journals.
What I believe there is disagreement on is whether or not it makes sense to publish anything if it is not in a mainstream accepted journal. From my perspective I would say where you publish is less consequential than the fact that you actually put in the effort to document your theories

The issue isn't that they made their work public, there are plenty of ways to do that, even if you can't get into a peer-reviewed journal. There's arxiv.org or even just putting a pdf on your own website or google-docs.

The concern is that they instead went out of their way to pay to have their work published in a fake journal. JoMP isn't just "non-mainstream" or "arbitrarily unimportant", it's a pretend scientific journal designed to trick people into thinking your work has "been published in a scientific journal".

As an analogy: Say you have two people, one person has no higher degree, no doctorates for example. The second person claims a PhD and calls himself "Dr. Surname", but it turns out he merely bought a fake doctorate from a fake "university" operating out of a POBox in Florida. Who would you trust more? The honest, but unqualified; or the deliberate fraud?

(It's possible that they simply didn't understand that JoMP was fake. Perhaps responding to spam or fake online reviews for JoMP, and got suckered in. Some people are that naive. But it wouldn't exactly reduce people's skepticism if they have so little connection with genuine academia or science that not one person they knew said, "Uh, that's not actually a real journal...")

I find it interesting that more emphasis is being paid to ONE (Papers are also available from ResearchGate and Fearn's academic web page) of the areas that the papers has been made available. Instead of the content of the paper. Have you read the papers? Do you have any respectful criticism about the ideas described in the papers?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: aceshigh on 11/11/2015 12:34 pm
That said, the fact that both of these papers are published in the Journal of Modern Physics is not meaningless. Maybe the journal doesn't carry the arbitrarily defined importance as other Journals.
What I believe there is disagreement on is whether or not it makes sense to publish anything if it is not in a mainstream accepted journal. From my perspective I would say where you publish is less consequential than the fact that you actually put in the effort to document your theories

The issue isn't that they made their work public, there are plenty of ways to do that, even if you can't get into a peer-reviewed journal. There's arxiv.org or even just putting a pdf on your own website or google-docs.

The concern is that they instead went out of their way to pay to have their work published in a fake journal. JoMP isn't just "non-mainstream" or "arbitrarily unimportant", it's a pretend scientific journal designed to trick people into thinking your work has "been published in a scientific journal".

As an analogy: Say you have two people, one person has no higher degree, no doctorates for example. The second person claims a PhD and calls himself "Dr. Surname", but it turns out he merely bought a fake doctorate from a fake "university" operating out of a POBox in Florida. Who would you trust more? The honest, but unqualified; or the deliberate fraud?

(It's possible that they simply didn't understand that JoMP was fake. Perhaps responding to spam or fake online reviews for JoMP, and got suckered in. Some people are that naive. But it wouldn't exactly reduce people's skepticism if they have so little connection with genuine academia or science that not one person they knew said, "Uh, that's not actually a real journal...")

I find it interesting that more emphasis is being paid to ONE (Papers are also available from ResearchGate and Fearn's academic web page) of the areas that the papers has been made available. Instead of the content of the paper. Have you read the papers? Do you have any respectful criticism about the ideas described in the papers?


maybe that is exactly his point? BECAUSE he can´t understand and criticize the content of the papers, he only wants to trust papers who were reviewed by other people who can understand and criticize the contents?

I take the instance that if it was not peer reviewed, I wont trust it but I also won´t distrust it. Peer review is subject to politics and some more revolutionary stuff like Woodward's might be difficult to peer-review. That doesn´t mean you should consider it as fake or a scam. But as an on-going research that if we are not qualified to discredit, it´s best to just wait.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Paul451 on 11/12/2015 04:18 am
maybe that is exactly his point? [...] he only wants to trust papers who were reviewed by other people who can understand and criticize the contents?

No, my point was that publishing in a fake science journal makes you less trustworthy. I thought I explained that pretty clearly.

(And I mean fake. Not "non-mainstream" or "non-approved", but fake.)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Mezzenile on 11/12/2015 06:20 am
No, my point was that publishing in a fake science journal makes you less trustworthy. I thought I explained that pretty clearly.

(And I mean fake. Not "non-mainstream" or "non-approved", but fake.)
SCRIP is a publisher of open access journals. This philosophy of open access is supported by a parallel open Peer-Review Program  which is presented as follows and to which you can apply if you have the desire to do so :

Quote
SCIRP is one of the largest academic Open Access publishers worldwide. Manuscripts submitted to all our journals are peer-reviewed. Reviewers are involved in all manuscripts submitted to our journals. Based on the reviewer’s comments, a Handling Editor (usually the Editor-in-Chief) is subsequently making a final decision about the way a manuscript needs to be improved.

We at SCIRP sincerely invite you to join our peer-review program. By participating you will provide help to authors from all over the world and will supply them with your ideas and suggestions based on your valuable expertise. Your input will certainly improve their papers a lot. On top of that, you also benefit from the experience. You are exposed to the latest research findings, and will certainly mention your volunteer contribution to the scholarly literature as reviewer for SCIRP along with your other scientific achievements.

If you are ready to be a volunteer, please submit your CV to [email protected] with email subject: Peer-Reviewer Application. After evaluation we will contact you and let you know where to start.

Procedure:
(1) Send us your CV;
(2) Become a peer-reviewer;
(3) Receive manuscripts from us, review the manuscripts, and send back your comments within 5 days.

So the door is open to you to provide your Peer Review of the article. But this means that you have to seriously read and study the content of the article ...  ;)

An other point: Recent history has shown us that Open Source software is not fake software.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 11/12/2015 06:56 am
No, my point was that publishing in a fake science journal makes you less trustworthy. I thought I explained that pretty clearly.

(And I mean fake. Not "non-mainstream" or "non-approved", but fake.)
SCRIP is a publisher of open access journals. This philosophy of open access is supported by a parallel open Peer-Review Program  which is presented as follows and to which you can apply if you have the desire to do so :

Quote
SCIRP is one of the largest academic Open Access publishers worldwide. Manuscripts submitted to all our journals are peer-reviewed. Reviewers are involved in all manuscripts submitted to our journals. Based on the reviewer’s comments, a Handling Editor (usually the Editor-in-Chief) is subsequently making a final decision about the way a manuscript needs to be improved.

We at SCIRP sincerely invite you to join our peer-review program. By participating you will provide help to authors from all over the world and will supply them with your ideas and suggestions based on your valuable expertise. Your input will certainly improve their papers a lot. On top of that, you also benefit from the experience. You are exposed to the latest research findings, and will certainly mention your volunteer contribution to the scholarly literature as reviewer for SCIRP along with your other scientific achievements.

If you are ready to be a volunteer, please submit your CV to [email protected] with email subject: Peer-Reviewer Application. After evaluation we will contact you and let you know where to start.

Procedure:
(1) Send us your CV;
(2) Become a peer-reviewer;
(3) Receive manuscripts from us, review the manuscripts, and send back your comments within 5 days.

So the door is open to you to provide your Peer Review of the article. But this means that you have to seriously read and study the content of the article ...  ;)

An other point: Recent history has shown us that Open Source software is not fake software.

In addition the intent behind posting the links to those papers and being transparent about where they were published was centered on letting people following this thread know that something new has happened. Alongwith spuring some conversations about the CONTENT of the papers.

For example, there doesn't seem to be any mathematical rigor given to the claim that the accelerating expansion of the universe is enough to solve the divergence critique raised by Hawking.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Paul451 on 11/12/2015 06:57 am
Mezzenile,
You're actually quoting the company's own website about whether the company is genuine? They publish whatever you pay then to publish. That's what makes them fake. Saying "open source" three times while holding an egg doesn't make it so.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: 93143 on 11/12/2015 07:23 am
EDIT:  I do not think it is wise to for me comment on SCIRP or the Journal of Modern Physics without further investigation.  It doesn't seem to be as open-and-shut as Paul451 is making out, but I can't peg the situation based on what I've been able to find out so far.

For example, there doesn't seem to be any mathematical rigor given to the claim that the accelerating expansion of the universe is enough to solve the divergence critique raised by Hawking.

Could you elaborate on why you are dissatisfied by the mathematical approach taken in the paper?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Mezzenile on 11/12/2015 09:03 am
Mezzenile,
You're actually quoting the company's own website about whether the company is genuine? They publish whatever you pay then to publish. That's what makes them fake. Saying "open source" three times while holding an egg doesn't make it so.
A question : do you know the story of Paul's Conversion on the Road to Damascus ?
One day or the other I think you will accept that freedom of thinking is better for Science than the strict obedience to any dogma of Roman Catholic Church style.

I propose you to perform a "scientific experience" on SCRIP policy : submit your CV to [email protected] to ask to participate to the peer review of the Mach Effect Truster articles and let us informed of what is happening to your proposal.

An other question : do you know the amount of the fee asked to have an article published by SCRIP ? 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 11/12/2015 02:29 pm
...
For example, there doesn't seem to be any mathematical rigor given to the claim that the accelerating expansion of the universe is enough to solve the divergence critique raised by Hawking.

Could you elaborate on why you are dissatisfied by the mathematical approach taken in the paper?

There doesn't seam to be any. From my recollection of the Two papers it seems to be only mentioned that the solution for divergence is an accelerating expansion of the universe. Since they (Fearn and Woodward) have mentioned that critique that Hawking raised about HN Theory before I was hoping that they would dig into concrete specifics. From my perspective, either the inclusion of an accelerating universe is embedded in their mach effect derivation and I just missed something or they assume the reader will do homework to convince themselves that the statement is in fact true.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: HMXHMX on 11/12/2015 04:49 pm
...
For example, there doesn't seem to be any mathematical rigor given to the claim that the accelerating expansion of the universe is enough to solve the divergence critique raised by Hawking.

Could you elaborate on why you are dissatisfied by the mathematical approach taken in the paper?

There doesn't seam to be any. From my recollection of the Two papers it seems to be only mentioned that the solution for divergence is an accelerating expansion of the universe. Since they (Fearn and Woodward) have mentioned that critique that Hawking raised about HN Theory before I was hoping that they would dig into concrete specifics. From my perspective, either the inclusion of an accelerating universe is embedded in their mach effect derivation and I just missed something or they assume the reader will do homework to convince themselves that the statement is in fact true.

You can find specifics here:

H. Fearn, Mach's principle, Action at a Distance and Cosmology, Accepted for publica-
tion in J. Mod. Phys. 6, 260-272 (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2015.63031. See also
arXiv:1412.5426 [gr-qc].
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Mezzenile on 11/12/2015 05:47 pm
...
For example, there doesn't seem to be any mathematical rigor given to the claim that the accelerating expansion of the universe is enough to solve the divergence critique raised by Hawking.

Could you elaborate on why you are dissatisfied by the mathematical approach taken in the paper?

There doesn't seam to be any. From my recollection of the Two papers it seems to be only mentioned that the solution for divergence is an accelerating expansion of the universe. Since they (Fearn and Woodward) have mentioned that critique that Hawking raised about HN Theory before I was hoping that they would dig into concrete specifics. From my perspective, either the inclusion of an accelerating universe is embedded in their mach effect derivation and I just missed something or they assume the reader will do homework to convince themselves that the statement is in fact true.
The fact that the accelerated expansion solves the problem of divergence to infinity is addressed in a paper of Heidi Fearn :http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2015.63031 (http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2015.63031). This point is explained at page 15 (1524) in the "Theory of a Mach Effect Thruster I " : "...  This problem has been solved by the recent discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe. This leads to a Rindler horizon which acts as a cutoff for the advanced wave integral and there is no longer a divergence, [12]. ", where [12] refers to the paper of Heidi Fearn.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Mezzenile on 11/12/2015 06:03 pm
...
For example, there doesn't seem to be any mathematical rigor given to the claim that the accelerating expansion of the universe is enough to solve the divergence critique raised by Hawking.

Could you elaborate on why you are dissatisfied by the mathematical approach taken in the paper?

There doesn't seam to be any. From my recollection of the Two papers it seems to be only mentioned that the solution for divergence is an accelerating expansion of the universe. Since they (Fearn and Woodward) have mentioned that critique that Hawking raised about HN Theory before I was hoping that they would dig into concrete specifics. From my perspective, either the inclusion of an accelerating universe is embedded in their mach effect derivation and I just missed something or they assume the reader will do homework to convince themselves that the statement is in fact true.

You can find specifics here:

H. Fearn, Mach's principle, Action at a Distance and Cosmology, Accepted for publica-
tion in J. Mod. Phys. 6, 260-272 (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2015.63031. See also
arXiv:1412.5426 [gr-qc].
Sorry, I missed your post which refers to the article of Heidi Fearn.  :(
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Paul451 on 11/12/2015 09:55 pm
It doesn't seem to be as open-and-shut as Paul451 is making out

SciRP has been caught fraudulently copying papers out of other (legitimate) journals without the authors' permission or knowledge, in order to pad out their own "journals" with real research. They've been caught fraudulently listing academics and researchers on editorial boards, without the academics/researchers' permission or knowledge. They continually spam university and lab addresses to try to trick naive academics/researchers to submit papers or sign up as reviewers or editors.

Today - even if people use legally-safer terms like "Vanity publishing" or "Lack of quality control" - academics, researchers and their employers treat SciRP journals as fraudulent publications. To the point where an academic who publishes papers in those journals, in order to keep their stats up, will be considered to have committed academic fraud.

SciRP are the bad guys. They give genuine Open Journals a bad name.

One day or the other I think you will accept that freedom of thinking [...]

"It's one thing to keep an open mind, it's quite another to let the geese run around in there."
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 11/12/2015 11:49 pm
...
For example, there doesn't seem to be any mathematical rigor given to the claim that the accelerating expansion of the universe is enough to solve the divergence critique raised by Hawking.

Could you elaborate on why you are dissatisfied by the mathematical approach taken in the paper?

There doesn't seam to be any. From my recollection of the Two papers it seems to be only mentioned that the solution for divergence is an accelerating expansion of the universe. Since they (Fearn and Woodward) have mentioned that critique that Hawking raised about HN Theory before I was hoping that they would dig into concrete specifics. From my perspective, either the inclusion of an accelerating universe is embedded in their mach effect derivation and I just missed something or they assume the reader will do homework to convince themselves that the statement is in fact true.

You can find specifics here:

H. Fearn, Mach's principle, Action at a Distance and Cosmology, Accepted for publica-
tion in J. Mod. Phys. 6, 260-272 (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2015.63031. See also
arXiv:1412.5426 [gr-qc].
Sorry, I missed your post which refers to the article of Heidi Fearn.  :(

Thanks for the both you pointing me to that paper. When I originally read through it. I don't think I had grasped what the goal of the paper was. Primarily because until Theory of Mach Effect Thruster I & II it wasnt clear to me why Fearn and Watsner had done all this work on Hoyle Narlikar's theory of gravitation. In light of the strong argument Woodward gave (In his book) for how Mach Effects arise from GR. Its now clear to me that the primary reason all the work has been done on HN Theory of Gravity was because GR didn't have the radiative action at a distance component needed to completely support Mach Effects.

While they have shown the derivation of the Impule Mach Effect Force equation from their updated HN Theory. I wonder when we will see work on the other part of the mach effects, the worm hold term. Since the work on deriving the impulse force equation has shed light on a more accurate thrust prediction equation. I wonder if it would also shed light on how to accomplish the worm hole generation. I suspect there wont be any work done on this in the short term but it would be nice if the planned second edition of Woodward's book covered it.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: 93143 on 11/13/2015 04:22 am
It doesn't seem to be as open-and-shut as Paul451 is making out

SciRP has been caught fraudulently copying papers out of other (legitimate) journals without the authors' permission or knowledge, in order to pad out their own "journals" with real research. They've been caught fraudulently listing academics and researchers on editorial boards, without the academics/researchers' permission or knowledge. They continually spam university and lab addresses to try to trick naive academics/researchers to submit papers or sign up as reviewers or editors.

I know all that.  I get spam from them regularly, generally for journals and/or conferences totally unrelated to my field.  But I did some checking last night, and it seems their journals are technically peer-reviewed, and they have supposedly requested revisions and even outright rejected papers based on their reviewers' recommendations.  The Journal of Modern Physics has (ironically enough considering its rather inauspicious first issue) reportedly pulled papers for plagiarism.

At this point, it doesn't look to me like they're "fake".  Shady, yes.  Poor quality control, certainly.  But they are apparently publishing real peer-reviewed journals; it is not quite true that they will "publish whatever you pay them to publish", although it's no doubt a good deal more true than it is of something like Langmuir or JFM...  This is not an especially well-informed opinion and may change as I encounter more data.

I have no idea why Fearn published with them.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Mezzenile on 11/13/2015 07:48 am
Typing error ?

In "Theory of a Mach Effect Thruster I" I do not understand the passage from equation 43 to equation 44. How can equation 43 be divided by m2/2 without changing its left term delta M ?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: aceshigh on 11/13/2015 04:45 pm
I have no idea why Fearn published with them.

we can always ask her?

[email protected]
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: HMXHMX on 11/16/2015 10:09 pm
Woodward Lab update at http://www.ssi.org includes a monograph on "over-unity" controversy as it relates to propellantless propulsion.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 11/17/2015 08:14 am
Woodward Lab update at http://www.ssi.org includes a monograph on "over-unity" controversy as it relates to propellantless propulsion.

It answers the question raised by Mezzenile (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1442871#msg1442871) a few pages ago. I attach Woodward's document "Over-Unity Argument & Mach Effect Thrusters" to this message for more convenience.

It is worth noting besides that Woodward & Fearn are also currently working on a theoretical explanation for EmDrive's thrust.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 11/17/2015 12:49 pm
Woodward Lab update at http://www.ssi.org includes a monograph on "over-unity" controversy as it relates to propellantless propulsion.

It answers the question raised by Mezzenile (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1442871#msg1442871) a few pages ago. I attach Woodward's document "Over-Unity Argument & Mach Effect Thrusters" to this message for more convenience.

It is worth noting besides that Woodward & Fearn are also currently working on a theoretical explanation for EmDrive's thrust.

If the last part of your comment came from the SSI update I dont think its correct. according to the SSI update it is my interpretation that Woodward and Fearn are working on additional experiments to verify their thrust generation equation and thrust scaling predictions. Which jives with the conclusion of their most recently published papers.

The way you phrased it gives the impression that there is still additional theoretical work to do. Which I do not believe is the case. Barring a valid objection to the work published in Theory of Mach Effect Thrusters I & II all the Theoretical work needed to explain why the MET works should be complete; outside of some details around nailing down the actual scaling of the effect.

Also, on a seperate note Woodwards argument looks very convincing for why COE is maintained. But I am left wanting. MAinly because towards the end it looks like he arbitrarily picks a t for total energy integral that is defined to always be below the point where COE would be violated. Now I may need to read this a few more times to be sure but thats my first impression so far.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 11/17/2015 01:22 pm
Yes, my statement comes from the SSI website. Please note its about Shawyer's EmDrive and not Woodward's MET. Woodard will apparently try to explain the EmDrive thrust with some Mach effect.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 11/17/2015 04:26 pm
Yes, my statement comes from the SSI website. Please note its about Shawyer's EmDrive and not Woodward's MET. Woodard will apparently try to explain the EmDrive thrust with some Mach effect.

I read that and had a crap ton of questions explode in my brain so I decided to ignore that part of the update. The main question being what pushed Woodward from HARD SKEPTIC to potential believer. Granted he has always been accurate with his skepticism around the EmDrive by only calling out the theory as being flawed not necessarily the experiments. I would be very VERY impressed if they not only have a theory but a replication.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: HMXHMX on 11/17/2015 04:33 pm
Yes, my statement comes from the SSI website. Please note its about Shawyer's EmDrive and not Woodward's MET. Woodard will apparently try to explain the EmDrive thrust with some Mach effect.

I read that and had a crap ton of questions explode in my brain so I decided to ignore that part of the update. The main question being what pushed Woodward from HARD SKEPTIC to potential believer. Granted he has always been accurate with his skepticism around the EmDrive by only calling out the theory as being flawed not necessarily the experiments. I would be very VERY impressed if they not only have a theory but a replication.

I wrote the update on the website, so I guess I should clarify.  Woodward has always maintained that if the EMdrive produces thrust, it is likely due to the Mach Effect. On the other hand, NASA Eagleworks says it is a quantum vacuum interaction. Woodward Lab is doing an experiment regarding the quantum vacuum explanation with the expectation to disprove any QV explanation, but not doing anything to explain any putative EMdrive thrust on his own, beyond continuing to believe it would be ME-related.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: aceshigh on 11/17/2015 04:34 pm
well, Woodward always had contact with Paul March and from his interview at The SpaceShow, as I understand, he knows Sonny White personally... (doesn´t seemed however to have a very high opinion of Dr White).


I would have to re-listen to the interview, but I think Woodward mentioned something about thinking that EM Drive could be related to his own ME theory.

He completely dismissed as baloney Dr White's virtual particles, QVF, etc, theories however...
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: HMXHMX on 11/17/2015 04:39 pm
Woodward Lab update at http://www.ssi.org includes a monograph on "over-unity" controversy as it relates to propellantless propulsion.

It answers the question raised by Mezzenile (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1442871#msg1442871) a few pages ago. I attach Woodward's document "Over-Unity Argument & Mach Effect Thrusters" to this message for more convenience.

It is worth noting besides that Woodward & Fearn are also currently working on a theoretical explanation for EmDrive's thrust.

They are working on a refutation of the quantum vacuum explanation for any putative EMdrive thrust, not a theoretical explanation of EMdrive, just to be clear.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 11/17/2015 05:32 pm
Woodward Lab update at http://www.ssi.org includes a monograph on "over-unity" controversy as it relates to propellantless propulsion.

It answers the question raised by Mezzenile (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1442871#msg1442871) a few pages ago. I attach Woodward's document "Over-Unity Argument & Mach Effect Thrusters" to this message for more convenience.

It is worth noting besides that Woodward & Fearn are also currently working on a theoretical explanation for EmDrive's thrust.

They are working on a refutation of the quantum vacuum explanation for any putative EMdrive thrust, not a theoretical explanation of EMdrive, just to be clear.

Ok that makes a WHOLE lot more sense.

Since you wrote the update on SSI any predictions on when we will see any additional information from Woodward and Fearn? to my knowledge the next thing to look forward to would be the replication results from Austria and Canada. But it sounds like Woodward and Fearn are already way into testing new devices. Is that accurate?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: HMXHMX on 11/17/2015 06:05 pm
Woodward Lab update at http://www.ssi.org includes a monograph on "over-unity" controversy as it relates to propellantless propulsion.

It answers the question raised by Mezzenile (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1442871#msg1442871) a few pages ago. I attach Woodward's document "Over-Unity Argument & Mach Effect Thrusters" to this message for more convenience.

It is worth noting besides that Woodward & Fearn are also currently working on a theoretical explanation for EmDrive's thrust.

They are working on a refutation of the quantum vacuum explanation for any putative EMdrive thrust, not a theoretical explanation of EMdrive, just to be clear.

Ok that makes a WHOLE lot more sense.

Since you wrote the update on SSI any predictions on when we will see any additional information from Woodward and Fearn? to my knowledge the next thing to look forward to would be the replication results from Austria and Canada. But it sounds like Woodward and Fearn are already way into testing new devices. Is that accurate?

The Woodward Lab doesn't control the data release from the replications, so I can only speculate that it might be anywhere from a few months to perhaps the next Joint Propulsion Conference in summer 2016. By the way, SSI will facilitate access to test devices for competent labs that wish to perform a replication.

The devices under test are essentially the ones that were used in the last year's worth of data runs.  The lab has limitations on both equipment (power amps, etc.) and individual's time, so they haven't been able to move in the direction of more power or more thrust yet.

They inform me that we should have a paper or at least a monograph out on the quantum vacuum experiment in the first quarter of 2016.  When available, links will be posted at ssi.org and I will mention the post here.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: gargoyle99 on 11/17/2015 08:21 pm
Woodward Lab update at http://www.ssi.org includes a monograph on "over-unity" controversy as it relates to propellantless propulsion.

That paper: http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf (http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf), shows an embarrassing lack of understanding of classical Newtonian physics.  It's difficult to have respect for any more advanced physics derivations (which I haven't spent much time looking into), if he is promoting basic Newtonian physics equations that are flawed at a very fundamental level.  He says, "Now we have done something stupid and wrong," but it isn't in the place he attempts to demonstrate.  The physics mistake is when he DEFINES the physics "figure of merit" (ratio of force to input power) as something that is time invariant and assumes that non-physical condition for his calculations. 

Having a constant force for a given input power in a closed system guarantees problems according to Newtonian physics (in any reference frame), and, of course that eventually results in a violation of conservation of energy.  It doesn't occur in any known physical machine.  That doesn't mean the calculations of input or output energy are wrong.  It means 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, which the Mach Effect Thruster papers purport to do.  His arguments regarding varying reference frames once again show profound ignorance of conservation of energy under special relativity and his pointing to the definition of velocity as the "likely source of the error," is both alarmingly vague and dangerously misleading.

At this point, he seems so confident of his results as to be completely impervious to well-intentioned criticism and peer review, because any physicist trained in classical mechanics would shake their heads at those arguments and clearly some people have brought the correct derivations to his attention.  His arguments are something I worked through both in my freshman physics class and later on in mechanics classes many years ago.  He would be better off to not address the over-unity argument at all than to point at that paper.



Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: HMXHMX on 11/17/2015 11:16 pm
Woodward Lab update at http://www.ssi.org includes a monograph on "over-unity" controversy as it relates to propellantless propulsion.

That paper: http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf (http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf), shows an embarrassing lack of understanding of classical Newtonian physics.  It's difficult to have respect for any more advanced physics derivations (which I haven't spent much time looking into), if he is promoting basic Newtonian physics equations that are flawed at a very fundamental level.  He says, "Now we have done something stupid and wrong," but it isn't in the place he attempts to demonstrate.  The physics mistake is when he DEFINES the physics "figure of merit" (ratio of force to input power) as something that is time invariant and assumes that non-physical condition for his calculations. 

Having a constant force for a given input power in a closed system guarantees problems according to Newtonian physics (in any reference frame), and, of course that eventually results in a violation of conservation of energy.  It doesn't occur in any known physical machine.  That doesn't mean the calculations of input or output energy are wrong.  It means 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, which the Mach Effect Thruster papers purport to do.  His arguments regarding varying reference frames once again show profound ignorance of conservation of energy under special relativity and his pointing to the definition of velocity as the "likely source of the error," is both alarmingly vague and dangerously misleading.

At this point, he seems so confident of his results as to be completely impervious to well-intentioned criticism and peer review, because any physicist trained in classical mechanics would shake their heads at those arguments and clearly some people have brought the correct derivations to his attention.  His arguments are something I worked through both in my freshman physics class and later on in mechanics classes many years ago.  He would be better off to not address the over-unity argument at all than to point at that paper.


Professor Woodward has shown us all his math; I'm sure everyone will be gratified to see your mathematical analysis as well, including Professor Fearn, who reviewed the monograph prior to publication.  Fearn took her PhD under Rodney Loudon (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_Loudon) and post-doc under Peter Milonni (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_W._Milonni). She has also been teaching mechanics at lower, upper and graduate levels for 25 years.  If there is an obvious error, presumably she'd have caught it, but if you can point it out you'd be doing everyone a service.  Additionally, at least one other physicist of note reviewed the paper prior to posting, and that individual has been a general critic of Woodward's work, but signed off on this paper to me personally.

I'd add that the over-unity argument is meant to stand alone from any ME test results, so putative bias on the part of Woodward regarding his ME results can't be used as justification for overlooking a fundamental error, if such error exists.  Also, the over-unity argument has been used to attack several forms of propellantless propulsion, the EMdrive being only the most recent and obvious example.

Edit: Professor Fearn's bio.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 11/18/2015 12:21 am
Woodward Lab update at http://www.ssi.org includes a monograph on "over-unity" controversy as it relates to propellantless propulsion.

That paper: http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf (http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf), shows an embarrassing lack of understanding of classical Newtonian physics.  It's difficult to have respect for any more advanced physics derivations (which I haven't spent much time looking into), if he is promoting basic Newtonian physics equations that are flawed at a very fundamental level.  He says, "Now we have done something stupid and wrong," but it isn't in the place he attempts to demonstrate.  The physics mistake is when he DEFINES the physics "figure of merit" (ratio of force to input power) as something that is time invariant and assumes that non-physical condition for his calculations. 

Having a constant force for a given input power in a closed system guarantees problems according to Newtonian physics (in any reference frame), and, of course that eventually results in a violation of conservation of energy.  It doesn't occur in any known physical machine.  That doesn't mean the calculations of input or output energy are wrong.  It means 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, which the Mach Effect Thruster papers purport to do.  His arguments regarding varying reference frames once again show profound ignorance of conservation of energy under special relativity and his pointing to the definition of velocity as the "likely source of the error," is both alarmingly vague and dangerously misleading.

At this point, he seems so confident of his results as to be completely impervious to well-intentioned criticism and peer review, because any physicist trained in classical mechanics would shake their heads at those arguments and clearly some people have brought the correct derivations to his attention.  His arguments are something I worked through both in my freshman physics class and later on in mechanics classes many years ago.  He would be better off to not address the over-unity argument at all than to point at that paper.

So Woodward takes the time and effort to put together a complete write up arguing against COE violations math included and the the best criticism you have to offer is personal ad hominem attacks, with vague points thrown in? I mean either give a well reasoned critique of what is said in the monograph or don't bother saying anything at all.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: gargoyle99 on 11/18/2015 12:12 pm
Woodward Lab update at http://www.ssi.org includes a monograph on "over-unity" controversy as it relates to propellantless propulsion.

That paper: http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf (http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf), shows an embarrassing lack of understanding of classical Newtonian physics.

So Woodward takes the time and effort to put together a complete write up arguing against COE violations math included and the the best criticism you have to offer is personal ad hominem attacks, with vague points thrown in? I mean either give a well reasoned critique of what is said in the monograph or don't bother saying anything at all.

In between the ad hominem and personal attacks, I pointed out what was wrong with the physics.  But, if that was not sufficiently clear, I can go into more detail.

(Also, I see that at the beginning of this thread, other people have brought up the correct physics and provided references, but I can review.)

Professor Woodward considers a Newtonian system with constant thrust F and constant input power P.

Total Input Energy = P t
Total Output Energy = Kinetic Energy = 1/2 mv2 = 1/2 ma2t2

So far, Woodward's derivation is correct.  Here he points out, correctly, that this system appears to violate conservation of energy, because input energy scales with time t and output energy scales with t2, so for ANY such system, there is a time after which the output energy exceeds the input energy.

This derivation applies to not only the alleged Mach Effect Thruster (MET), but any system with constant thrust and constant input power.  Next he makes the first elementary mistake.  He claims that because other systems with constant thrust and constant input power besides the MET also follow Newtonian physics and everybody knows that they observe the conservation of energy, therefore there must be some mistake in this calculation and really, the MET also follows conservation of energy, despite the glaring error demonstrated in the above equations.

After discussing with a dismissive tone how this is all elementary and basic physics, he goes on to state vaguely that the mistake "likely" is in the definition of "velocity."

Actually, the mistake is in the original conjecture.  There are NO closed Newtonian systems that have constant acceleration and constant input power.  They would all violate conservation of energy.

If there is constant acceleration (consider an ideal weight hanging from a pulley accelerating another mass across a frictionless table), then the input power will scale linearly with time (the falling weight increases in speed as it falls).

Likewise, consider the Newtonian system of the car you drive to work.  If you accelerate at a constant rate, the engine consumes more gasoline to go from 50 mph to 60mph than it did to go from 0 mph to 10 mph, even though the delta-V is the same.

Alternatively, if you have a system with constant power input, then the acceleration drops off over time.  For example, a model RC electric car with a small battery will accelerate very fast from an initial stop, but then quickly slow its acceleration after a few seconds.  This is without regard to any friction losses.

To summarize, in a Newtonian world, there are NO physical closed systems with a constant acceleration and a constant input power and so his argument that dragons must exist because they are no more illogical than unicorns is badly flawed.  A closed system can either have constant acceleration, or constant input power, but not both without violating conservation of energy.  (An open system also follows conservation of energy, but you also have to take into account what is being added or removed from the system.)

Then Woodward attempts to work around the issue by arbitrarily limiting the amount of time that the system can run:

We know that, starting from t = 0, if we let the integration interval t get very large, the work equation integral will first equal and then exceed the energy calculated by the figure of merit equation.  So we require that t be sufficiently small that this obvious violation of energy conservation does not happen. 

You can't work around this problem by arbitrarily limiting the time that the system runs.  What happens when that much time actually passes?  The problem is with the initial conjecture, not with the physics equations and it is an elementary error.

This is a forum for professionals and serious space flight enthusiasts.  Participants regularly calculate bi-elliptic and Hohmann orbital transfers and that math is just Newtonian physics but it's a lot harder than this!

Nobody who has passed a Newtonian mechanics college course could read that paper without wincing at the naive physics.  I hope that Professor Woodward gets some peer review from somebody knowledgeable and straightens out his misconceptions, because otherwise he will have considerable difficulty getting credibility from any physicist who reads that paper, whether or not the Mach Effect Thruster generates thrust.


Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 11/18/2015 05:02 pm
Woodward Lab update at http://www.ssi.org includes a monograph on "over-unity" controversy as it relates to propellantless propulsion.

That paper: http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf (http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf), shows an embarrassing lack of understanding of classical Newtonian physics.

So Woodward takes the time and effort to put together a complete write up arguing against COE violations math included and the the best criticism you have to offer is personal ad hominem attacks, with vague points thrown in? I mean either give a well reasoned critique of what is said in the monograph or don't bother saying anything at all.

In between the ad hominem and personal attacks, I pointed out what was wrong with the physics.  But, if that was not sufficiently clear, I can go into more detail.

(Also, I see that at the beginning of this thread, other people have brought up the correct physics and provided references, but I can review.)

Professor Woodward considers a Newtonian system with constant thrust F and constant input power P.

Total Input Energy = P t
Total Output Energy = Kinetic Energy = 1/2 mv2 = 1/2 ma2t2

So far, Woodward's derivation is correct.  Here he points out, correctly, that this system appears to violate conservation of energy, because input energy scales with time t and output energy scales with t2, so for ANY such system, there is a time after which the output energy exceeds the input energy.

This derivation applies to not only the alleged Mach Effect Thruster (MET), but any system with constant thrust and constant input power.  Next he makes the first elementary mistake.  He claims that because other systems with constant thrust and constant input power besides the MET also follow Newtonian physics and everybody knows that they observe the conservation of energy, therefore there must be some mistake in this calculation and really, the MET also follows conservation of energy, despite the glaring error demonstrated in the above equations.

After discussing with a dismissive tone how this is all elementary and basic physics, he goes on to state vaguely that the mistake "likely" is in the definition of "velocity."

Actually, the mistake is in the original conjecture.  There are NO closed Newtonian systems that have constant acceleration and constant input power.  They would all violate conservation of energy.

If there is constant acceleration (consider an ideal weight hanging from a pulley accelerating another mass across a frictionless table), then the input power will scale linearly with time (the falling weight increases in speed as it falls).

Likewise, consider the Newtonian system of the car you drive to work.  If you accelerate at a constant rate, the engine consumes more gasoline to go from 50 mph to 60mph than it did to go from 0 mph to 10 mph, even though the delta-V is the same.

Alternatively, if you have a system with constant power input, then the acceleration drops off over time.  For example, a model RC electric car with a small battery will accelerate very fast from an initial stop, but then quickly slow its acceleration after a few seconds.  This is without regard to any friction losses.

To summarize, in a Newtonian world, there are NO physical closed systems with a constant acceleration and a constant input power and so his argument that dragons must exist because they are no more illogical than unicorns is badly flawed.  A closed system can either have constant acceleration, or constant input power, but not both without violating conservation of energy.  (An open system also follows conservation of energy, but you also have to take into account what is being added or removed from the system.)

Then Woodward attempts to work around the issue by arbitrarily limiting the amount of time that the system can run:

We know that, starting from t = 0, if we let the integration interval t get very large, the work equation integral will first equal and then exceed the energy calculated by the figure of merit equation.  So we require that t be sufficiently small that this obvious violation of energy conservation does not happen. 

You can't work around this problem by arbitrarily limiting the time that the system runs.  What happens when that much time actually passes?  The problem is with the initial conjecture, not with the physics equations and it is an elementary error.

This is a forum for professionals and serious space flight enthusiasts.  Participants regularly calculate bi-elliptic and Hohmann orbital transfers and that math is just Newtonian physics but it's a lot harder than this!

Nobody who has passed a Newtonian mechanics college course could read that paper without wincing at the naive physics.  I hope that Professor Woodward gets some peer review from somebody knowledgeable and straightens out his misconceptions, because otherwise he will have considerable difficulty getting credibility from any physicist who reads that paper, whether or not the Mach Effect Thruster generates thrust.

Before I say anything else. Thanks for putting much more effort into the critique.

That said I am not sure we are reading the same paper. Because I do not see anywhere in the paper where woodward says anything to the effect of the "first elementary mistake" you pointed to.

I re read the monograph this morning and my interpretation is that Woodwards argument is an attempt of proof by definition.

paraphrasing....
Given all newtonian systems obey conservation of energy, and the figure of merit equation describes a newtonion system.  the equation derived from the stated Figure of Merit equation cannot be valid for all values of t. Otherwise a newtonian system would violate conservation of energy.

Now towards the end he seems to arbitrarily limit final t in the integral and my suspicion is he believes that the limit on t isn't arbitrary because of the boundaries placed on t from the definition of a newtonian system.

Now I dont know if I completely agree with the argument made in the monograph because upon second reading the first question that jumped out at me after seeing the last critique you made is that I dont see where he proved that a MET is a newtonian device (granted he is probably depending on the work Fearn and Watsner did to show that HN Theory of Gravitation is a super set of GR).

P.S. please be aware my physics neurons are severely rusted and  my interpretations and word choice may be very poor.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: gargoyle99 on 11/18/2015 06:05 pm
Woodward Lab update at http://www.ssi.org includes a monograph on "over-unity" controversy as it relates to propellantless propulsion.

That paper: http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf (http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf), shows an embarrassing lack of understanding of classical Newtonian physics.

So Woodward takes the time and effort to put together a complete write up arguing against COE violations math included and the the best criticism you have to offer is personal ad hominem attacks, with vague points thrown in? I mean either give a well reasoned critique of what is said in the monograph or don't bother saying anything at all.

In between the ad hominem and personal attacks, I pointed out what was wrong with the physics.  But, if that was not sufficiently clear, I can go into more detail.

(Also, I see that at the beginning of this thread, other people have brought up the correct physics and provided references, but I can review.)

Professor Woodward considers a Newtonian system with constant thrust F and constant input power P.

Total Input Energy = P t
Total Output Energy = Kinetic Energy = 1/2 mv2 = 1/2 ma2t2

So far, Woodward's derivation is correct.  Here he points out, correctly, that this system appears to violate conservation of energy, because input energy scales with time t and output energy scales with t2, so for ANY such system, there is a time after which the output energy exceeds the input energy.

This derivation applies to not only the alleged Mach Effect Thruster (MET), but any system with constant thrust and constant input power.  Next he makes the first elementary mistake.  He claims that because other systems with constant thrust and constant input power besides the MET also follow Newtonian physics and everybody knows that they observe the conservation of energy, therefore there must be some mistake in this calculation and really, the MET also follows conservation of energy, despite the glaring error demonstrated in the above equations.

After discussing with a dismissive tone how this is all elementary and basic physics, he goes on to state vaguely that the mistake "likely" is in the definition of "velocity."

Actually, the mistake is in the original conjecture.  There are NO closed Newtonian systems that have constant acceleration and constant input power.  They would all violate conservation of energy.

If there is constant acceleration (consider an ideal weight hanging from a pulley accelerating another mass across a frictionless table), then the input power will scale linearly with time (the falling weight increases in speed as it falls).

Likewise, consider the Newtonian system of the car you drive to work.  If you accelerate at a constant rate, the engine consumes more gasoline to go from 50 mph to 60mph than it did to go from 0 mph to 10 mph, even though the delta-V is the same.

Alternatively, if you have a system with constant power input, then the acceleration drops off over time.  For example, a model RC electric car with a small battery will accelerate very fast from an initial stop, but then quickly slow its acceleration after a few seconds.  This is without regard to any friction losses.

To summarize, in a Newtonian world, there are NO physical closed systems with a constant acceleration and a constant input power and so his argument that dragons must exist because they are no more illogical than unicorns is badly flawed.  A closed system can either have constant acceleration, or constant input power, but not both without violating conservation of energy.  (An open system also follows conservation of energy, but you also have to take into account what is being added or removed from the system.)

Then Woodward attempts to work around the issue by arbitrarily limiting the amount of time that the system can run:

We know that, starting from t = 0, if we let the integration interval t get very large, the work equation integral will first equal and then exceed the energy calculated by the figure of merit equation.  So we require that t be sufficiently small that this obvious violation of energy conservation does not happen. 

You can't work around this problem by arbitrarily limiting the time that the system runs.  What happens when that much time actually passes?  The problem is with the initial conjecture, not with the physics equations and it is an elementary error.

This is a forum for professionals and serious space flight enthusiasts.  Participants regularly calculate bi-elliptic and Hohmann orbital transfers and that math is just Newtonian physics but it's a lot harder than this!

Nobody who has passed a Newtonian mechanics college course could read that paper without wincing at the naive physics.  I hope that Professor Woodward gets some peer review from somebody knowledgeable and straightens out his misconceptions, because otherwise he will have considerable difficulty getting credibility from any physicist who reads that paper, whether or not the Mach Effect Thruster generates thrust.

Before I say anything else. Thanks for putting much more effort into the critique.

That said I am not sure we are reading the same paper. Because I do not see anywhere in the paper where woodward says anything to the effect of the "first elementary mistake" you pointed to.

I re read the monograph this morning and my interpretation is that Woodwards argument is an attempt of proof by definition.

paraphrasing....
Given all newtonian systems obey conservation of energy, and the figure of merit equation describes a newtonion system.  the equation derived from the stated Figure of Merit equation cannot be valid for all values of t. Otherwise a newtonian system would violate conservation of energy.

Now towards the end he seems to arbitrarily limit final t in the integral and my suspicion is he believes that the limit on t isn't arbitrary because of the boundaries placed on t from the definition of a newtonian system.

Now I dont know if I completely agree with the argument made in the monograph because upon second reading the first question that jumped out at me after seeing the last critique you made is that I dont see where he proved that a MET is a newtonian device (granted he is probably depending on the work Fearn and Watsner did to show that HN Theory of Gravitation is a super set of GR).

P.S. please be aware my physics neurons are severely rusted and  my interpretations and word choice may be very poor.

paraphrasing....
Given all newtonian systems obey conservation of energy, and the figure of merit equation describes a newtonion system.  the equation derived from the stated Figure of Merit equation cannot be valid for all values of t. Otherwise a newtonian system would violate conservation of energy.


That is an excellent paraphrase.  One of the given axioms is not correct and that leads to the contradiction.  The problem is that the figure of merit equation as he used it does NOT describe a Newtonian system, because the force of merit equation describes the measured force per input power ONLY at a specific point in time and he is assuming that the force will be invariant over all time for a constant input energy.  Such a system will not be Newtonian, as demonstrated above.

Of course, the hope of the MET is that it might accelerate a spacecraft for long journeys.  That's why understanding and resolving the conservation of energy question is important.  Is conservation of energy violated?  Otherwise, how does the force change over time and what mechanism, if any, does the system use to interact with the external Universe?  The Mach conjecture is very interesting to me and I, admittedly, don't understand all the ways it could affect General Relativity theory.  However, the math for GR is so much more sophisticated that I will be very skeptical of anyone's GR interpretation if they don't demonstrate knowledge of the simpler (though not trivial!) conservation of energy in a strictly Newtonian system.  As a space enthusiast, I strongly support research into exotic space propulsion systems, but I think you should understand Newtonian physics if you're going to show how you can bypass it.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 11/18/2015 08:49 pm
...

paraphrasing....
Given all newtonian systems obey conservation of energy, and the figure of merit equation describes a newtonion system.  the equation derived from the stated Figure of Merit equation cannot be valid for all values of t. Otherwise a newtonian system would violate conservation of energy.


That is an excellent paraphrase.  One of the given axioms is not correct and that leads to the contradiction.  The problem is that the figure of merit equation as he used it does NOT describe a Newtonian system, because the force of merit equation describes the measured force per input power ONLY at a specific point in time and he is assuming that the force will be invariant over all time for a constant input energy.  Such a system will not be Newtonian, as demonstrated above.

Of course, the hope of the MET is that it might accelerate a spacecraft for long journeys.  That's why understanding and resolving the conservation of energy question is important.  Is conservation of energy violated?  Otherwise, how does the force change over time and what mechanism, if any, does the system use to interact with the external Universe?  The Mach conjecture is very interesting to me and I, admittedly, don't understand all the ways it could affect General Relativity theory.  However, the math for GR is so much more sophisticated that I will be very skeptical of anyone's GR interpretation if they don't demonstrate knowledge of the simpler (though not trivial!) conservation of energy in a strictly Newtonian system.  As a space enthusiast, I strongly support research into exotic space propulsion systems, but I think you should understand Newtonian physics if you're going to show how you can bypass it.

So unless I am missing something I think I see what I believe to be the misunderstanding here. From your critique I think its fair to say that you agree with everything Woodward said in the monograph up to page 3 not including the two paragraph just before eqn 10.

If that is the case then I think the misunderstanding is what is being said in those two paragraph just before eqn 10.

Quote from: Mach Effect Thrusters (Mets) And “Over-Unity” Energy Production(http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf)
...

So far this is all just elementary mechanics. We have not yet done anything stupid or wrong (or both). As long as we don’t mess with the math, we’re OK (and energy conservation is not violated). How then do some argue that in this simple system – and METs in particular – energy conservation is violated?

Simple. By [Some, where some are the critics arguing that MET's violate COE because it provides constant thrust for constant power] doing something stupid and wrong. In particular, by [the over unity critics] taking the “figure of merit” of a thrust (force) generator – by definition, the number of Newtons of thrust produced per watt of input power to the thrust generator – and treating it as a dynamical equation that can be used to calculate the energy input to a motor that acts for some length of time; that is:

Fm = F / P  (10)

where Fm is the figure of merit and P the input power to the motor that produces the thrust F.

...

As I understand it. Woodward isn't the one claiming that the Figue of merit equation represents a newtonian system. He is claiming that the critics arguing that constant thrust for constant power propulsion devices are over unity devices are the ones incorrectly treating the Figure of merit equation as if it represents a newtonian system. But instead of simply stating that is the problem. He takes the reader through the problem with the incorrect assumption starting with eqn 10 all the way through to eqn 15 finally concluding the following:

Quote from: Mach Effect Thrusters (Mets) And “Over-Unity” Energy Production(http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf)
...

t = (Fma / 2)t2   (15)

which is obviously wrong. For some values of t, the coefficient of t2 on the right hand side of Equation (15) (a constant by the way) may make this equation valid. [That is, it can be treated as a simple quadratic equation and solved by the usual techniques.] As a continuous evolution equation, however, it is nonsense. But this is the mathematics of those who make the “over unity” energy conservation violation argument about the operation of METs. The real question here is how could anyone, having done this calculation or its equivalent, think that they had made a profound discovery about anything? [Or METs in particular?] After all, it is universally known that energy conservation is not violated in classical mechanics.

...

As a result

paraphrasing....

Given all Newtonian systems obey conservation of energy, and the figure of merit equation describes a Newtonian system.  the equation derived from the stated Figure of Merit equation cannot be valid for all values of t. Otherwise a Newtonian system would violate conservation of energy.

should have been

Given all Newtonian systems obey conservation of energy and the figure of merit equation does not describe a Newtonian system; since equation (15), which was derived from the figure of merit equation, cannot be valid for all values of t. Then the assertion that constant thrust for constant power results in over unity for a MET cannot be valid. Since an MET is a valid Newtonian device.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: gargoyle99 on 11/18/2015 09:54 pm

As I understand it. Woodward isn't the one claiming that the Figue of merit equation represents a newtonian system. He is claiming that the critics arguing that constant thrust for constant power propulsion devices are over unity devices are the ones incorrectly treating the Figure of merit equation as if it represents a newtonian system. But instead of simply stating that is the problem. He takes the reader through the problem with the incorrect assumption starting with eqn 10 all the way through to eqn 15 finally concluding the following:

Quote from: Mach Effect Thrusters (Mets) And “Over-Unity” Energy Production(http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf)
...

t = (Fma / 2)t2   (15)

which is obviously wrong. For some values of t, the coefficient of t2 on the right hand side of Equation (15) (a constant by the way) may make this equation valid. [That is, it can be treated as a simple quadratic equation and solved by the usual techniques.] As a continuous evolution equation, however, it is nonsense. But this is the mathematics of those who make the “over unity” energy conservation violation argument about the operation of METs. The real question here is how could anyone, having done this calculation or its equivalent, think that they had made a profound discovery about anything? [Or METs in particular?] After all, it is universally known that energy conservation is not violated in classical mechanics.

...

As a result

paraphrasing....

Given all Newtonian systems obey conservation of energy, and the figure of merit equation describes a Newtonian system.  the equation derived from the stated Figure of Merit equation cannot be valid for all values of t. Otherwise a Newtonian system would violate conservation of energy.

should have been

Given all Newtonian systems obey conservation of energy and the figure of merit equation does not describe a Newtonian system; since equation (15), which was derived from the figure of merit equation, cannot be valid for all values of t. Then the assertion that constant thrust for constant power results in over unity for a MET cannot be valid. Since an MET is a valid Newtonian device.

Umm.  That still isn't quite right.  You've changed the logic to be circular.  Rather, MET (or any other device) is not a valid Newtonian device if it claims to have constant force for constant power (i.e. obeys the figure of merit equation over time), because that is what leads to the violation of CoE.

Are you suggesting the Professor Woodward is claiming that the MET force is not a constant for a given input power?  If so, he should state that explicitly, because that could solve the question immediately.  I haven't seen that, but maybe I missed it somewhere.  Also, as I read Professor Woodward's final derived equations, they contain no terms that are non-local and they have terms for constant power and constant acceleration and appear to be time-invariant.  That certainly implies that a figure of merit equation DOES apply to the MET.  If the author thinks that it does not, I suggest he state so clearly as well as explain how it doesn't. 

I just came across this in one of his early papers:

http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/nasa-pap/ (http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/nasa-pap/)

The appearance of momentum conservation violation in our impulse engine doesn't mean that momentum isn't conserved. It means that we can't treat the impulse engine as an isolated system. Since the effect responsible for the apparent violation of the conservation principle is inertial/gravitational, this should come as no surprise at all. As Mach's principle makes plain, anytime a process involves gravity/inertia, the only meaningful isolated system is the entire universe. Since inertial reaction forces appear instantaneous [see Woodward, 1996a and Cramer, 1997 in this connection], evidently our impulse engine is engaging in some "non-local" momentum transfer with the distant matter in the universe. With suitable choice of gauge, this momentum transfer can be envisaged as transpiring via retarded and advanced disturbances in the gravitational field that propagate with speed c.


As previously noted, having a non-isolated system is another way to get out of the conservation of energy conundrum.  If that's the ace he wants to play, he should make that clear right away, because the example he chose in the paper we are discussing was an isolated system.  (Also, it's not at all clear to me how the MET would be interacting with external gravitational fields/waves to maintain conservation of energy, but I'm willing to listen to ideas.)

Even more helpful would be a description of what the time dependent force on the MET should be according to his theory.  If it isn't constant acceleration for constant power, then WHAT IS IT?

Most helpful of all, would be to demonstrate an MET accelerating for a significant period of time in an environment free of other experimental errors and measure what it does, although I am aware of the experimental challenges in measuring such low levels of thrust over time.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 11/18/2015 11:55 pm

As I understand it. Woodward isn't the one claiming that the Figue of merit equation represents a newtonian system. He is claiming that the critics arguing that constant thrust for constant power propulsion devices are over unity devices are the ones incorrectly treating the Figure of merit equation as if it represents a newtonian system. But instead of simply stating that is the problem. He takes the reader through the problem with the incorrect assumption starting with eqn 10 all the way through to eqn 15 finally concluding the following:

Quote from: Mach Effect Thrusters (Mets) And “Over-Unity” Energy Production(http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf)
...

t = (Fma / 2)t2   (15)

which is obviously wrong. For some values of t, the coefficient of t2 on the right hand side of Equation (15) (a constant by the way) may make this equation valid. [That is, it can be treated as a simple quadratic equation and solved by the usual techniques.] As a continuous evolution equation, however, it is nonsense. But this is the mathematics of those who make the “over unity” energy conservation violation argument about the operation of METs. The real question here is how could anyone, having done this calculation or its equivalent, think that they had made a profound discovery about anything? [Or METs in particular?] After all, it is universally known that energy conservation is not violated in classical mechanics.

...

As a result

paraphrasing....

Given all Newtonian systems obey conservation of energy, and the figure of merit equation describes a Newtonian system.  the equation derived from the stated Figure of Merit equation cannot be valid for all values of t. Otherwise a Newtonian system would violate conservation of energy.

should have been

Given all Newtonian systems obey conservation of energy and the figure of merit equation does not describe a Newtonian system; since equation (15), which was derived from the figure of merit equation, cannot be valid for all values of t. Then the assertion that constant thrust for constant power results in over unity for a MET cannot be valid. Since an MET is a valid Newtonian device.

Umm.  That still isn't quite right.  You've changed the logic to be circular.  Rather, MET (or any other device) is not a valid Newtonian device if it claims to have constant force for constant power (i.e. obeys the figure of merit equation over time), because that is what leads to the violation of CoE.

Are you suggesting the Professor Woodward is claiming that the MET force is not a constant for a given input power?  If so, he should state that explicitly, because that could solve the question immediately.  I haven't seen that, but maybe I missed it somewhere.  Also, as I read Professor Woodward's final derived equations, they contain no terms that are non-local and they have terms for constant power and constant acceleration and appear to be time-invariant.  That certainly implies that a figure of merit equation DOES apply to the MET.  If the author thinks that it does not, I suggest he state so clearly as well as explain how it doesn't. 

I just came across this in one of his early papers:

http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/nasa-pap/ (http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/nasa-pap/)

The appearance of momentum conservation violation in our impulse engine doesn't mean that momentum isn't conserved. It means that we can't treat the impulse engine as an isolated system. Since the effect responsible for the apparent violation of the conservation principle is inertial/gravitational, this should come as no surprise at all. As Mach's principle makes plain, anytime a process involves gravity/inertia, the only meaningful isolated system is the entire universe. Since inertial reaction forces appear instantaneous [see Woodward, 1996a and Cramer, 1997 in this connection], evidently our impulse engine is engaging in some "non-local" momentum transfer with the distant matter in the universe. With suitable choice of gauge, this momentum transfer can be envisaged as transpiring via retarded and advanced disturbances in the gravitational field that propagate with speed c.


As previously noted, having a non-isolated system is another way to get out of the conservation of energy conundrum.  If that's the ace he wants to play, he should make that clear right away, because the example he chose in the paper we are discussing was an isolated system.  (Also, it's not at all clear to me how the MET would be interacting with external gravitational fields/waves to maintain conservation of energy, but I'm willing to listen to ideas.)

Even more helpful would be a description of what the time dependent force on the MET should be according to his theory.  If it isn't constant acceleration for constant power, then WHAT IS IT?

Most helpful of all, would be to demonstrate an MET accelerating for a significant period of time in an environment free of other experimental errors and measure what it does, although I am aware of the experimental challenges in measuring such low levels of thrust over time.

First off, just another space fan who would love nothing other than to see humanity gain the ability to build a working space drive. I am not the author, and what I have stated so far is merely my interpretation of the monograph nothing more.

I do agree though that the paraphrased interpretation appears circular but that is the interpretation I am left with after reading the monograph a couple of times now. No where in the monograph does Woodward show why a MET should be considered to be Newtonian. I get the distinct impression that the goal of the monograph was more to show that Over Unity cannot happen to newtonian systems and less  to show that a MET is not overunity. If that is the case that the monograph didn't need to be written since the statement that a Newtonian system cannot be over unity is always true and doesn't require 5.25 pages to justify.

Having followed Woodward's work for a few years now. I agree with your interpretation that the physical MET itself plus power system is not a closed system. The MET is extracting additional energy from the inertial/gravitational field through out the whole universe. At least that is the claim being made by Woodward via his published papers.

As for your other questions the best I could do is refer you to the work that has been published so far. I think Theory of Mach Effect Thruster I & II are a good starting point for references. In addition I believe with those two papers they have completed the work to show how Hoyle & Narlikar's Theory of Gravitation is a valid Theory of Gravitation that can be used to derive General Relativity. The importance of that work being that General Relativity does not have a core part of what is needed to explain Mach Effects, the ability for mass here to instantly communicate with the mass out their when it under goes acceleration. Since this instantaneous communication is needed to prove that inertia is caused by gravity.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Stormbringer on 11/19/2015 02:24 am
this may be topical:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/11/theory-and-experiments-suggest-space.html
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Admiral_Ritt on 11/20/2015 07:59 pm
Regarding the article on quantum  - gravity connection, and entanglement.

    The Mach Effect, central postulate relies on transactional interpretation of QM, from past and future as the source of inertia.

With wormholes  in providing the scaffolding for the space-time  it seems to me that the very definition of past present and future becomes illusory.    How would this affect Machian inertial postulate?   
For example consider a molecule of Methanol.  If we try to apply motion to it, where is the inertia that resists(albeit tiny) such motion coming from?  It might be coming from all the other states the molecule/elementary particles have been in and will be, simultaneously, and instead of relying on advance or retarded waves the effect is a structural facet of space-time.
 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Stormbringer on 11/20/2015 09:15 pm
Woodward, E.T. Al; currently use the advanced/retarded wave mechanism to model how information appears to be FTL without violating the restrictions of FTL. The above article may suggest either an alternative mechanism or a elaboration on how that part would be possible? Anyway that is why I posted it as possibly topical.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: HMXHMX on 11/20/2015 10:03 pm
this may be topical:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/11/theory-and-experiments-suggest-space.html

I raised this very issue with Professors Woodward and Fearn yesterday, after reading this part:

"A successful unification of quantum mechanics and gravity has eluded physicists for nearly a century. Quantum mechanics governs the world of the small — the weird realm in which an atom or particle can be in many places at the same time, and can simultaneously spin both clockwise and anticlockwise. Gravity governs the Universe at large — from the fall of an apple to the motion of planets, stars and galaxies — and is described by Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity, announced 100 years ago this month. The theory holds that gravity is geometry: particles are deflected when they pass near a massive object not because they feel a force, said Einstein, but because space and time around the object are curved.

Both theories have been abundantly verified through experiment, yet the realities they describe seem utterly incompatible. And from the editors’ standpoint, Van Raamsdonk’s approach to resolving this incompatibility was  strange. All that’s needed, he asserted, is ‘entanglement’: the phenomenon that many physicists believe to be the ultimate in quantum weirdness. Entanglement lets the measurement of one particle instantaneously determine the state of a partner particle, no matter how far away it may be — even on the other side of the Milky Way. [emphasis mine]"


There is certainly interest on our part in determining if there is a connection, but as Jim Woodward told me this morning, the trick is in how to craft an experiment that proves the connection.  That will take some serious thought.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: aceshigh on 11/21/2015 01:38 am
HMXHMX : has you forwarded Gargoyle's criticism to Woodward, particularly post #570?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Stormbringer on 11/21/2015 01:38 am
in other gravity inertia news that SLAC fellow who connected Gravity to the strong force via unitarity in N=8 Super Gravity (for which he andZvi Levi and others share the Sakurai Prize for Theoretical Physics) is talking more about Gravity and inertia again:  http://phys.org/news/2015-11-slac-theorist-quantum-gravity.html

and in other gravity news:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/11/theory-and-experiments-suggest-space.html

Space iz made of woimholes! :)

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 11/21/2015 01:45 am
this may be topical:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/11/theory-and-experiments-suggest-space.html

I would speculate from time to time that gravity was the flow of a fluid dragging us.  When he illustrated that two spaces where you get quantum de-coherence (that the space separates like pulled bubblegum) it immediately made me think of the fluid analogy.  Basically gravity induces a time gradient so that clocks closer to the earth move slower than ones higher.  This difference in the passage of time will de-cohere quantum states if I remember correctly.  I remember reading it some where but can't remember but this article supports it I think: http://physics.aps.org/articles/v6/78?goback=.gde_1892648_member_261507786

You can imagine space as being pulled apart by gravity like bubblegum or like a flowing fluid being stretched into the earth as it de-coheres?  There is also the pilot wave theory which goes way back,

"The idea that pilot waves might explain the peculiarities of particles dates back to the early days of quantum mechanics. The French physicist Louis de Broglie presented the earliest version of pilot-wave theory at the 1927" link: http://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-new-quantum-reality/

it envisions the wave as a fluid and a bouncing droplet. 

One problem is this implies a time gradient to de-cohere the space to induce gravity but it is a time gradient that is induced by gravity.  I guess it appears more correct to suggest that it is entropy that induces this. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Stormbringer on 11/21/2015 01:52 am
Wild random thought: the reason the universe is expanding is that there is a region beyond the observable universe with a lower vacuum state than that inside the universe. The universe is like a balloon or bubble expanding as it ascends up into the atmosphere as the gas pressure inside overcomes the outside gas pressure.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: HMXHMX on 11/21/2015 03:35 am
HMXHMX : has you forwarded Gargoyle's criticism to Woodward, particularly post #570?

I did forward earlier comments. Professor Woodward feels he's addressed the matter sufficiently in both the book and the white paper, so I doubt he's going to add to those writings, preferring to concentrate his attention on experiments currently underway.  But he did add a comment to me and a few others yesterday in a private email that I doubt he'd mind me sharing:

"I spelled out both how and why a correct calculation is to be done in the last paragraph of the paper.  The ... mistake is to assume that you can set the integral of the FOM equation over some arbitrarily long time equal to the integral of the work equation for the same time.  You have to set the integrals so that the integration time is short enough that the kinetic energy generated is less that the input energy to the thruster.  Then you repeat this calculation for all subsequent intervals of the same length until you reach whatever time of operation you are interested in.  This guarantees that the kinetic energy sum never exceeds the input energy sum in the two sums.  This must be done because the only invariant velocity is Zero at the start of each integration interval and you know for a fact that simple mechanical systems do NOT violate energy conservation.  There is nothing magical about METs."

That's all he's going to say, I'm certain, so I'm gong to respect his position and leave matters there.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Paul451 on 11/21/2015 12:07 pm
This must be done because the only invariant velocity is Zero at the start of each integration interval

And that's a weirdly elementary mistake. He's changing the frame of reference for each interval, but then trying to sum linearly. That's not a real thing.

The ... mistake is to assume that you can set the integral of the FOM equation over some arbitrarily long time equal to the integral of the work equation for the same time.

The mistake (well, his other mistake) is that he believes his "FoM" applies to classical systems, and therefore classical systems are "over-unity" if assessed with the same method as MET and other reactionless thrusters; thus "proving" that the method is flawed. However, no classical system has a FoM that is constant over a long enough period for it to reach an over-unity state. That's the very trait that defines a reactionless thruster, the constant acceleration per unit power input.

That's the thing so many people can't seem to get their heads around... classical systems don't have a constant FoM. Not an object on a frictionless surface. Not a rocket on a rotor. Not a gravitational sling-shot. Not a solar sail (or a regular sail). Not an anti-matter engine. Not an ion-drive. Not a photon drive. None of them. Only MET, EMDrives, and similar reactionless thrusters.

[edit: " Not a photon drive." Oops, got carried away. Actually that one is the only classical system that does have a constant thrust/watt ("figure of merit"), and could therefore potentially reach an overunity state... And the velocity at which the perfect photon drive (ie, the actual emission of a photon from an atom) achieves break-even is... the speed of light.]
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 11/21/2015 12:12 pm
HMXHMX : has you forwarded Gargoyle's criticism to Woodward, particularly post #570?

I did forward earlier comments. Professor Woodward feels he's addressed the matter sufficiently in both the book and the white paper, so I doubt he's going to add to those writings, preferring to concentrate his attention on experiments currently underway.  But he did add a comment to me and a few others yesterday in a private email that I doubt he'd mind me sharing:

"I spelled out both how and why a correct calculation is to be done in the last paragraph of the paper.  The ... mistake is to assume that you can set the integral of the FOM equation over some arbitrarily long time equal to the integral of the work equation for the same time.  You have to set the integrals so that the integration time is short enough that the kinetic energy generated is less that the input energy to the thruster.  Then you repeat this calculation for all subsequent intervals of the same length until you reach whatever time of operation you are interested in.  This guarantees that the kinetic energy sum never exceeds the input energy sum in the two sums.  This must be done because the only invariant velocity is Zero at the start of each integration interval and you know for a fact that simple mechanical systems do NOT violate energy conservation.  There is nothing magical about METs."

That's all he's going to say, I'm certain, so I'm gong to respect his position and leave matters there.

I've been following Woodward's work for a couple of years.
I'm not qualified in advanced physics, but, as previously noted, this is basic Newtonian mechanics, and I have to agree with gargoyle's argument here.
I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, it's not my intention, but that paper is counterproductive if its objective was to close once for all the diatribe, and its only contribute is to casting further doubts on Woodward himself.

I find Woodward's argument flawed at the level of first assumptions, but I'm willing to listen if he actually discusses the point raised, instead of just repeating his own.

Since his whole point stems from this, could you please ask Woodward about an example of an existing classical system with a constant figure of merit? I can't think of any, since they violate CoE.

Also, in the overunity paper Woodward doesn't seem to be consistent with what is still written on his own page, the one quoted by gargoyle. At the end of he wrote:

Quote
The net momentum flux is accompanied by a net energy flux, so although our impulse engine, considered locally, appears to violate energy conservation, that need not necessarily be the case. The extraction of useful work from matter that may be completely thermalized raises interesting questions. Boosting, rather than borrowing, from the future, however, seems to be the nature of the process involved.

I understand this was written many years ago, and that maybe his ideas about changed in the meanwhile. But if so, why is this still written there?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 11/26/2015 07:53 pm
HMXHMX : has you forwarded Gargoyle's criticism to Woodward, particularly post #570?

I did forward earlier comments. ...


...

Since his whole point stems from this, could you please ask Woodward about an example of an existing classical system with a constant figure of merit? I can't think of any, since they violate CoE.

...

I am assuming your talking about systems that don't use reaction mass to speed up.  One system that comes to mind is a swing.  Also I remember this same subject came up in the EM drive section and I pointed out a device that may qualify as a classical system of this type.  The video is on YouTube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0bWcmxq704 .  I don't think it is over unity but it certainly doesn't appear to use reaction mass to speed up.  How it works is like a swing.  When the mass wants to swing out to the largest radius you just twist the weights against the force of the mass.  When the mass is coming in to the center you can reverse the twist and assist against the force pulling it out and the energy transfers to the system as a whole.  Basically F(x).dx=E .  This is angular velocity rather than linear but the argument is that there is this break even speed where the energy you put in becomes more than you put in.  My argument is if this is true then you might be able to argue the same for this device.  Explaining this systems conservation of energy may be instructive in similar systems, though in this case it is mechanical instead of electro-magnetic.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 11/30/2015 08:53 pm
HMXHMX : has you forwarded Gargoyle's criticism to Woodward, particularly post #570?

I did forward earlier comments. ...


...

Since his whole point stems from this, could you please ask Woodward about an example of an existing classical system with a constant figure of merit? I can't think of any, since they violate CoE.

...

I am assuming your talking about systems that don't use reaction mass to speed up.  One system that comes to mind is a swing.  Also I remember this same subject came up in the EM drive section and I pointed out a device that may qualify as a classical system of this type.  The video is on YouTube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0bWcmxq704 .  I don't think it is over unity but it certainly doesn't appear to use reaction mass to speed up.  How it works is like a swing.  When the mass wants to swing out to the largest radius you just twist the weights against the force of the mass.  When the mass is coming in to the center you can reverse the twist and assist against the force pulling it out and the energy transfers to the system as a whole.  Basically F(x).dx=E .  This is angular velocity rather than linear but the argument is that there is this break even speed where the energy you put in becomes more than you put in.  My argument is if this is true then you might be able to argue the same for this device.  Explaining this systems conservation of energy may be instructive in similar systems, though in this case it is mechanical instead of electro-magnetic.


I commented on this in the other thread. This device is just reacting against the earth and is really no different than a car except that it is angular velocity rather than linear velocity. It will require ever increasing power for constant acceleration just like a car. If it didn't it would be over unity and could power the world.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 12/10/2015 12:10 am
... If it didn't it would be over unity and could power the world.

I don't think anyone here is claiming this device is overunity.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 12/12/2015 07:30 pm
... If it didn't it would be over unity and could power the world.

I don't think anyone here is claiming this device is overunity.

People are making claims that inevitably lead to an over unity result. That is not only true of some people here but is true of both Shawyer and Woodward. That is somewhat excusable for people here because we live on an effectively limitless and massive plain where Galilean  relativity isn't immediately apparent. But there is no excuse for Shawyer and Woodward. I simply cannot wrap my head around how they could fail so totally.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: M.E.T. on 12/12/2015 07:58 pm
My understanding has always been that the Mach Effect Thruster is not generating  energy. Instead, it is tapping into the energy of the rest of the universe, similar to a sailing ship tapping into the wind to generate forward motion.

The controversial part here is the mechanism by which this transfer takes place instantaneously with the mass of the distant universe. But Woodward has covered that with the Wheeler-Feynman Absorber theory, as far as I understand. I have not yet seen that theoretically debunked.

And according to my understanding, it is this extraction of energy from the mass of the rest of the Universe that makes the Mach Effect Thruster increase the entropy in the rest of the universe each time that it is used.

Going even further, the argument that I have seen put forward by some who understand the theory better than I do, is that the extensive use of Mach Effect Thrusters elsewhere in space and time could be one potential explanation for the accelerating expansion of the Universe. And ultimately, could be accelerating the heat death of the Universe.

So far from generating more energy than is put into it, the Mach Effect Thruster is simply extracting energy from elsewhere and tapping into it locally. With the entire Universe as the system, there is no net energy being created. It is simply being channeled from one place to the next.

That is how I read the theory, anyway.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Paul451 on 12/12/2015 08:53 pm
My understanding has always been that the Mach Effect Thruster is not generating  energy. Instead, it is tapping into the energy of the rest of the universe

That doesn't change the free-energy issue. The energy-input is constant with thrust, therefore increases linearly with the change in velocity. The energy output (the change in kinetic energy) varies with the square of change in velocity. Therefore there must be a velocity at which energy-out increases faster than energy-in. At that point, you have a free energy machine. This is regardless of where that input energy comes from.

(And over-unity occurs when velocity (in m/s) is greater than P/F. Where power is in watts (joules/second) and thrust is in newtons.)

Before anyone brings Woodward's claimed solution up again: The rate of energy increase exceeds the rate of energy applied. The "over-unity" is continuous, not in sum.

similar to a sailing ship tapping into the wind to generate forward motion.

No, with a sailing ship, or any conventional device, the thrust varies with velocity. That's what stops them from becoming free-energy machines.

it is this extraction of energy from the mass of the rest of the Universe that makes the Mach Effect Thruster increase the entropy in the rest of the universe each time that it is used.

Errr, that's actually the definition of decreasing entropy. Taking a broad low grade, relatively uniform energy and concentrating it to do work. Maxwell's demon and all that.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: M.E.T. on 12/12/2015 09:07 pm
Apologies on the last point.

Regarding the former though, I think wikipedia does a much better job than me of explaining the conservation issues:

Although the momentum and energy exchange with distant matter guarantees global conservation of energy and momentum, this field exchange is supplied at no material cost, unlike the case with conventional fuels. For this reason, when the field exchange is ignored, a propellantless thruster behaves locally like a free energy device. This is immediately apparent from basic Newtonian analysis: if constant power produces constant thrust, then input energy is linear with time and output (kinetic) energy is quadratic with time. Thus there exists a break-even time (or distance or velocity) of operation, above which more energy is output than is input. The longer it is allowed to accelerate, the more pronounced will this effect become, as simple Newtonian physics predicts.

Considering those conservation issues, a Mach effect thruster relies on Mach's principle, hence it is not an electrical to kinetic transducer, i.e. it does not convert electric energy to kinetic energy. Rather, a MET is a gravinertial transistor that controls the flow of gravinertial flux, in and out of the active mass of the thruster. The primary power into the thruster is contained in the flux of the gravitational field, not the electricity that powers the device. Failing to account for this flux, is much the same as failing to account for the wind on a sail.[62] Mach effects are relativistic by nature, and considering a spaceship accelerating with a Mach effect thruster, the propellant is not accelerating with the ship, so the situation should be treated as an accelerating and therefore non-inertial reference frame, where F does not equal ma. Keith H. Wanser, professor of physics at California State University, Fullerton, published a paper in 2013 concerning the conservation issues of Mach effect thrusters


End quote

So in short, the electrical energy going into the device is not what produces its acceleration.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Paul451 on 12/12/2015 10:00 pm
the electrical energy going into the device is not what produces its acceleration.

It doesn't change the over-unity result. Unless the amount of energy stolen from the universe-at-large (by reversing entropy) is somehow varying with device's velocity (and, to quote an old Benny Hill routine, "how does it know"), the device will still have a velocity at which energy created exceeds energy used or transferred.

Quote
"Failing to account for this flux, is much the same as failing to account for the wind on a sail."

<sigh> Frakkin' sailin' boats, you guys al'ys with the frakkin' sailin' boats.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 12/12/2015 11:43 pm
My understanding has always been that the Mach Effect Thruster is not generating  energy. Instead, it is tapping into the energy of the rest of the universe, similar to a sailing ship tapping into the wind to generate forward motion.

In principle there could be a mechanism to do that. But that does not get you constant acceleration with constant power. For example if you are in a car you can accelerate by pushing against the earth. But the faster you go the more power is needed to keep a constant acceleration. If there is a mechanism that allows you to push against a distant mass then how much you can accelerate with a given power depends on how fast you are moving compared to that distant mass and what direction you try to accelerate. For example our motion with respect to the cosmic background is about 10% of the speed of light. So accelerating in one direction would require huge amounts of power for undetectable amounts of acceleration. Accelerating in the other direction would allow you to extract enough energy to melt down the earth.


Quote
The controversial part here is the mechanism by which this transfer takes place instantaneously with the mass of the distant universe. But Woodward has covered that with the Wheeler-Feynman Absorber theory, as far as I understand. I have not yet seen that theoretically debunked.

It is a real shame that neither Feynman nor Wheeler are alive to offer their opinion. In any case nothing here allows violations of conservation of momentum and so the above analysis stands. Also if real energy and real momentum are being transferred then it's hard to see how you could avoid real information being sent. FTL communication. Wheeler-Feynman Absorber theory does not allow that either. 

Also Shawyer does not believe any such mechanism is needed since he believes ordinary physics explains it. His claim that there is no violation of conservation of momentum is about as wrong as you can get. Woodward makes a very similar mistake and seemingly refuses to address it. It's like neither can wrap their head around Galilean relativity.

Quote
And according to my understanding, it is this extraction of energy from the mass of the rest of the Universe that makes the Mach Effect Thruster increase the entropy in the rest of the universe each time that it is used.

A car can extract energy from the motion of the road under it or it can react against the road and accelerate. What it cannot do is get constant acceleration with constant power.


Quote
Going even further, the argument that I have seen put forward by some who understand the theory better than I do, is that the extensive use of Mach Effect Thrusters elsewhere in space and time could be one potential explanation for the accelerating expansion of the Universe. And ultimately, could be accelerating the heat death of the Universe.

Castles in the air dude. And if the Mach Effect Thrusters can visibly accelerate the expansion of the universe then surly you could use it to send a message faster than light - and so back in time.

Quote
So far from generating more energy than is put into it, the Mach Effect Thruster is simply extracting energy from elsewhere and tapping into it locally. With the entire Universe as the system, there is no net energy being created. It is simply being channeled from one place to the next.

That is how I read the theory, anyway.

So a mechanism for taping and draining the power of the entire universe. That is truly a marvelous castle you have built there. I... don't think I trust the foundation. All I see is air.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: william elliott on 12/22/2015 07:46 pm
Of Woodward’s effect and Fluid space drive
I wish (very egotistical of me) to offer an alternative method.

Let us say that what James Woodward has is a box that can become heavier or lighter at command.

Now visualize a large cylinder floating in space, if we place the box at the inner “forward” end the cylinder and give it a strong push (with a spring to simplify).

The cylinder will accelerate “forward” while the box travels to the rear of the cylinder, the moment the box collides with the inner rear wall of the cylinder, the cylinder comes to a stop because the force now excreted in the backwards hull will be equal to the force that was exerted forward.

This is because the FORCE = MASS of the box X VELOCITY of the box.

BUT, if we really can make the box lighter (less mass) at command, then the resulting force in the backward direction will be less and the cylinder will gain velocity every cycle.

And there is another way.

If instead of reducing the boxes mass we reduce its velocity, by the same equation (F=MxV), the resulting force in the backwards direction will also be diminished.

The big difference is that while modifying a box’s mass is complex, modifying its velocity is a simple matter, all we need is an air brake or parachute if you will (did I mention that the cylinder is pressurized).

Another difference is that while demonstrating the Woodward effect is difficult, requires complex lab equipment to show a very (difficult to measure) small result compared to the random error Inherent in any experiment.
The results obtained by reducing the velocity can be demonstrated using the same set up available in physics classrooms for demonstrating of the Law of Conservation of Momentum, and the magnitudes of the acceleration obtained is sufficient to be observed without need for motion sensors o other means
Description of the experiment can be found here: http://wjetech.cl/

I am aware that the results seem to contradict that very important Law of Conservation of Linear Momentum, but that is precisely what makes the experiment interesting.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Paul451 on 12/23/2015 04:13 am
This is because the FORCE = MASS of the box X VELOCITY of the box.

It really doesn't.

Momentum = Mass * Velocity. Force = Mass * Acceleration.

The big difference is that while modifying a box’s mass is complex, modifying its velocity is a simple matter, all we need is an air brake or parachute if you will (did I mention that the cylinder is pressurized).

The momentum of the object is transferred to the air that slows it, giving the air a slight motion in the same direction. So the net momentum transferred to the cylinder is the same on each pass.

There's always a second effect like this. That's why MET/EMDrive/etc are so unique (and why skepticism should be so high), they are claimed to be unlike any system ever studied. From mundane Earthly objects (like your box-in-cylinder) to extreme astronomical objects, like blackholes and neutron stars and decaying binary stars.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 12/23/2015 08:41 am
People are making claims that inevitably lead to an over unity result. That is not only true of some people here but is true of both Shawyer and Woodward.
I always was under the impression that Woodward required increasing energy input for a constant acceleration, but I might have misunderstood something.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 12/23/2015 06:42 pm
People are making claims that inevitably lead to an over unity result. That is not only true of some people here but is true of both Shawyer and Woodward.
I always was under the impression that Woodward required increasing energy input for a constant acceleration, but I might have misunderstood something.

I think there are alot of un answered questions about the ramifications of Woodwards METs that have yet to be answered. For now the only fact is a demonstrably working experiment with a solid theoretical justification for why the experiment works they way they believe it to work.

Its when we try to take it farther than that with very little data to back up our assertions where we get into trouble.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 12/23/2015 09:31 pm
People are making claims that inevitably lead to an over unity result. That is not only true of some people here but is true of both Shawyer and Woodward.
I always was under the impression that Woodward required increasing energy input for a constant acceleration, but I might have misunderstood something.

Woodward seems to allow a constant power for constant acceleration but only for a time period small enough to prevent over unity. Then you turn off the drive and turn it on again for another period of acceleration. Of course this is beyond silly. You still violate conservation of energy. Changing the frame of reference that you are calculating energy from is a really stupid slight of hand.

Reduce the period of acceleration to an arbitrarily small time and you can have the effect of accelerating constantly indefinitely. 

I simply cannot wrap my head around what these people are thinking. It's like freaky twilight zone thinking. They fail the Turing test.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 12/24/2015 04:03 am
I gotta ask.

Does anyone have a reference for where Woodward claims AND shows that his METs offer constant acceleration for constant power? I know thats always been interpreted. But I dont recall any of the papers arguing that interpretation.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 12/24/2015 06:16 am
I gotta ask.

Does anyone have a reference for where Woodward claims AND shows that his METs offer constant acceleration for constant power? I know thats always been interpreted. But I dont recall any of the papers arguing that interpretation.

Dude this has been done to death. A Woodward link is here:

http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf

gargoyle99 did a breakdown on it just a few messages up from this one. But one more time...

Woodward starts with this:

Quote
We know that, starting from t= 0, if we let the integration interval t get very large, the work equation integral will first equal and then exceed the energy calculated by the figure of merit equation.

Here he acknowledges that constant power for constant acceleration will eventually violate conservation of energy. His solution?

Quote
So we require that t be sufficiently small that this obvious violation of energy conservation does not happen.

Simple. You don't run the engine long enough to violate conservation of energy. So how do you get velocities larger than you can get in time t?

Quote
That is, we note what should be obvious physics for this situation: the energies added to the two sums in every differential time interval are always in the same ratio as they are in the very first interval because the only invariant velocity that exists in this case is the one of instantaneous rest at the outset of each interval.
If this prescription - the only one that makes physical sense in the circumstances – is followed, no energy
conservation violation follows from the calculation.  And elementary mechanics is not threatened by an obviously
wrong calculation.

See under relativity all inertial frames are equally valid. If I am in a rocket traveling through space at 10 miles per second compared to you I am entitled to say that my speed is zero and it is you who is moving. Speed is relative. So Woodward is claiming that he can turn his drive on for an interval t that is short enough it does not violate conservation of energy. Then turning it off he notes that it is valid to take his speed as zero since speed is relative. But then doing the same calculation again he can turn his drive on again for another time interval t and double his speed without violating conservation of energy. And continue time interval after time interval until you have whatever speed you want. You have effectively achieved constant acceleration with constant power.

But is just mind blowingly stupid. At the end you have still built up a very high speed so that the kinetic energy is much higher than the energy you put in. You cannot do energy calculations in different frames of reference and then add them as if they were in the same frame of reference. As I said before he is not only wrong - he fails my Turing test.

 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 12/25/2015 02:08 am
I gotta ask.

Does anyone have a reference for where Woodward claims AND shows that his METs offer constant acceleration for constant power? I know thats always been interpreted. But I dont recall any of the papers arguing that interpretation.

Dude this has been done to death. A Woodward link is here:

http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf

gargoyle99 did a breakdown on it just a few messages up from this one. But one more time...

Woodward starts with this:

Quote
We know that, starting from t= 0, if we let the integration interval t get very large, the work equation integral will first equal and then exceed the energy calculated by the figure of merit equation.

Here he acknowledges that constant power for constant acceleration will eventually violate conservation of energy. His solution?

Quote
So we require that t be sufficiently small that this obvious violation of energy conservation does not happen.

Simple. You don't run the engine long enough to violate conservation of energy. So how do you get velocities larger than you can get in time t?

Quote
That is, we note what should be obvious physics for this situation: the energies added to the two sums in every differential time interval are always in the same ratio as they are in the very first interval because the only invariant velocity that exists in this case is the one of instantaneous rest at the outset of each interval.
If this prescription - the only one that makes physical sense in the circumstances – is followed, no energy
conservation violation follows from the calculation.  And elementary mechanics is not threatened by an obviously
wrong calculation.

See under relativity all inertial frames are equally valid. If I am in a rocket traveling through space at 10 miles per second compared to you I am entitled to say that my speed is zero and it is you who is moving. Speed is relative. So Woodward is claiming that he can turn his drive on for an interval t that is short enough it does not violate conservation of energy. Then turning it off he notes that it is valid to take his speed as zero since speed is relative. But then doing the same calculation again he can turn his drive on again for another time interval t and double his speed without violating conservation of energy. And continue time interval after time interval until you have whatever speed you want. You have effectively achieved constant acceleration with constant power.

But is just mind blowingly stupid. At the end you have still built up a very high speed so that the kinetic energy is much higher than the energy you put in. You cannot do energy calculations in different frames of reference and then add them as if they were in the same frame of reference. As I said before he is not only wrong - he fails my Turing test.

 

So I have read this recently published essay already, and since I believe my reading comprehension skills have not failed me. No where in this essay is Woodward actually claiming that a MET will produce constant acceleration for constant force. This is the very first paragraph of the essay

Quote
We routinely hear a criticism of METs based upon an argument that claims: if a
MET is operated at constant power input for a sufficiently long time, it will acquire
enough kinetic energy to exceed the total input energy of operation
. Assuming this
argument to be correct, critcs assert that METs violate energy conservation as the ratio of
the acquired kinetic energy to total input energy exceeds “unity.”

The argument being disputed is not Woodward's but the argument made by critics. Now you could argue that I am splitting hairs, Because if MET's cannot provide constant acceleration for constant input power. Wouldn't the simple answer to the critique be to say they can't. I'll come back to that in a minute.

Since I have already stated, in a previous post, that prior to the last paragraph on page 5 of the essay you linked to. Woodward hasnt done anything stupid with the math. equation 1-9 is all accepted physics. while equation 10-15 is the result of a critic's argument that woodward is trying to show as being wrong. Which from everything you have said it seems like Woodward and you would be in agreement.

Now the only bone of contention really left with the essay begins towards the end of the essay where Woodward rhetorically asks the reader.

Quote
...
To wrap this up, we ask: is it possible to do a correct calculation of the sort that
critics did that does not lead to wrong predictions of the violation of energy conservation?
...

That is where he is saying that the way to avoid the over unity issue with the argument made by critics is to bound the equation by choosing a suitable value for t.

After re reading the essay(n.b. it looks like it has been updated). I was tempted to agree with you. but something kept gnawing at me. I have a hard time believing that anyone could argue that you simply limit the time the MET runs for to some calculated t and that is enough to avoid over unity. As you have said if that decision is left to a human what if that human maliciously decides to let it run for t+1. If that decision is supposed to be left to the engine then how does the engine know what velocity it is moving at much less how does it know when to stop accelerating.

Now piggy backing off of Woodward's the idea that over unity if possible would exist for all mechanical systems. I am forced to ask the question how would any mechanical system absent friction or gravitational interaction know that it isnt supposed to go any faster. For rockets if you plot the velocity over time from lift off you get a graph that looks similar to

(http://www.sosmath.com/algebra/logs/log4/log42/gl02.gif)

now there are some interesting differences. a rocket engine lifting off from earth is fighting at t=0, air friction + gravity + inertia. Since air friction reduces the higher up you go the acceleration portion of the graph actually would get steeper as it climbed higher. Now lets assume we are dealing with a Rocket with a near inexhaustible supply of fuel and oxidizer. Once it is past the earth's atmosphere the acceleration portion of the graph would stop getting steeper. Since air friction is reduced to zero and the only thing the rocket is fighting is gravity + inertia; which have been present since t=0. Now the rocket has barely made a dent in its supply of fuel and oxidizer so the first question I would have is why would the velocity graph begin to flatten? how does the rocket engine know that it isn't supposed to go any faster. The answer to me is the fuel+oxidizer reaction which powers the rocket is inherently limited. That reaction determines the maximum amount of force the rocket engine can generate. That said the interesting thing is, the rocket did undergo near constant acceleration for constant power input. It just couldn't sustain that constant acceleration beyond its limiting factor; the energy imparted by the fuel+oxidizer reaction. If we switched to a fusion rocket or even an antimatter rocket you eventually get to a terminal velocity, though in those cases due to the large amount of energy that those reactions release inertia begins to play a more important role in the limiting terminal velocity.

Now I could be wrong about this. But I don't believe we are arguing about whether or not a MET can under go constant acceleration for constant input power; because any Newtonian system can experience this for a relatively short period of time. I think what we really want to know is, for a MET what is the limiting factor. What keeps a MET from accelerating for all eternity or at the very least past the point where you have an over-unity problem. That is the question we want an answer to, and that is the question which isn't answered at all in the Essay because when we talk about constant acceleration for constant input power; since the MET seems to only be powered by electricity it looks like there would be no reason for it to stop accelerating.

Now Since Woodward's work is based on SR and GR I feel it safe to say that at the very least the speed of light would be the absolute limiting factor for a MET. But given the efficiency at which a MET seems to convert electricity into kinetic energy, That doesn't solve the real problem alluded to in the over-unity debate; which is being able to get more energy out of a MET than the electrical energy provided by its user. From my perspective I think the solution is that there is no problem. If you define the maximum energy input to a MET as the electrical energy provided by the user + something else. However, if you define the maximum energy input to a MET as being the electrical energy provided by the user, then there is an over-unity problem and a MET is magic pixie dust. Put another way the only reason it looks like over-unity is because we are only counting (observe) the electrical energy being put into a MET by the user.

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

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

Fheavier - Flighter = Fnet

Where Fnet is greater than zero.

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

My speculation only works if you can argue that inertia is a radiating field permeating the universe. Which is why I suspect Woodward/Fearn/Watsner have spent time updating Hoyle and Narlikar theory. Since it is a Machian version of Einsteins relativity. Which provides a mechanism for mass interactions in the local environment to communicate with the mass that is far away. This mechanism works so long as the expansion of the Universe is accelerating, which all observations seem to support.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Paul451 on 12/25/2015 12:09 pm
Now lets assume we are dealing with a Rocket with a near inexhaustible supply of fuel and oxidizer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(In a photon drive, the minimum velocity for unity is the speed of light. And thrust is below 3.3 newtons per gigawatt.)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 12/25/2015 12:20 pm
Now lets assume we are dealing with a Rocket with a near inexhaustible supply of fuel and oxidizer.
Yes, if you can somehow magically insert new propellant in the tanks, without having to pay for it by carrying it with you or collecting it from an outside medium, then a simple rocket becomes a CoE-violating free-energy machine.

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

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

[ edit: it was you, on this thread (http://"http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1443528#msg1443528"). Did you even read the replies? ]

Basically you're ignoring the momentum of the fuel.

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

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

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

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

The same is true of any system that is powered externally, or pushes against an external medium (road/water/air/magnetic fields/etc.)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 12/25/2015 03:34 pm
Yes, I already pointed that out (actually, not my idea but Woodward's). To explain my thought this second time I wonder if this would be the same if the required energy used to accelerate the propellant was not due to the wheel rotation but say, from a pump in the external tank (water being pumped in the wheel from a pump outside so the energy (pressure) pushing the water is way beyond the centripetal acceleration of the water due to the rotation of the wheel). Thanks for clarifying BTW, I really appreciate your explanation.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 12/25/2015 04:46 pm
Now lets assume we are dealing with a Rocket with a near inexhaustible supply of fuel and oxidizer.

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



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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


...

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

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

Fheavier - Flighter = Fnet

Where Fnet is greater than zero.

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

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

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

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

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

P.S. For anyone reading this when you use the term Reaction-less and or Propellant-less to describe a MET or EmDrive please be very careful to state your definition of these terms. I think the more accurate term to describe a MET would be propellant-less, where propellant-less means a MET propelled ship does not need to tote around a reservoir of mass to accelerate out its tail end. Instead you need to either tote around a reservoir of fuel for a power supply to drive the MET or design a battery storage system that can start up the MET power generator.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 12/25/2015 05:05 pm
flux_capacitor,


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

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

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

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

Woodward does claim that his drive will give a constant acceleration with constant power for a limited time interval. After that he resets the speed to zero and allows the same to happen again. Nothing can fix this level of +stupid. Even if his drive works by taping into some hidden power source his analysis is still silly. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 12/25/2015 05:13 pm
birchoff,

How fast are you moving with respect to that grav-inertial field? It matters because a car accelerates by reacting against the "earth-dirt" field and it can't accelerate constantly with constant power. What makes Woodwards drive different?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: RonM on 12/25/2015 05:43 pm
birchoff,

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

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

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

Hopefully, the MET or EM drive are actually reacting with a field, similar to electromagnetic propulsion. Either that or we are dealing with experimental error and they don't work.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 12/25/2015 05:47 pm
flux_capacitor,


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

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

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

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

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

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

As far as that essay is concerned Woodward doesn't claim what your saying. From my interpretation he is doing a by definition justification that a boundary must exist beyond which a MET cannot accelerate any longer.What is missing is an explanation of what is the physical process that reduces acceleration as you approach this time boundary.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 12/25/2015 06:21 pm
flux_capacitor,


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And no rocket will give constant acceleration with constant power. With fuel that has high enough performance it can look constant but it is not.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 12/25/2015 06:23 pm
birchoff,

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

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

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

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

Devoid of knowledge of any assumptions you are making my interpretation is that if I provide constant input power to a MET or any mechanical system, AT NO TIME can it constantly accelerate. Instead from t=0 the moment I turn on my power supply which provides constant input power. The MET or other simple mechanical system will either instantaneously attain terminal velocity, or acceleration will start at maximum possible and continuously decrease from that point forward until terminal velocity is achieved.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 12/25/2015 06:51 pm
birchoff,

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are many illusions that will hide this fact. Changing efficiency in converting power into kinetic energy. Changing fuel weight in a rocket. Changing kinetic energy content of the remaining fuel. Ignore all these and just assume 100% efficiency in converting power to kinetic energy and no change of weight of the vehicle and you cannot have constant power for constant acceleration for even an instant.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 12/25/2015 06:51 pm
flux_capacitor,


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where in the essay is he claiming you can turn the drive off and reset speed to zero? I dont see that direct claim anywhere in the essay. Do you mean it is implied by his deduction? If so which part of the deduction implies what you say he is claiming.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 12/25/2015 07:12 pm
birchoff,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That said would it be fair to say that instead what we have is constantly decreasing acceleration for constant input power? If so what is component responsible for this decreasing acceleration even though the power provided at each time interval remains the same (I am assuming that the point of contention isn't over if it is possible to provide constant power to a mechanical system or rocket).
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: M.E.T. on 12/25/2015 07:32 pm
From reading the musings of prominent Mach Effect proponents, it seems to me that they freely accept that a Mach Effect device will act as a net energy generator in addition to being a propulsion system.

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

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

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

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 12/25/2015 07:32 pm

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

Once again...

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

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

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

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

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

Only the kinetic energy isn't adding up right.   
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 12/25/2015 07:59 pm


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

Well what are you pushing on to get acceleration?

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

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

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

Trouble is I just made this up and no theory supports such a thing. Also this isn't what the designers are claiming. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Paul451 on 12/25/2015 08:07 pm
or a simple ion rocket moving from Earth GEO to Mars GEO still shows a period of constant acceleration for constant power as the rocket approaches its terminal velocity.

Actually it doesn't.

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

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

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

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

Unfortunately it doesn't.

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

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

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

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

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

Because...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can I be skeptical now?

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

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

In effect, he is creating an accelerating frame of reference, but treating it as a non-acceleration non-relativistic frame.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 12/25/2015 08:15 pm

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

Once again...

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

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

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

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

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

Only the kinetic energy isn't adding up right.

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

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

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

from

...

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

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

Fheavier - Flighter = Fnet

Where Fnet is greater than zero.

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

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

would get larger the faster the MET is moving. However, I would also expect the increase in Flighter and Fheavier to be the same. Which means the difference between them should be the same. So unless I am missing something I am included to believe that no matter the definition of Energy in it would still be constant. so you shouldn't end up with constant acceleration, unless there is some other reaction not being accounted for.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 12/25/2015 08:30 pm

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

Once again...

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

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

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

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

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

Only the kinetic energy isn't adding up right.

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

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

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

from

...

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

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

Fheavier - Flighter = Fnet

Where Fnet is greater than zero.

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

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

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


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

And even if there were a Grav-Inertial Field you still have some hard questions about our relative velocity with it.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff 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.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff 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.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl 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.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff 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?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl 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.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff 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/269207998_Theory_of_a_Mach_Effect_Thruster_I)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283007333_Theory_of_a_Mach_Effect_Thruster_II (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283007333_Theory_of_a_Mach_Effect_Thruster_II)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Paul451 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.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel 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.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Stormbringer on 12/26/2015 06:02 pm
Sez You! I'm investing in TT&T. (Tachyon, Telephone and Telegraph company.)  8)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff 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.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff 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.

...
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: raketa 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.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind 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. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl 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.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: sanman 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?



Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: oliverio 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.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Stormbringer on 01/17/2016 09:59 pm
gravity stuff:  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160108083918.htm
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 02/15/2016 08:28 am
I just had an idea that stemmed from an earlier idea [linked] (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39464.msg1484673#msg1484673) 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. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro 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.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Paul451 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.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/18/2016 08:28 pm
Electricity, as energy, is like mass, which is like physical propellant, according to the well known equation of equivalence of mass and energy. 

The "F" in the F=ma equation above, has an energy/mass component.  The idea of 'over unity', broadly speaking, is incorrect in the example of kinetic energy ever exceeding the energy expended in accelerating the spaceship.

Per the oracle:

"In physics, a force is any interaction that, when unopposed, will change the motion of an object. In other words, a force can cause an object with mass to change its velocity (which includes to begin moving from a state of rest), i.e., to accelerate. Force can also be described by intuitive concepts such as a push or a pull. A force has both magnitude and direction, making it a vector quantity. It is measured in the SI unit of newtons and represented by the symbol F."

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

The force expended is said in the PDF to be constant without a time variation, and that cannot be the case.  An MET thruster will have to have a source of energy, gasoline, loosely speaking.  If it should work, a spaceship made under this principle, once started, will eventually run out of gas and stop accelerating.  A rocket is a closed system.

There has been some discussion buried in these several threads, that a rotational force might be detected, albeit slightly above the level of noise in the system.  If that is the case, using an MET thruster, one could make an airplane or a boat or a car or a drilling rig, but not a spaceship.

The physics that explains all this, until proven otherwise, is not "fundamentally different".

Gargoyle's comment holds:

"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."

In other words, where, on the spaceship, does the energy to propel the system come from?

This discussion of 'over unity' has not yet been shown to have merit.  Shown, as in floating the device into a conference room, or by a peer reviewed paper which holds up to simple scrutiny on conservation of energy.

As an aside, the idea that electricity could be converted into forward momentum would be useful enough on its own merits, by eliminating the need to carry traditional propellants, even if it should still require an on board source of power.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 02/19/2016 07:13 am
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.

It is true that constant force over enough time will violate conservation of energy. But a MET with constant force until the battery runs down will also violate conservation of energy. Different frames of reference will disagree on how much energy the MET rocket generated but all will agree on how much energy the batteries contain. For some frames of reference the energy gained by the MET rocket exceeds the energy content of the batteries and thus violates conservation of energy.

A rocket gets around this with it's exhaust. Different frames of reference will disagree on how much energy the chemical rocket gains but also disagree on how much energy the fuel and exhaust contain. This allows you to balance conservation of energy and conservation of momentum in all reference frames.

The mass equivalent of the energy in the battery is so small as to be useless for conserving momentum and so useless for conserving energy. Nothing is expelled anyway so you can't balance momentum anyway. E=MC^2 is simply irrelevant to this discussion. Electrical energy is in no sense like the mass of a propellant.

In order to obey energy conservation you have to find something that the MET is pushing against. The amount of energy needed to accelerate then depends on the relative motion between the MET and the thing it is pushing against.   
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/19/2016 12:08 pm
"It is true that constant force over enough time will violate conservation of energy."

Well, glad we agree with reality as is currently known by science.

Again, this discussion of 'over unity' has not yet been shown to have merit.  Shown, as in floating the device into a conference room, or by a peer reviewed paper which holds up to simple scrutiny on conservation of energy.

Got math?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: aceshigh on 02/19/2016 12:16 pm
Why doesn't a Bussard Ramjet violates conservation of energy? It collects fuel from the interstellar medium and keeps accelerating forever (like in the excellent book Tau Zero)

Isn't any analogy with reactionless drives possible, just that the "fuel" it captures is, lets say, more immaterial?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 02/19/2016 04:39 pm
Why doesn't a Bussard Ramjet violates conservation of energy? It collects fuel from the interstellar medium and keeps accelerating forever (like in the excellent book Tau Zero)

Isn't any analogy with reactionless drives possible, just that the "fuel" it captures is, lets say, more immaterial?

A Bussard Ramjet is reacting against an external medium, the interstellar gas. It isn't violating conservation of energy any more than a car. A car reacts against an external medium, the road. That allows a car to accelerate forever although it will need ever increasing amounts of power. A Bussard Ramjet will also need ever increassing amounts of power but it gets it because the faster it goes the more gas it collects. But at some point the energy it gets from fusion will not equal the energy lost by collecting the gas.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 02/19/2016 05:08 pm
"It is true that constant force over enough time will violate conservation of energy."

Well, glad we agree with reality as is currently known by science.

Again, this discussion of 'over unity' has not yet been shown to have merit.  Shown, as in floating the device into a conference room, or by a peer reviewed paper which holds up to simple scrutiny on conservation of energy.

Got math?

Say you have a 10 ton MET rocket. You turn on the rocket and accelerate to ten miles per second. The energy gain will be on the order of 10 * 10^2 = 1000 units of energy in appropriate units. If your battery was charged with 1000 units of energy then there appears to be no problem.

But hold on. Say I watched the events from a different frame of reference. Say I was moving backwards at 10 miles per second. Because motion is relative I'm allowed to take my velocity as zero and say you have an initial velocity of 10 miles per second. So I see you accelerate from 10 miles per second to 20 miles per second. I see your energy gain as 10 * 20^2 - 10 * 10^2 = 3000 units of energy. Since your battery only contains 1000 units of energy I see this as a violation of conservation of energy.

The basic problem is that kinetic energy is frame dependent while battery power is not.

A chemical rocket does not have this problem since while the kinetic energy is still frame dependent the energy of the fuel energy is also frame dependent. The two balance in a way that allows us to conserve energy in all frames of reference.

For the MET to avoid violating conservation of energy you will need to identify something that it is pushing against. Like the Bussard Ranjet pushing against the interstellar medium, the car pushing against the road, the airplane pushing against the air, the rocket pushing against its fuel...

It is that "pushing against" that allows you to balance both energy and momentum in all frames of reference.   
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Paul451 on 02/19/2016 08:03 pm
Adding to ppnl's reply:

Why doesn't a Bussard Ramjet violates conservation of energy? It collects fuel from the interstellar medium and keeps accelerating forever (like in the excellent book Tau Zero)

In collecting the fuel, the Bussard ramjet experiences drag. As velocity increases, eventually the drag equals the thrust and the ship can no longer accelerate unless you increase the power input. Or in other words, over time the force output per unit energy input is not constant.

It's the constant thrust per input energy regardless of velocity that causes the over-unity issue.

The only analogy for a reactionless thruster is a photon drive. However, the thrust produced by the perfect emission of a photon, versus the energy absorbed by the photon, means that the velocity at "unity" (energy in equals energy out) is when the emitter is at exactly the speed of light. So a photon drive only achieves "over-unity" when the emitter is travelling faster than light.

Any reactionless thruster with a thrust-out/energy-in ratio greater than a photon drive is able to achieve over-unity at velocities below light-speed. Hence they must either be impossible, or require a very very deep rewriting of fundamental physics (like all of it).

(In theory, you could have an apparently reactionless thruster which is actually interacting with something like dark matter. Ie, it changes the velocity of the dark matter it interacts with like a jet through air. Such a dark-matter-drive won't achieve over-unity due to limits on its interaction with the dark-matter. But the experimental results that supposedly show anomalous force aren't consistent with what you'd expect from dark matter interaction.

Note: interaction with "quantum vacuum", "virtual particles" or "deep background" doesn't work like that, since there's no inherent or preservable velocity in those systems, therefore no velocity-dependency, therefore no upper limit on energy-out. They still have the over-unity issue.)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 02/21/2016 07:34 am
When you use conservation of momentum and you find the change in velocity of the ship with respect to the change in velocity of the photon upon emmission and then you take the integral with respect velocity then you get the initial energy which is zero plus some added constant = the energy divided between the two masses and some heat.  When you divide everything by that energy constant that was added to the system and find the percentage of energy to the photon it is almost 100% and about 0% to the engine.  So I think I get why photon propulsion is inefficient.

However, now lets us consider the light reflected between two free floating and separate mirrors and suddenly photon propulsion becomes much more efficient after many reflections.  In effect the light is red-shifted till it becomes efficient for propulsion.  At least here the energy is divided equally between the two mirrors. 

I wonder if it is possible to have a single device (closed system) that has two mirrors but one mirror is more effective at harnessing energy from the photon than the other mirror.  Maybe by giving the photon some added mass when striking one mirror? (one mirror being a super-conductor possibly?).  http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47791/what-do-massive-photons-have-to-do-with-superconductivity .  (The efficiency of photon propulsion having to do partly with the "effective" mass of the photon?)  It might be like firing off a higher frequency photon that you red-shifted into non-existence?  You still have a photon that leaves (possibly at a long enough wavelength) but most of its energy is transferred to one side of the engine?  This vaguely reminds me of Dr. Rodal reminding us of some ones suggestion to have one end plate as fero-magnetic [EM drive thread]. 

Still thinking on this but wondering if it's a possibility. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 02/21/2016 06:09 pm
dustinthewind,

The problem is all the equations governing electromagnetism are time symmetric. That is the ultimate source of conservation of momentum. If you want to violate conservation of momentum you will have to disprove the entirety of electromagnetic theory. If it is wrong then you cannot use it to derive your drive. You will have to find where it gives incorrect predictions and use that to derive the correct theory. Then use the correct theory to invent your drive.

That will be hard because they have looked really really hard and the universe seems to be time symmetric at all relevant energy.

   
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 02/22/2016 01:44 am
dustinthewind,

The problem is all the equations governing electromagnetism are time symmetric. That is the ultimate source of conservation of momentum. If you want to violate conservation of momentum you will have to disprove the entirety of electromagnetic theory. If it is wrong then you cannot use it to derive your drive. You will have to find where it gives incorrect predictions and use that to derive the correct theory. Then use the correct theory to invent your drive.

That will be hard because they have looked really really hard and the universe seems to be time symmetric at all relevant energy.

I don't intend to violate either conservation of momentum or energy.  I used both in the math below. 

Imagine a ball created out of one wall, inside the ship, similar to the wall emitting a photon.  Now imagine this ball is perfectly elastic and has an initial velocity.  We are going to do a trick where we modify the mass of the ball when it strikes one of the walls such that the energy exchange to the walls is more efficient. When the ball strikes the other wall it is back to its previous mass where the energy exchange is less efficient.  Eventually the ball will slow down because its energy is being given to the structure as a whole.

The ball is in analogy to a photon so instead of slowing down it is red-shifted.

I attached a gif of the math I did below.  It shows the % of energy exchanged between a wall and the ball depends on the mass of the ball.  You then have to consider independently the exchange between two different walls where the mass of the ball is modified with each bounce.  This is the reason I suggested the super-conductor because I think it suggested it could modify the mass of the photon.  (One wall being a superconductor.)  The idea is supposed to conserve momentum. 

The ball will of course change velocity with each bounce but we then sub the new velocity in and figure the exchange of energy when it bounces again.  Eventually most the energy is given to one wall rather than the other.

I think there was an error in the derivation in the image.  I have fixed the derivation.  The % energy exchanged should be 100% if they are equal in mass. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 02/22/2016 04:02 am
dustinthewind,

The problem is all the equations governing electromagnetism are time symmetric. That is the ultimate source of conservation of momentum. If you want to violate conservation of momentum you will have to disprove the entirety of electromagnetic theory. If it is wrong then you cannot use it to derive your drive. You will have to find where it gives incorrect predictions and use that to derive the correct theory. Then use the correct theory to invent your drive.

That will be hard because they have looked really really hard and the universe seems to be time symmetric at all relevant energy.

I don't intend to violate either conservation of momentum or energy.  I used both in the math below. 

Imagine a ball created out of one wall, inside the ship, similar to the wall emitting a photon.  Now imagine this ball is perfectly elastic and has an initial velocity.  We are going to do a trick where we modify the mass of the ball when it strikes one of the walls such that the energy exchange to the walls is more efficient. When the ball strikes the other wall it is back to its previous mass where the energy exchange is less efficient.  Eventually the ball will slow down because its energy is being given to the structure as a whole.

The ball is in analogy to a photon so instead of slowing down it is red-shifted.

I attached a gif of the math I did below.  It shows the % of energy exchanged between a wall and the ball depends on the mass of the ball.  You then have to consider independently the exchange between two different walls where the mass of the ball is modified with each bounce.  This is the reason I suggested the super-conductor because I think it suggested it could modify the mass of the photon.  (One wall being a superconductor.)  The idea is supposed to conserve momentum. 

The ball will of course change velocity with each bounce but we then sub the new velocity in and figure the exchange of energy when it bounces again.  Eventually most the energy is given to one wall rather than the other.

But that is as simple and obvious a violation of conservation of momentum as you could ever hope for. And it leads to an immediate violation of conservation of energy. If you turn on your engine and accelerate up to some non zero momentum then you have created that momentum out of nothing. The only way to avoid it is if you can point to something that was accelerated in the opposite direction and has negative momentum to cancel out your positive momentum.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Paul451 on 02/22/2016 03:24 pm
Imagine a ball created out of one wall, inside the ship, similar to the wall emitting a photon.  Now imagine this ball is perfectly elastic and has an initial velocity. We are going to do a trick where we modify the mass of the ball when it strikes one of the walls such that the energy exchange to the walls is more efficient. When the ball strikes the other wall it is back to its previous mass where the energy exchange is less efficient.  Eventually the ball will slow down because its energy is being given to the structure as a whole.
The ball is in analogy to a photon so instead of slowing down it is red-shifted.

Where does the initial velocity of the ball come from? Or in the case of photons, where do the photons come from?

Ball:

If the ball is accelerated up to its initial velocity by a mechanism within or connected to the ship, then clearly the ship will move in the opposite direction during the set-up. As the ball bounces off the magic-wall, it will lose momentum precisely to return the ship to its original velocity, no net velocity will be added.

If the balls are accelerated up to their initial velocity by the ship, but are allowed to leak away after they reflect off the magic-wall rather than being retained in the bouncy-chamber, then you've just invented a rocket engine - using balls as propellant. It has the same maths as any rocket engine.

If the balls are accelerated by an outside mechanism, you've merely invented a weird ball-wind sailing ship. However, it has the same limits as any sailing ship.

Photon:

If the photons are emitted within the chamber, then the ship accelerates in the opposite direction. It's just a conventional photon drive, all you've done is add an extra reflector. Ie, the magic-wall does nothing except steer the thrust of the drive.

If the photons are not allowed to leave the chamber, then it's not even a drive. Like the ball-chamber, the final velocity equals the initial velocity, with no net change.

If the photons come from from an outside source, your magic-wall is just a solar-sail.

What you are imagining happening, can't happen. Your maths fails to account for half the situation, how the initial energy imbalance is set-up. Once you include the set-up, the problem collapses into a mundane system, a rocket or a sail.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 02/23/2016 01:32 am
dustinthewind,

The problem is all the equations governing electromagnetism are time symmetric. That is the ultimate source of conservation of momentum. If you want to violate conservation of momentum you will have to disprove the entirety of electromagnetic theory. If it is wrong then you cannot use it to derive your drive. You will have to find where it gives incorrect predictions and use that to derive the correct theory. Then use the correct theory to invent your drive.

That will be hard because they have looked really really hard and the universe seems to be time symmetric at all relevant energy.

I don't intend to violate either conservation of momentum or energy.  I used both in the math below. 

Imagine a ball created out of one wall, inside the ship, similar to the wall emitting a photon.  Now imagine this ball is perfectly elastic and has an initial velocity.  We are going to do a trick where we modify the mass of the ball when it strikes one of the walls such that the energy exchange to the walls is more efficient. When the ball strikes the other wall it is back to its previous mass where the energy exchange is less efficient.  Eventually the ball will slow down because its energy is being given to the structure as a whole.

The ball is in analogy to a photon so instead of slowing down it is red-shifted.

I attached a gif of the math I did below.  It shows the % of energy exchanged between a wall and the ball depends on the mass of the ball.  You then have to consider independently the exchange between two different walls where the mass of the ball is modified with each bounce.  This is the reason I suggested the super-conductor because I think it suggested it could modify the mass of the photon.  (One wall being a superconductor.)  The idea is supposed to conserve momentum. 

The ball will of course change velocity with each bounce but we then sub the new velocity in and figure the exchange of energy when it bounces again.  Eventually most the energy is given to one wall rather than the other.

But that is as simple and obvious a violation of conservation of momentum as you could ever hope for. And it leads to an immediate violation of conservation of energy. If you turn on your engine and accelerate up to some non zero momentum then you have created that momentum out of nothing. The only way to avoid it is if you can point to something that was accelerated in the opposite direction and has negative momentum to cancel out your positive momentum.

A photon is traveling through space and has momentum.  In the frame we choose there is also a cavity with no momentum.  The photon is traveling towards the cavity with no momentum and the cavity window opens and lets in this poor soul of a photon.  The window closes behind and the photon is now trapped.  The photon hits one wall of the cavity and loses 1% of its energy to the cavity (much less for a real photon) and is red-shifted.  The photon rebounds and now hits the back wall transferring its momentum to the back wall slowing the cavity again but re-gaining its energy (blue-shifted).  This cavity-photon system now has the momentum of the single photon. 

Now we introduce the magic cavity (joke, as its not really magic, hopefully), where the cavity modifies the mass of the poor soul of the photon that enters and is trapped, but respects conservation of momentum.  We again open the window and the photon enters and we close the window.  This time the photon strikes the wall that modifies its mass slowing the photon and makes the photon more effective at transferring a % of its energy to the cavity.  This time the photon transfers 2% (exaggerated) of its energy to the cavity and then rebounds, having lose a bit more energy is more red-shifted.  As it travels back to the back wall it rebounds but this time only regains 1% of its energy it lost because of its reduced mass with increased velocity.  The cycle continues and the photon continues to lose energy till at last it comes to rest at the back wall (or just red-shifts into oblivion).  The entire energy has been drained from the photon.  When ~100% of the energy is drained from the photon the momentum is transferred to the cavity but in this case all of the momentum has been transferred to the cavity.  In the first example only maybe 1% of the energy from the photon ever resided in the cavity and only periodically.  The momentum of both systems should be conserved.  I am not quite sure yet about when the photon enters the cavity in the opposite direction as the cavity will gain momentum as this seems to violate momentum.

this parallels to using 2 free floating mirrors to more effectively suck the energy out of photons more efficiently but does it inside of a cavity.  The two ships catching photons and trapping them to both accelerate in opposite directions may also have conservation of momentum problems now that I think of it, considering the initial photon's momentum is now divided in two directions, though unevenly. 

With balls the cavity would fill up but with photons it shouldn't. 

I hope this also addresses Paul's inquiry.  If not, just let me know more specifically what the question was.  I don't think it matters where the photons come from as long as they are trapped inside the cavity.  As far as modifying the mass of a photon well... I was considering a superconductor, a dielectric, maybe a photon between two Casimir force effected plates.  I'll have to look around, and think more about it. 

You can change the mass with out changing the momentum.  If you increase the mass you decrease the velocity.  Changing the mass of the ball may be difficult but changing the effective mass of the photon I am not sure sure that is impossible.  One might wonder why light slows [non-locally] near gravitational masses or in dielectrics for example.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 02/23/2016 02:13 am

But you cannot change the momentum or mass of either a photon or a ball that way. By definition if you do you violate conservation of momentum.

Photons are the quanta of the electromagnetic force. In mediating that force they can carry negative momentum in the positive direction, have mass and even travel back in time or travel faster than light. But they are only virtual photons. They don't exist. They are children of the uncertainty principle. They borrow what they need to violate whatever but they must pay it back in a way that leaves no violation. Otherwise quantum mechanics would not be time reversible. They are not quantum observables and you should not think of them as physical things involved in physical events. Instead think of them as a way to visualize a mathematical formalism. That mathematical formalism does not allow violations of conservation of momentum any more than it allows sending messages faster than light or backwards in time. All of those things destructively interfere with themselves and cancel out.

In the end a black box, forget about any mechanism inside, that can accelerate to some velocity without pushing something in the opposite direction is violating conservation of momentum. Quantum mechanics does not allow that. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Stormbringer on 02/23/2016 03:19 am
so a photon is the quantum of the EMF which is composed of a magnetic component and an electrical component. so what makes a photon? does an electron "date" a monopole? what?

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 02/23/2016 05:44 am
so a photon is the quantum of the EMF which is composed of a magnetic component and an electrical component. so what makes a photon? does an electron "date" a monopole? what?

I don't think the question makes sense. If you have a field with the properties of the electric field then when the strength of that field changes it creates a field with the properties of a magnetic field. A changing magnetic field creates an electric field. That is a property of the electric and magnetic field. If you quantize this field you get a point like particle with all the properties of a photon. It must be mass-less because the range of the electric field is infinite, it must have an odd spin number because the electric field is both attractive and repulsive and so on. It takes all its properties from the field that it is a quantization of. Nothing more needs to be said about it.

Now it remains possible that the photon has other properties like for example a very small mass. But that would be new and very unexpected physics for which there is no empirical evidence. In fact the mass would have to be very very tiny because otherwise it would change the nature of the electric field in observable ways. Its properties are constrained by the field that it quantizes.

 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Paul451 on 02/23/2016 06:20 pm
The photon rebounds and now hits the back wall transferring its momentum to the back wall slowing the cavity again but re-gaining its energy (blue-shifted).

That's the part that doesn't happen.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 02/24/2016 12:04 am
The photon rebounds and now hits the back wall transferring its momentum to the back wall slowing the cavity again but re-gaining its energy (blue-shifted).

That's the part that doesn't happen.
How so?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Paul451 on 02/24/2016 02:38 pm
The photon rebounds and now hits the back wall transferring its momentum to the back wall slowing the cavity again but re-gaining its energy (blue-shifted).
That's the part that doesn't happen.
How so?

The photon can't recover its original energy while imparting less momentum on the second wall than it transferred to the first.

After the photon pushes the front wall and hence the ship, the photon is blue-shifted relative to the now-moving back wall. When it reflects, it will therefore impart more energy than it gave the front wall, relative to the new frame-of-reference of the ship. Correcting for the ship's change of frame, the extra energy imparted on the back wall will be exactly the same energy as the front wall, relative to a stationary observer. Ie no net acceleration.

If the energy transfer process is somehow asymmetrical, and the front wall somehow reflects "harder" than the back wall and so the ship remains moving forwards after the back-wall reflection, then the photon will be remain red-shifted (lower energy) relative to the front-wall after the rear-wall bounce. The photon will always have less energy to give the front wall than it has to give the back, proportional to the excess energy from the first bounce. That red/blue asymmetry between the front and back walls will always be equal and opposite to the asymmetry in the hardness-of-reflectivity of the two walls.

The net effect is always going to be a ship that sits stationary, getting a bit warmer as it converts the stored energy that powers the magic wall into waste heat.

Looking back at your description, I get the impression that you've visualised the red/blue asymmetry occurring in the same direction as the reflection asymmetry. That cannot happen.

So ultimately, an individual incoming photon has a specific net energy vector. It doesn't matter what you do, how you transform that photon, the net energy vector for the whole system (photon+ship) must remain the same.

What you've described is ultimately just an elaborate way for the front wall to absorb the energy of the incoming photon, there's no "pumping" effect from the cavity. And if you absorb the energy of the incoming photon, you simply convert one unit-vector of energy from the photon into one unit-vector of energy of the ship. No matter how you absorb that photon's energy, the output can only ever be one unit of energy in the same vector as the original photon.

(If you reflect the incoming photon (solar sail), you can have a system which is two units forward and one unit aft. So your "red-shift cavity" ship is actually less efficient than a solar sail of the same cross-sectional area.)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 02/24/2016 05:14 pm
The photon rebounds and now hits the back wall transferring its momentum to the back wall slowing the cavity again but re-gaining its energy (blue-shifted).
That's the part that doesn't happen.
How so?

The photon can't recover its original energy while imparting less momentum on the second wall than it transferred to the first.
The first example is of a cavity that doesn't absorb the photons energy. Only the 2nd example does this.

After the photon pushes the front wall and hence the ship, the photon is blue-shifted relative to the now-moving back wall. When it reflects, it will therefore impart more energy than it gave the front wall, relative to the new frame-of-reference of the ship. Correcting for the ship's change of frame, the extra energy imparted on the back wall will be exactly the same energy as the front wall, relative to a stationary observer. Ie no net acceleration.
Correct on no net acceleration, however, the cavity has moved a bit having both accelerated and then decelerated.  This is still the first example where the photon recovers its original wavelength which is (blue shifted) with respect to its previous red shift but technically it just recovers its original wavelength.  We are dealing with a perfectly elastic photon so I should say we are dealing with a superconductive cavity.  The frame I am considering is a frame that is independent of the cavity or the photon.  Originally, it was stationary with the cavity.  Sort of a lab frame.  The wall that first welcomed the photon is moving away from that frame when re-emitting the photon so I consider it red-shifted as well as being red-shifted having imparted some of its energy into the cavity.

If the energy transfer process is somehow asymmetrical, and the front wall somehow reflects "harder" than the back wall and so the ship remains moving forwards after the back-wall reflection, then the photon will be remain red-shifted (lower energy) relative to the front-wall after the rear-wall bounce. The photon will always have less energy to give the front wall than it has to give the back, proportional to the excess energy from the first bounce. That red/blue asymmetry between the front and back walls will always be equal and opposite to the asymmetry in the hardness-of-reflectivity of the two walls.
Ok this is the 2nd example.  It's correct the photon becomes more and more red-shifted in this case.  By the ballistics the photon being heavier when it strikes first wall then more momentum is transferred to the cavity 2%.  With it also being perfectly elastic and throwing the photon back it receives twice the momentum.  On striking the back wall it never recovers its previous wavelength (energy) w.r.t. the lab frame and remains red-shifted.  Having only recovered 1% its original energy and with reflection, twice this, then it is now short by -4%+2%=-2%, or this is just a rough approximation.  With this reduced energy it continues its previous cycle. 

The net effect is always going to be a ship that sits stationary, getting a bit warmer as it converts the stored energy that powers the magic wall into waste heat.
mmm, maybe I didn't clarify early on that the stipulation was that the photon was perfectly elastic.  A real photon of course will also generate waste heat as a real ball isn't perfectly elastic but I am assuming for a superconductor it should be about 100% elastic.  For being perfectly elastic all the energy goes into the ballistics and is converted into momentum (ideal assumption).

Looking back at your description, I get the impression that you've visualised the red/blue asymmetry occurring in the same direction as the reflection asymmetry. That cannot happen.
I am not sure we actually disagree with the change in wavelength.  I was analyzing from a non-accelerated frame that was independent of the cavity, since the cavity is periodically accelerated.

So ultimately, an individual incoming photon has a specific net energy vector. It doesn't matter what you do, how you transform that photon, the net energy vector for the whole system (photon+ship) must remain the same.
Correct, there is conserved energy.  In the first example I gave, the photon only ever gave the cavity a very small percentage of its momentum/energy, and only periodically.  The 2nd example the cavity absorbs everything.

What you've described is ultimately just an elaborate way for the front wall to absorb the energy of the incoming photon, there's no "pumping" effect from the cavity. And if you absorb the energy of the incoming photon, you simply convert one unit-vector of energy from the photon into one unit-vector of energy of the ship. No matter how you absorb that photon's energy, the output can only ever be one unit of energy in the same vector as the original photon.

(If you reflect the incoming photon (solar sail), you can have a system which is two units forward and one unit aft. So your "red-shift cavity" ship is actually less efficient than a solar sail of the same cross-sectional area.)
The cavity should be more efficient than a solar sail in that a solar sail lets the photon escape with energy.  The photon only ever transfers a small amount of its momentum to the solar sail due to its incredibly minuscule mass/energy (mass being related to energy) with respect to the sail.  This is the main reason photon propulsion is so inefficient.  Now two ships with a mirror each and accelerating away from each other is a much more efficient form of propulsion because they suck the wavelength (energy) out of the light.  This is exactly what the 2nd example I gave does but it doesn't have the range problems inherent of two mirrors moving far apart.  In effect it relies on modifying the "effective-relativistic" mass of a photon and applying force periodically on that photon which I suspect is related to the Woodward effect on this thread. 

The trick is finding some method of manipulating the effective mass of a photon.  Some ideas are superconductors are supposed to make photons heavy?, or maybe dielectrics slow light because momentum conserved they increase lights mass, or modifying the vacuum energy with the Casimir force could possibly make light heavier/lighter.  I'm still looking for that trick.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: 93143 on 02/24/2016 10:34 pm
The photon only ever transfers a small amount of its momentum to the solar sail due to its incredibly minuscule mass with respect to the sail.  This is the main reason photon propulsion is so inefficient.

No.  The photon transfers a very small amount of its energy to the solar sail due to its incredibly minuscule mass with respect to the sail.  Its momentum is, to first order, completely reversed (assuming a reflective sail) and thus it transfers twice its original momentum to the spacecraft.  That is as good as you can get.  Chasing the total amount of energy is a fool's errand; kinetic energy and collision mechanics simply don't work that way.

If you manage to get the solar sail to absorb 100% of the photon's energy, you've got a perfectly plastic collision and your momentum transfer is halved.  Virtually all of the absorbed energy is lost as heat.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 02/25/2016 01:00 am
The photon only ever transfers a small amount of its momentum to the solar sail due to its incredibly minuscule mass with respect to the sail.  This is the main reason photon propulsion is so inefficient.

No.  The photon transfers a very small amount of its energy to the solar sail due to its incredibly minuscule mass with respect to the sail.  you say 'Tomato', I say 'Tomato'... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ3fjQa5Hls Its momentum is, to first order, completely reversed (assuming a reflective sail) and thus it transfers twice its original momentum to the spacecraft.  That is as good as you can get.  Chasing the total amount of energy is a fool's errand; kinetic energy and collision mechanics simply don't work that way.  You don't think 2 ships with mirrors and light reflecting between them is a good idea? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photonic_laser_thruster

If you manage to get the solar sail to absorb 100% of the photon's energy, you've got a perfectly plastic collision and your momentum transfer is halved.  Virtually all of the absorbed energy is lost as heat.
We are again talking about a perfectly elastic collision. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/elacol.html
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: 93143 on 02/26/2016 02:03 am
you say 'Tomato', I say 'Tomato'...

Momentum and kinetic energy are not interchangeable.  If you don't understand this, you need to go away and study mechanics until you do.

Please remember that momentum is a vector.  A very small object bouncing elastically off a very large object comes away with nearly the same absolute value of momentum in the centre-of-mass frame, but it's in the opposite direction.  Thus the momentum transferred to the large object is nearly twice what the small object originally had.  Its kinetic energy is of course a scalar, and doesn't change much.  (And of course all of this is out the window if you're using a different reference frame.)

Quote
You don't think 2 ships with mirrors and light reflecting between them is a good idea?

That's a totally different idea; the one ship is using the other ship, not the light itself, as reaction mass.  The laser beam in that scheme is just a means of coupling the two massive objects, and the efficiency gain is entirely a function of photon recycling - they make multiple bounces, magnifying the thrust on both vehicles equally and in opposite directions.  It has nothing to do with "sucking the energy out of the light"; the energy is from the other spacecraft.  You can't reduce the scheme to just one massive object without having to rely on the photons themselves as reaction mass, and if you're relying on light as reaction mass you cannot exceed the efficiency of a photon thruster.

Quote
Quote
If you manage to get the solar sail to absorb 100% of the photon's energy, you've got a perfectly plastic collision and your momentum transfer is halved.  Virtually all of the absorbed energy is lost as heat.
We are again talking about a perfectly elastic collision.

I already covered that.  In a perfectly elastic collision between a very small mass and a very large one, the energy transfer is very small.  Plasticizing the collision results in more energy transferred, but it is not bulk kinetic energy - it's heat, or strain energy, or acoustic energy, or something else frame-independent.  The bulk kinetic energy transfer is at a maximum in a perfectly elastic collision, and it's still minuscule in the centre-of-mass frame of reference.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Paul451 on 02/26/2016 02:51 am
{Edit: While I was writing this, 93143 said much the same.)

Correct on no net acceleration, however, the cavity has moved a bit having both accelerated and then decelerated.  This is still the first example where the photon recovers its original wavelength which is (blue shifted) with respect to its previous red shift but technically it just recovers its original wavelength.  We are dealing with a perfectly elastic photon so I should say we are dealing with a superconductive cavity.  The frame I am considering is a frame that is independent of the cavity or the photon.  Originally, it was stationary with the cavity.  Sort of a lab frame.  The wall that first welcomed the photon is moving away from that frame when re-emitting the photon so I consider it red-shifted as well as being red-shifted having imparted some of its energy into the cavity.
[...]
mmm, maybe I didn't clarify early on that the stipulation was that the photon was perfectly elastic.  A real photon of course will also generate waste heat [...] For being perfectly elastic all the energy goes into the ballistics and is converted into momentum (ideal assumption).

Sorry for the delayed reply, but reading your comments with fresh eyes made something click. I think I can see the fundamental error.

You've confused a couple of very different concepts. Relativistic red/blue shifting, and energy loss from photon re-transmission. They are not the same phenomenon and cannot be interchanged. But that is what you are doing.

When the reflected photon red-shifts because of the new motion of the reflective-wall, the photon is not losing energy. It appears to have less energy WRT the ship because the frame-of-reference for the ship changes. And so does the rest of the universe behind the ship, not just the photon that pushed the ship, all photons hitting the back of the ship are red-shifted by the same amount.

The reflected photon itself is unchanged (except that its vector of motion is reversed.)

From the point of view of a stationary external observer, the photon is not red-shifted, or blue-shifted. Or changed in any way but direction.

A reflective chamber cannot "increasingly" red-shift a photon. That's simply not a thing that happens. The photon would simply bounce around, unchanged, until it gets absorbed on one of its collision.

And that absorption brings us to...

The second phenomenon is where energy is partially lost. That's where a photon is not reflected. It is absorbed and another photon is re-emitted at a slightly longer wavelength; with the rest of the energy being converted to heat. This emission of a longer (redder) wavelength photon is what you've confused with relativistic red-shifting, but the "red-shifting" from re-emission has nothing to do with red-shift caused by relative velocity.

All photon reflections are "perfectly elastic". But different surfaces have different efficiencies of reflection, depending on how many photons are reflected (unchanged) and how many are absorbed and re-emitted.

Over multiple reflections between a (theoretical) perfectly reflective surface and a (more ordinary) very reflective surface, the energy of that original photon will gradually be transferred to the less perfectly reflective surface. However, absorbing the energy of a photon over multiple reflections inside a chamber is exactly the same as absorbing it once in a single "impact". The chamber does not and cannot increase the available energy or momentum from the photon.

The trick is finding some method of manipulating the effective mass of a photon.

A photon has no mass. It is a force vector exchanging momentum between two objects with mass; it does not have mass itself.

Which is the answer to the objection you probably thought of when reading the top section: "But where does the momentum come from to move a solar sail?" The answer is, "The momentum comes from the object which emitted the photon in the first place." That object moved in the opposite direction when it emitted the photon.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 02/26/2016 05:02 am
you say 'Tomato', I say 'Tomato'...

Momentum and kinetic energy are not interchangeable.  If you don't understand this, you need to go away and study mechanics until you do.

Please remember that momentum is a vector.  A very small object bouncing elastically off a very large object comes away with nearly the same absolute value of momentum in the centre-of-mass frame, but it's in the opposite direction.  Thus the momentum transferred to the large object is nearly twice what the small object originally had.  Its kinetic energy is of course a scalar, and doesn't change much.  (And of course all of this is out the window if you're using a different reference frame.)
Dustinthewind: If the ratio of energy exchanged in a collision is very small for the large object and almost 100% for the photon then the absolute value of the photons momentum is also going to change very little hence my statement, "you say 'Tomato', I say 'Tomato'..."  A change in energy corresponds to a change in absolute momentum.  Momentum is conserved and so is energy. 

The photon only ever transfers a small amount of its momentum to the solar sail due to its incredibly minuscule mass with respect to the sail.  This is the main reason photon propulsion is so inefficient. ...


No.  The photon transfers a very small amount of its energy to the solar sail due to its incredibly minuscule mass with respect to the sail.  Its momentum is, to first order, completely reversed (assuming a reflective sail) and thus it transfers twice its original momentum to the spacecraft.  That is as good as you can get.  Chasing the total amount of energy is a fool's errand; kinetic energy and collision mechanics simply don't work that way.
...

Dustinthewind: It is not as good as you can get.  The photon has a very small relativistic mass so the energy/momentum exchange is almost nothing.  The photon escapes with most of its energy/momentum in a reflection.


Quote
You don't think 2 ships with mirrors and light reflecting between them is a good idea?

That's a totally different idea; the one ship is using the other ship, not the light itself, as reaction mass.  The laser beam in that scheme is just a means of coupling the two massive objects, and the efficiency gain is entirely a function of photon recycling - they make multiple bounces, magnifying the thrust on both vehicles equally and in opposite directions.  It has nothing to do with "sucking the energy out of the light"; the energy is from the other spacecraft.  You can't reduce the scheme to just one massive object without having to rely on the photons themselves as reaction mass, and if you're relying on light as reaction mass you cannot exceed the efficiency of a photon thruster.
Dustinthewind: Lets talk about the one ship using the other ship.  The mirrors have infinite Q and the light is perfectly collimated.  The light is between the 2 mirrors and the ships aren't moving as they are attached.  There is a force but no red-shifting of light.  As soon as the ships are released and they starting moving away from each other, we get red shifting.  We get red-shifting because F.dx = energy and that energy is coming from the light (energy conserved).  Now lets take our ships and push them back together.  They are now working against the force and light should be being blue shifted.  F.dx=E again we are storing energy in the spring.  This form of propulsion is efficient because the photons are not escaping with all their momentum.  It is draining the energy out of the photons efficiently.  They are getting better thrust than a photon rocket by draining the energy out of the photon by elastic collisions and not letting that energy escape, like a solar sail does.  My method also uses elastic collisions to do the same but it's still to be seen if there is any real way to modify the relativistic mass of a photon.

Quote
Quote
If you manage to get the solar sail to absorb 100% of the photon's energy, you've got a perfectly plastic collision and your momentum transfer is halved.  Virtually all of the absorbed energy is lost as heat.
We are again talking about a perfectly elastic collision.

I already covered that.  In a perfectly elastic collision between a very small mass and a very large one, the energy transfer is very small.  Plasticizing the collision results in more energy transferred, but it is not bulk kinetic energy - it's heat, or strain energy, or acoustic energy, or something else frame-independent.  The bulk kinetic energy transfer is at a maximum in a perfectly elastic collision, and it's still minuscule in the centre-of-mass frame of reference.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Paul451 on 02/26/2016 03:27 pm
As soon as the ships are released and they starting moving away from each other, we get red shifting.  We get red-shifting because F.dx = energy and that energy is coming from the light (energy conserved).

Incorrect. The energy is coming from the two ships. F = -F

The photons are unchanged by their reflection, with respect to a stationary observer. The photons are not red-shifted, they are not blue-shifted. They are just changing direction.

That's the thing you need to understand. The photons themselves have not been changed, they have not lost energy, only their direction has been changed. And it's the change in direction that is moving the ships (F = -F) not a loss of energy by the photon themselves.

You are confusing the mathematical short-hand of vector addition/subtraction of moving energy, with actual energy. The energy to move the ship is not coming from the energy of the photon, it's coming from the change-of-direction of the energy of the photon. It's a vector change, not a scalar change. You're then jumbling this up with red/blue-shift and changing mass, and getting yourself tied in knots.

A photon has 100 scalar units of energy. It is moving from right to left, so it has 100 vector units of energy to the left.

It reflects off a mirror/sail/wall/ship. The photon is now moving to the right. It still has 100 scalar units of energy, so it now has 100 vector units of energy to the right. It therefore has taken 200 vector units of rightward energy from the mirror/ship; even though its scalar energy hasn't changed. The ship, in order to balance the equation, now has 200 vector units of leftward energy, so if it was originally stationary, it starts moving to the left.

The photon has 100 scalar units of energy. It is moving from left to right, so it has 100 vector units of energy to the right.

The photon has 100 scalar units of energy.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Paul451 on 02/26/2016 05:16 pm
Four scenarios, each adding one effect.

---

A laser is firing a beam of photons at a perfectly reflective, free-flying surface.

Each photon has the same wavelength, which gives each photon 100 completely-arbitrary-units of energy.

A photon strikes the perfectly reflective surface in a perfectly elastic collision. The photon bounces and reverses direction back towards the laser. The free-flying reflective surface is pushed away from the laser (F = -F) and the photon has its direction reversed.

Actually 2F = -2F because it's a reflection.

The energy/momentum to create the photon comes from the energy/momentum of the laser.

The energy/momentum to change the direction of the photon comes from the energy/momentum of the reflective surface.

The photon acts as a force carrier between the two.

So we look at the universe from the frame-of-reference of the reflective surface. Because the reflective surface changes velocity after the collision, it alters its own frame-of-reference. It now sees the reflected photon as being red-shifted, therefore the photon now has only 99 completely-arbitrary units of energy.

Aha!, you say, 1 completely-arbitrary unit of energy has been removed from the photon.

Wrong.

The laser emits another photon at exactly the same wavelength from the laser's POV, and it has 100 completely-arbitrary-units of energy from the laser's POV.

But the reflective surface sees the laser emitting a new photon with just 99 completely arbitrary units of energy, exactly the same amount as the reflected photon. Indeed every photon from that direction has been red-shifted and lost 1 arbitrary-unit of energy, as has that half of the universe. Where has that extra energy gone?

Nowhere. Because the apparent change in energy of the reflected photon did not come from an actual change in energy of the photon, it came from a change in the frame-of-reference of the reflective surface. And you can't compare linearly across a changing frame-of-reference without correcting for that change.

---

So lets use a reflective cavity. The cavity begins at rest WRT a stationary observer. Its left and right walls are perfectly, equally reflective. All photon collisions are perfectly elastic.

Inside the cavity is a random photon, moving to the left. It has 100 completely-arbitrary units of energy, and 1 different-but-also-arbitrary unit of momentum

The photon hits the left wall and is perfectly reflected backwards.

After the first collision, the cavity is now moving to the left WRT to the stationary observer. The photon is now moving towards the right wall.

From the frame-of-reference of the stationary observer, the wavelength of the photon is exactly the same. The photon still has 100 units of energy, and 1 unit of momentum. Only the direction has changed.

The cavity is now moving to the left with 2 units of momentum. The photon is moving to the right with 1 unit of momentum.

(Initial state: 0 + 1 units to the left, ie, 1 unit to the left. Final state: 2 + (-1) units to the left, ie, 1 unit to the left. No change.)

Now we look at the frame-of-reference of the left wall. Before the collision it is stationary. It experiences a burst of acceleration during the collision, and then is stationary again. But after the collision, the photon is red-shifted and has just 99 units of energy. The photon also has slightly less than 1 units of momentum.

Now we look at the frame-of-reference of the right wall. Before the collision it is stationary. It experiences a burst of acceleration during the collision, and then is stationary again. But after the first collision, the photon has been BLUE-shifted and has 101 units of energy and slightly more than 1 unit of momentum.

When the photon strikes the right wall, it has slightly more energy and momentum than it did when it struck the left wall.

The photon hits the right wall and is reflected to the left. From the frame-of-reference of the stationary observer, the cavity is pushed to the right by 2 units of momentum, therefore coming to a rest. The photon is reflected to the left and has 1 unit of momentum.

(Initial state: 2 + (-1) = 1 unit to the left. Final state: 0 + 1 = 1 unit to the left. No change.)

The cavity has moved slightly to the left, correctly accounting for the energy and momentum of the photon.

Over time, the stationary observer sees the cavity moving to the left with 1 unit of momentum, gained from containing the photon. It is as if the cavity was simply a perfectly black wall that absorbed the photon in a single collision. The only difference the reflection back-and-forth within the cavity makes is that it causes the cavity vibrate slightly back-and-forth. The vibration is symmetrical. The cavity does not "amplify" the momentum of the photon in any way, it does not extract more momentum from the photon that a single collision with a black wall.

WRT the left/right walls, their view of the photon has perfectly reversed after the second collision. The photon is now red-shifted according to the frame-of-reference of the right wall, and blue-shifted according to the frame-of-reference of the left wall. And by exactly the same amount as the first collision. When it reflects off the left wall again, the situation reverses perfectly again. The two states are perfectly symmetrical. The photon does not increasingly red-shift, it does not lose energy; from the frame-of-reference of either wall, it merely changes from red-shift to blue-shift after each collision. And between collisions, one wall always sees the photon red-shifted and one wall sees it blue-shifted, then collision, and they reverse. Red and blue, collision, blue and red, collision, red and blue, collision, blue and red; with the amounts always the same.

---

This time we again have a reflective cavity with two walls, left and right. The left wall is still a perfectly reflective surface, all collisions are perfectly elastic. But the right wall is slightly imperfectly reflective, slightly inelastic.

As before, the photon hits the left wall and is perfectly reflected.

As before, from the frame-of-reference of a stationary observer, the photon's energy is unchanged, only its direction.

As before, from the frames-of-reference of the left and right walls, the photon is red and blue shifted by 1 unit of energy, respectively.

As before, the cavity starts moving to the left with 2 units of momentum, the photon to the right with 1 unit.

Now the photon strikes the right wall. It is an imperfect collision. The photon has less energy.

In reality, the photon is absorbed and a new photon is emitted at a slight longer (redder) wavelength. The lost energy is transferred to the vibrational-energy (heat) of the atom that absorbed/re-emitted the photon.

From the frame-of-reference of the stationary observer, the photon has lost energy in addition to changing direction. It went from having 100 units of energy to the right to now having 99 units of energy to the left. And the right wall is 1 unit of energy hotter.

WRT the stationary observer, the cavity has received a net transfer of 1.99 units of momentum to the right. Not 2 units. The cavity has a momentum after collision of 0.01 units of momentum to the left. (Initial state: 2 + (-1) units to the left. Final state: 0.01 + .99 units to the left.)

Therefore unlike the previous example, WRT the stationary observer, the cavity has not come to a rest. It is moving very slowly to the left.

As the photon bounces back and forth inside the cavity, more and more of its energy is absorbed by the right wall. But the cavity eventually moves to the left with 1 unit of momentum. The situation is exactly the same as if the left wall was a mirror and the right wall perfectly black and the energy and momentum of the photon was reflected once and then 100% absorbed. Which is exactly the same as if the cavity was a single black wall. Even though the walls and their collisions are no longer symmetrical, the net outcome is exactly the same.

The interesting and potentially confusing thing here is that the energy is being absorbed by the right wall, but the transferred momentum is to the left.

That's because scalar units are not the same as vector units.

----

So now we invent a new technology, it is able to change the "mass" of the photon, to increase energy, by {shrug} "superconductors". The extra energy given to the photon comes from an electrical source powering the wall, so total energy is conserved.

We create a cavity in which the left wall is made of the new technology and the right wall is merely a perfect mirror. The left wall's magic technology is powered from a battery attached to the cavity.

When a photon bounces off the left wall, it gains energy. In reaction, the left wall (and hence the cavity) move to the left with more than 1 unit of momentum.

But when that photon bounces off the right wall, perfectly, it has that greater-than-1-unit of momentum. Therefore the right wall (and hence the cavity) moves to the right with exactly the same momentum as the left wall moved left.

WRT a stationary observer, the two sides balance out. All that's left is the original 1 unit of momentum of the original photon.

Over time, all the energy in the battery will be transferred to the photon. Instead of 1 unit of momentum, it will have 1001 units of momentum.

And the cavity will still only move to the left by 1 unit of momentum.

Because the extra 1000 scalar units of extra momentum have no net vector units of momentum. Zero.

1 + (+1000) + (-1000) units to the left

= 1 + 0 units to the left

= 1 unit to the left

Because you cannot treat scalar units and vector units the same, unless you are very very careful to remember where the vector is.

This scenario ends up being exactly the same as scenario 2. Except that instead of a symmetrical 1 unit vibration, you have a symmetrical 1001 unit vibration.

If we instead use one magic super-wall and one imperfectly reflective inelastic wall, we end up with scenario 3. Again the cavity ends up moving left with 1 unit of momentum. The only difference is that instead of slowly absorbing the photon's energy and becoming hotter, the right wall will absorb the photon's original energy and energy from the battery, becoming much hotter. It will still only move to the left with 1 unit of momentum.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 02/26/2016 06:36 pm
As soon as the ships are released and they starting moving away from each other, we get red shifting.  We get red-shifting because F.dx = energy and that energy is coming from the light (energy conserved).

Incorrect. The energy is coming from the two ships. F = -F

The photons are unchanged by their reflection, with respect to a stationary observer. The photons are not red-shifted, they are not blue-shifted. They are just changing direction.

That's the thing you need to understand. The photons themselves have not been changed, they have not lost energy, only their direction has been changed. And it's the change in direction that is moving the ships (F = -F) not a loss of energy by the photon themselves.
...
The energy to move the ship is not coming from the energy of the photon, it's coming from the change-of-direction of the energy of the photon. ...

The photon has 100 scalar units of energy. It is moving from left to right, so it has 100 vector units of energy to the right.

The photon has 100 scalar units of energy.
How then do you rectify that a radar gun measures a cars velocity by the change in wavelength of the emitted light.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_gun  The gun exist in the stationary frame that the photon was emitted in, and if it is as you claim, it appears the photon when returning, will have no change in wavelength to indicate if the car is moving either away or towards the radar gun. 

Now that I think of it, I am not sure how related the shift in wavelength of a radar gun is compared to the car imparting energy into the photon.  I'm going to have to work through some problems before I can say this.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Paul451 on 02/26/2016 07:03 pm
The photons are unchanged by their reflection, with respect to a stationary observer. The photons are not red-shifted, they are not blue-shifted. They are just changing direction.
How then do you rectify that a radar gun measures a cars velocity by the change in wavelength of the emitted light.  The gun exist in the stationary frame that the photon was emitted in, and if it is as you claim, it appears the photon when returning, will have no change in wavelength to indicate if the car is moving either away or towards the radar gun.

The reflective sail is initially stationary WRT the observer. There is no doppler shift of the photon seen by the observer, but the sail is pushed in the opposite direction.

So where does the energy come from, if not by red/blue shifting the photon?

That's what I was trying to get across.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 02/28/2016 04:29 am
I think you are right.  There is a lot more going on than I expected that is shifting the wavelength of light.  There appears to be Doppler shifting due to constant velocity, possibly with energy exchange, and along with relativity.  I think I really need to work through some of the details.  I appreciate all your comments Paul and 93143 and making me think about some of these issues. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 02/29/2016 02:20 am
Here is a classical derivation of the Doppler shift of a reflected photon that is pushing on a mirror.  All I used was conservation of Momentum, h*f/c = photon momentum, photon energy = h*f and then Conservation of energy.  The program used is wxMaxima.  I appear to get a classical shift in frequency that is twice that of the Doppler effect listed here: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/features/yba/M31_velocity/spectrum/doppler_more.html .  See for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_gun I believe it may be because I substituted for the change in velocity of the mirror a photon that is reflected.  A reflected photon imparts twice the kick of an emitted photon.  Its curious that this classical prediction appears to give a limit of speed c.  Was it the energy/momentum I used of the photon?

This is in regards to my suggesting that when the photon hit one side of the cavity (accelerating it), that it was red-shifted, having given some of its energy to the cavity.  I'm still not sure it's possible to modify the relativistic mass of light, conserving momentum.  If it were possible we could possibly pull off a Woodward effect using light.  One thing bothers me about the cavity I suggested is that while it might conserve the absolute value of momentum it appears to re-direct momentum.  On the other hand, I suspect this is what any Woodward effect device would do.  Take for instance the idea of energy moving between a capacitor-inductor circuit with pezio-electric actuator that re-directs the expanding/contracting momentum (change in mass via energy) into a single direction.  Is it possible momentum is conserved in absolute but not necessarily direction?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 02/29/2016 04:31 am
Is it possible momentum is conserved in absolute but not necessarily direction?

No, momentum is a vector. It inherently has both magnitude and direction. It is not like kinetic energy which is only a scalar.

But even though Kinetic energy is a scalar it is frame dependent which means its value depends on who is looking.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 02/29/2016 04:53 am
Is it possible momentum is conserved in absolute but not necessarily direction?

No, momentum is a vector. It inherently has both magnitude and direction. It is not like kinetic energy which is only a scalar.

But even though Kinetic energy is a scalar it is frame dependent which means its value depends on who is looking.

Right, that is what I would think too and I can't think of any natural systems that would violate it.  If the Woodward concept works then it almost implies it may be possible to redirect momentum.  Unless I am mistaken but at the moment, it sure seems that way.  I mean the simple device they have at the top of this link seems to imply a re-direction of momentum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect .   

I have noticed the cavity I proposed that modifies the mass of light also re-directs the momentum.  I think it is a property that is at the heart of the Mach-effect/Woodward effect concept. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 02/29/2016 07:38 am
Is it possible momentum is conserved in absolute but not necessarily direction?

No, momentum is a vector. It inherently has both magnitude and direction. It is not like kinetic energy which is only a scalar.

But even though Kinetic energy is a scalar it is frame dependent which means its value depends on who is looking.

Right, that is what I would think too and I can't think of any natural systems that would violate it.

No system can violate it. And that fact isn't a physical fact so much as a mathematical fact. You would have to rewrite physics.

Quote
If the Woodward concept works then it almost implies it may be possible to redirect momentum.


Another way to say "redirect momentum" is "violate conservation of momentum." As long as you understand that then explore the possibilities all you want.

Quote
Unless I am mistaken but at the moment, it sure seems that way.  I mean the simple device they have at the top of this link seems to imply a re-direction of momentum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect .

I really can't make much sense of anything on that page.
   
Quote
I have noticed the cavity I proposed that modifies the mass of light also re-directs the momentum.  I think it is a property that is at the heart of the Mach-effect/Woodward effect concept.

As I said above you cannot change the mass of a photon. If you could it would be an immediate and obvious violation of conservation of momentum. You may as well be invoking invisible blue fairies.

Or you could try this:

http://star.psy.ohio-state.edu/coglab/Miracle.html
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 03/01/2016 04:58 am
Is it possible momentum is conserved in absolute but not necessarily direction?

No, momentum is a vector. It inherently has both magnitude and direction. It is not like kinetic energy which is only a scalar.

But even though Kinetic energy is a scalar it is frame dependent which means its value depends on who is looking.

Right, that is what I would think too and I can't think of any natural systems that would violate it.

No system can violate it. And that fact isn't a physical fact so much as a mathematical fact. You would have to rewrite physics.

Quote
If the Woodward concept works then it almost implies it may be possible to redirect momentum.


Another way to say "redirect momentum" is "violate conservation of momentum." As long as you understand that then explore the possibilities all you want.

Dustinthewind: By re-direct momentum I am saying not to change the absolute value of the momentum but to change the direction which in effect is a violation but re-direct implies not changing the value.

Quote
Unless I am mistaken but at the moment, it sure seems that way.  I mean the simple device they have at the top of this link seems to imply a re-direction of momentum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect .

I really can't make much sense of anything on that page.
Dustinthewind: The device at the top, right hand side, that changes mass and the pulls it self together like an accordion.  It then transfers energy to the other side, changing its mass, and then expands each time pushing in one direction.  How does a device that vibrates and has zero momentum, (if it doesn't transfer mass), push it self in such a manner with out propellant?  It implies a re-direction of momentum during the expanding/contracting phase.
   
Quote
I have noticed the cavity I proposed that modifies the mass of light also re-directs the momentum.  I think it is a property that is at the heart of the Mach-effect/Woodward effect concept.

As I said above you cannot change the mass of a photon. If you could it would be an immediate and obvious violation of conservation of momentum. You may as well be invoking invisible blue fairies.

Or you could try this:

http://star.psy.ohio-state.edu/coglab/Miracle.html

Dustinthewind: If changing the mass of a photon/object could give us such an ability as to re-direct momentum eliminating the need for a propellant, I think it would at least be worth considering if it were a possibility, considering the rewards.  Some things in the past that were considered blue fairies/impossible were later found to be possible so why not keep an open mind?  I read some where, superconductors make photons massive objects, and when light enters a dielectric it slows down.  What if light slows down in a dielectric because its effective relativistic mass increases and momentum is conserved? 
URL: Mass change of dielectric media induced by propagation of electromagnetic waves by C.Z. Tan (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=3116791111918076563&hl=en&as_sdt=0,48)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 03/01/2016 05:57 am
Is it possible momentum is conserved in absolute but not necessarily direction?

No, momentum is a vector. It inherently has both magnitude and direction. It is not like kinetic energy which is only a scalar.

But even though Kinetic energy is a scalar it is frame dependent which means its value depends on who is looking.

Right, that is what I would think too and I can't think of any natural systems that would violate it.

No system can violate it. And that fact isn't a physical fact so much as a mathematical fact. You would have to rewrite physics.

Quote
If the Woodward concept works then it almost implies it may be possible to redirect momentum.

Another way to say "redirect momentum" is "violate conservation of momentum." As long as you understand that then explore the possibilities all you want.

By re-direct momentum I am saying not to change the absolute value of the momentum but to change the direction which in effect is a violation but re-direct implies not changing the value.

Everyone understands what you're saying, and everyone has been trying to tell you that changing the direction is a violation of conservation of momentum.  Keeping the magnitude the same but changing the direction is a violation of conservation of momentum.  It's that simple.

Also, please learn to follow the standard quoting conventions for this forum, like 99% of other posters do.  It's more difficult for readers when not everyone follows the conventions.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: 93143 on 03/01/2016 06:05 am
I mean the simple device they have at the top of this link seems to imply a re-direction of momentum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect .

No, you haven't understood it properly.  It's a device that changes the mass of its components in order to produce a (vector) momentum imbalance.  And even that would be impossible in isolation - Woodward is proposing that the mass changes are due to a Wheeler-Feynman-type gravity-wave interaction with the rest of the universe, which is where the momentum and energy conservation would come from.  Aside from the usual complications re: cosmological redshift and so on, the whole system should make sense in Newtonian terms if the principle of operation is valid.

Please consider carefully the fact that momentum is frame-dependent.  If you understand this, you will see that scalar conservation of momentum doesn't even make sense.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 03/01/2016 06:23 am

Dustinthewind,

No you cannot "redirect" the momentum. That is a momentum conservation violation and leads directly to an energy conservation violation. Study some vector math and understand that it is the vector that must be conserved not the absolute value of its magnitude.

No, you cannot change the mass of anything. If you could that would be a momentum conservation violation and an energy conservation violation. If you could do this then an reactionless drive would be the very least of your powers. You could call on infinite energy to do anything you wanted.

Keeping an open mind is good but what you are proposing contradicts itself. You say you don't intend to violate conservation of momentum and then you talk about redirecting momentum.

You. Can't. Do. That.

The problem isn't that you are violating some supposed law of physics. You are but that is the least of your problems. Mathematically momentum is a vector quantity. Mathematically that vector quantity is what is conserved. Mathematically you cannot "redirect" that vector quantity and also conserve it. You cannot talk about "redirecting" the momentum vector while conserving momentum without abandoning all math, logic and reason.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 03/01/2016 06:44 am
I don't think anyone is telling me anything that I already don't know.  That momentum is a vector and has direction and to conserve it you need to keep it as a vector. 

All I am saying is if a projectile with momentum gets trapped in an osculating system and hits one wall giving up 20% of is energy but the impact with the other wall only gives back 10% of its energy that the projectile will end up giving its energy to the composite walls in a way that drains its energy.  This transferring of energy to the composite walls is completely determined by the ratio of energy given upon impact per wall and completely disregards the original momentum of the object that gets trapped.  If its offensive to consider such, i'll just have to keep it to myself. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Paul451 on 03/01/2016 04:53 pm
All I am saying is if a projectile with momentum gets trapped in an osculating system and hits one wall giving up 20% of [its] energy but the impact with the other wall only gives back 10% of its energy that the projectile will end up giving its energy to the composite walls in a way that drains its energy.

You seem to be confusing a non-vector form of energy with a vector form.

If the energy of the photon is transferred to an object, the object gets hotter, not faster.

You can convert between vector/scalar energy, but there needs to be a second system in play to balance the force, otherwise you are violating CoM. You have to pay for the conversion by adding negative (in a vector sense) momentum somewhere else.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 03/01/2016 10:50 pm
All I am saying is if a projectile with momentum gets trapped in an osculating system and hits one wall giving up 20% of [its] energy but the impact with the other wall only gives back 10% of its energy that the projectile will end up giving its energy to the composite walls in a way that drains its energy.

You seem to be confusing a non-vector form of energy with a vector form.

If the energy of the photon is transferred to an object, the object gets hotter, not faster.

It gets hot if the light is striking a black body that absorbs light.  In this case there is some momentum transfer also.  This could be paralleled to a ballistic pendulum. 

If the light strikes a reflective surface there is also a transfer of energy and momentum.  On an elastic collision very little energy is transferred as heat, and is evident when you bounce a ball that returns to its previous height, losing very little energy. This is different from a plastic collision.  This is why I worked through the math, all in the same frame, above to show that light that reflects, changing the velocity of an object, appears to be doubly red-shifted.  What I got for a solution was two times the Doppler shift.  This is likely connected to a reflected photon providing twice the boost of an absorbed photon or an emitted photon was my conclusion.  I bring this up because it appears to reduce the energy of the reflected photon and energy is also transferred to the propelled object. 

What I am saying above is at a set velocity of the projectile (the speed of light) The equation 100%=1=energy to wall/(total energy)+energy to projectile/(total energy) This ratio is determined by the mass of the wall system and the mass of the photon.  If the mass of the photon appears heavier to one wall than the other then the photon pushes on one wall harder than the other.  The cavity will always after many bounces of the photon accelerate in the direction the photon appears to be heavier in mass even with momentum conserved during the collision (also draining the energy of the photon).  It doesn't appear to depend on which direction the photon comes from (left or right) the cavity will accelerate after many bounces in a certain direction.  This is a sort of paradox that I am considering.   

It has to do with changing the mass of an object but conserving momentum and then applying a force on it [reflection]which is connected to the Woodward effect.  I then linked a paper where they are considering if the mass of the photon changes inside a dielectric. 
You can convert between vector/scalar energy, but there needs to be a second system in play to balance the force, otherwise you are violating CoM. You have to pay for the conversion by adding negative (in a vector sense) momentum somewhere else.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 03/02/2016 05:16 am
Dude, momentum equals mass times velocity. If you change the mass and keep the velocity the same... just do the math.

And as I said above the photons that have mass are virtual photons. They can also time travel and go faster than light. That does not mean you can build a time machine.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Paul451 on 03/02/2016 08:29 pm
All I am saying is if a projectile with momentum gets trapped in an osculating system and hits one wall giving up 20% of [its] energy but the impact with the other wall only gives back 10% of its energy that the projectile will end up giving its energy to the composite walls in a way that drains its energy.
If the energy of the photon is transferred to an object, the object gets hotter, not faster.
It gets hot if the light is striking a black body that absorbs light.  In this case there is some momentum transfer also.

No, any body gets hotter¹ if it absorbs energy from a photon. That is distinct from the momentum. Both must be accounted for. You are switching back and forth between them as if they were the same thing.

¹ Or is converted to some other form of non-vector energy, like an electrical charge. Same thing.

The only way to turn a photon's energy into momentum (more than the existing momentum of the photon, which is what you're trying to achieve), is if the energy also creates negative (vector) momentum in another system.

You have this idea about the photon "escaping with energy/momentum" when it is reflected, and we need to capture that "energy" in some way. But that treats momentum as a scalar property, you are ignoring the vector component. The momentum is in that direction. So if you transfer that vector momentum to the object/wall/cavity/whatever, you can only transferring momentum with a vector in that same direction.

Ie, if you reduce the "energy" the photon escapes with, then you have also reduced the momentum available to the object/wall/cavity in the opposite direction. You haven't increased it.

Eg,

If we treat right-to-left as the positive vector again, left-to-right as the negative.

A photon approaches a stationary object/wall/cavity/whatever from right-to-left with 1 arbitrary unit of momentum.

The total momentum for the system is 0 + 1 = 1 unit to the left.

The photon bounces away perfectly elastically and the object/etc is pushed away at 2 units of momentum.

The total momentum for the system is 2 + (-1) = 1 unit to the left. The total momentum of the system is unchanged.

So we introduce some mechanism that reduces the momentum of the photon after it reflects. The nature of the mechanism is irrelevant, the effect is the same.

The total momentum for the system is X + (-0.9) = 1 unit to the left. 'X', the momentum of the object/etc, must therefore be 1.9 units to the left. Less than a perfect reflection, not more. That's because you've transferred an extra -0.1 units of momentum to the object, not +0.1 units. If you somehow take "energy" from the photon, and hence momentum, you also have to take the same amount of momentum from the object.

(Then, separately, we have to account for any change in scalar energy. So that energy must be converted to another scalar form. Usually heat. So the object has less vector momentum than a perfect reflection, but more scalar energy as heat. In other words, any mechanism that "captures" energy from the photon is the same as an inelastic reflection.)

When you talk about a photon being "red-shifted" and "transferring its energy" to the object, you want to turn that missing 0.1 units of rightward momentum into 0.1 units of leftward momentum without balancing the equation. Ie, you are violating CoM.

You can only add momentum to the object/etc if you increase the momentum of the reflected photon in the opposite direction, ie, not by red-shifting it, but by blue-shifting it. Giving the photon more momentum and more energy, not less. It is functionally the same as absorbing the first photon and then re-emitting a new photon at higher frequency. Again, the mechanism is irrelevant. It is functionally the same as a photon-drive. (A pointlessly convoluted solar powered photon drive with a battery to make up the difference, which is effectively the same as a battery-powered photon drive that doesn't absorb the incoming photon.)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 03/02/2016 11:22 pm
All I am saying is if a projectile with momentum gets trapped in an osculating system and hits one wall giving up 20% of [its] energy but the impact with the other wall only gives back 10% of its energy that the projectile will end up giving its energy to the composite walls in a way that drains its energy.
If the energy of the photon is transferred to an object, the object gets hotter, not faster.
It gets hot if the light is striking a black body that absorbs light.  In this case there is some momentum transfer also.

No, any body gets hotter¹ if it absorbs energy from a photon. That is distinct from the momentum. Both must be accounted for. You are switching back and forth between them as if they were the same thing.
...
No, they use highly reflective mirrors to bounce lasers because... they don't get hot and melt.  A perfectly reflective surface would not get hot.  Like a superconductor has no resistance to current and doesn't get hot when current flows. 

A mirror gets hot because it has resistance to current but in a good mirror this is small.  (silver has lower resistance to current than copper and silver coating copper cavities increases the Q compared to copper.  If it has a black surface then it basically converts the current/light to heat but also receives an impulse (1/2 of a solar sail).  The parallel to a black surface is a ballistic pendulum.  The ballistic pendulum catches the ball and converts Error:half the impulse it would have received correction: the energy the ball would have escaped with, had it been reflected is converted, into heat.  The pendulum still receives half of the impulse it would have, had it reflected it.  A ballistic pendulum makes heat and moves. 

A perfect reflector is like dropping a super-ball on the floor and it bounces back to the same height and no energy is lost to heat.  Some of the balls momentum from the impact (very small because of the planets large mass) still transfers to the planet so energy/momentum is exchanged but in the real world there are no perfectly elastic collisions so some of that energy, not exchanged as momentum, will be converted to heat.  However, we can have a very close approximation to a perfectly elastic collision in which the energy lost to heat is negligible compared to the exchange of momentum.  That last phrase I used is exactly what I mean when I say an elastic collision.  http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/elacol.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/inecol.html

I've been very busy lately so haven't had much time yet.  I suspect I can mathematically and with diagram show that its possible to violate momentum direction in a closed, engineered, system after many collisions so next time I post I'll show this and the design, if my intuition is correct, or prove myself wrong.   
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Paul451 on 03/03/2016 07:26 am
A perfect reflector is like dropping a super-ball on the floor and it bounces back to the same height and no energy is lost to heat.

You don't have to keep trying to explain elastic collisions. The issue isn't that other people don't understand what you mean by elastic, the issue is that you say elastic, then describe an inelastic collision, but think you're still talking about an elastic one.

When you try to take back energy from the photon, you've turned your elastic collision into an inelastic one. That a) reduces the momentum transfer available to the reflective surface, and b) converts some of the photons energy into another non-vector form, such as heat.

No, they use highly reflective mirrors to bounce lasers because... they don't get hot and melt.

All mirrors have some inefficiency, they will absorb a certain amount of light.

It's not just black surfaces which absorb light. (Indeed, every non-reflective surface absorbs most light. They merely re-emit most photons except those in its absorption spectrum. That's what separates a white surface from a mirror.)

I suspect I can mathematically and with diagram show that its possible to violate momentum direction in a closed, engineered, system after many collisions

Since such a revelation would garner you a Nobel Prize in physics, I'd suggest a little modesty would be in order.

Don't you think if it was so simple to create a CoM violation from a simple reflective cavity, someone else would have also shown it long, long ago?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 03/03/2016 03:14 pm


You keep using weasel words like "redirecting momentum" or violating "momentum direction". Momentum is inherently directional and the whole point of momentum conservation is conserving that "momentum direction".

You need to stop with the weasel words and accept that "redirecting momentum" is exactly a violation of conservation of momentum. You have weaseled and ducked this obvious fact for long enough. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 03/07/2016 11:16 pm
...
I suspect I can mathematically and with diagram show that its possible to violate momentum direction in a closed, engineered, system after many collisions

Since such a revelation would garner you a Nobel Prize in physics, I'd suggest a little modesty would be in order.

Don't you think if it was so simple to create a CoM violation from a simple reflective cavity, someone else would have also shown it long, long ago?
I don't really expect to find a violation of momentum or a Nobel Prize but I like to put enthusiasm into what I am hoping to find.  It might be considered being a weasel, but I see it that if we really wan't to accomplish propellant-less  propulsion there has to be some way of pushing on something we don't know how to yet (space time itself) or some way of violating momentum such as its direction.  There aren't too many options that I see yet.  Here is a design I was considering if it could possibly violate momentum by pushing on light itself, red-shifting it.  It also looks allot like the Mach/Woodward effect in which the mass of the dielectric is changing when the light passes through it.  The dielectric undergoes acceleration when it changes mass and also red-shifts the light.  The light then goes around a circuit only to undergo the same process.  I've yet to work out the momentum equations for it to see if anything extraordinary could come out. 

Light changing the mass of a dielectric:
URL: Mass change of dielectric media induced by propagation of electromagnetic waves by C.Z. Tan (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=3116791111918076563&hl=en&as_sdt=0,48)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 03/15/2016 11:52 pm
I thought this was interesting.  I was able to derive the Doppler shift of light in a dielectric that later escapes.  This is like the Doppler shift of a star moving away.  It is assumed that the star has extra mass associated with the energy it contains and later it decreases in mass and gets a velocity kick from the emitted photon.  I get the regular Doppler shift as a result. 

For a reflected photon you get twice the Doppler shift which appears to be expected as for radar guns.  I suspect I can use this later as the light passes through the dielectric changing its mass.  Later the dielectric should undergo acceleration by the swinging arm, changing its velocity.  The result should be further Doppler-shifting of the light.  The change in force of the accelerating dielectric should be related to the dielectrics change in mass and acceleration.  Some energy should have been removed from the light from the extra Doppler shift as the light goes around the cavity.  Some work remains to show that the light should gradually lose wavelength as it travels around its circuit.

Attached below is the math worked out in wxMaxima with plots. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: GeneralRulofDumb on 03/17/2016 08:51 am
I don't understand the fixation with wanting to violate any physical law. As I understand it, Woodward's device should work not in spite of, but based on existing laws.
The way I see it, momentum is conserved just fine in said device. Like a car that accelerates and 'pushes' the road/earth in the opposite direction, so too does a MET 'push' all causally connected matter in the universe in the opposite direction.
One practical problem with that device however appears to be that mechanically vibrating a solid mass has serious limits on frequencies.
And although photons can be considered particles as well, they do not have mass, so that might make it unlikely to somehow have their masses transiently 'fluctuate'.
Perhaps one should therefore consider using electrons (which do have mass) as a medium to invoke a kind of Woodward-effect. They can conveniently be packed into a kind of stream, or current.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Paul451 on 03/17/2016 04:36 pm
Like a car that accelerates and 'pushes' the road/earth in the opposite direction, so too does a MET 'push' all causally connected matter in the universe in the opposite direction.

That doesn't solve the CoE issue.

At any level of efficiency (force/power), there will be a velocity above which the device gains more kinetic energy than it expends in input energy. Even if the device "pushes all matter in the universe" in proportion with that input energy, it will still eventually be creating more energy than it consumes or transfers.

A car can't go above its "over-unity" velocity because friction with the road limits how fast it can go. If you've ever tried to find the top-speed of a car (or seen it done on TV/youtube), you'll know that it takes more time to accumulate that last ten MPH before topping out than it did to accelerate the first hundred MPH. The efficiency (force/power, or acceleration/energy in this case) changes with velocity, hence the over-unity velocity changes. The same is true with any conventional system, there's always a limiting effect.

For MET not to violate CoE/CoM, its interaction with "all matter in the universe" must be similarly velocity dependent. (Which in general, violates the core idea of relativity.)

But it's worse, the over-unity velocity for many of the proposed reactionless-drives (MET/EMdrive) is so low, just a few km/s, that even if there was a limiting mechanism, the Earth itself is already moving faster than the device's over-unity velocity relative to the sun, and the sun is moving faster than the cut-off relative to the galaxy, and the galaxy moving faster relative to the average background radiation.

In other words, even if these devices really could work, they couldn't work on Earth, or in our solar system, or in our galaxy.

You can't have "works as described" and "works on Earth" but not "violates CoE".
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: M.E.T. on 03/17/2016 07:48 pm
But the principle of the Mach Effect Thruster is that it is not the electrical energy of the onboard power source that is converted into acceleration. Instead, the powersource merely enables the creation of the gravinertial flux, which then exchanges momentum with the rest of the mass of the universe.

The problem, it seems to me, is that people cannot accept this instantaneous exchange of momentum with the distant matter of the entire universe, as at face value it appears to be happening much faster than the speed of light. But for this Woodward has invoked Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory, involving waves going both backward and forward in time. Something which I freely admit I don't understand at all, but which has not been refuted and which is based on solid theory, according to some very eminent people.

Hence, if the Wheeler-Feynman absorber aspect of Woodward's theory holds true, the mechanism for the instantaneous exchange of energy with the rest of the Universe can be explained, and hence, indeed, a Mach Effect Thruster also doubles as a generator of local energy, leeched from the distant universe.

Thus eventually you don't even need your original electrical power source on board your spacecraft anymore, as the Mach Effect Thruster generates its own surplus power in addition to accelerating your spacecraft to near lightspeed.

Hence, from a local point of view, it does indeed represent a free energy device, but only because it is sourcing this energy from the closed system that is the entire universe. Thus, the surplus energy that is extracted here, thanks to the Mach Effect Thruster, is taken away from the entire rest of the Universe.

So the net energy gain is zero. The system in which this takes place is just colossal - it is the entire Universe.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tchernik on 03/17/2016 08:20 pm
The refusal to acknowledge that any real, working MET will generate energy in the local level due to constant acceleration at a constant energy expenditure, is something that baffles me up to today.

They are making a daring assertion already, but seem to coy from asserting the next logical one that follows.

By the way, the Emdrive has this problem too, and the proponents seem to also do their best to dodge the topic.

If they already do one daring assertion, they should go to the end and simply say they are taking energy from some cosmic source. But apparently that's too embarrassing to say out loud.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 03/17/2016 08:47 pm
The refusal to acknowledge that any real, working MET will generate energy in the local level due to constant acceleration at a constant energy expenditure, is something that baffles me up to today.

They are making a daring assertion already, but seem to coy from asserting the next logical one that follows.

By the way, the Emdrive has this problem too, and the proponents seem to also do their best to dodge the topic.

If they already do one daring assertion, they should go to the end and simply say they are taking energy from some cosmic source. But apparently that's too embarrassing to say out loud.

Not sure I know any supporters of MET that fight the argument that MET's could be used as power generators. All the supporters I have read on this forum and others seem to readily accept it. That said, supporters are still waiting on Woodward to improve his thrust figures and get those improved figures replicated. So I dont have a problem with any supporter not shouting from the mountain tops that they have a free energy device to save the world when at most the only thing you could point to is a few microNewtons of force that is way below the over-unity threshold.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: M.E.T. on 03/17/2016 09:31 pm
Hi Birchoff

Indeed. I have long followed your posts, and the posts of others both here and on Talk Polywell, with regard to Woodward's work. To me it seems a far more promising opportunity than the EMdrive which has garnered so much attention despite no one really having a proper theory on why it supposedly works.

The Woodward effect in contrast seems to be so much more elegant, and based on solid theoretical work supported by a number of very accomplished and respected people.

I simply cannot understand why someone with billions to spare hasn't invested a few million dollars to give Woodward the proper equipment and manpower he needs to prove it once and for all.

It seems clear to me that if the Woodward effect proves to be real and scalable, it will change the fabric of our society in almost unimaginable ways. Instantly oil becomes obsolete. As do airplanes as we currently know them. Anti-gravity technology effectively becomes real, as soon as 1G of thrust becomes available.

Heck, fusion power becomes obsolete before it is even perfected.

And all of that BEFORE we even talk about the implications for space travel. Travel to Alpha Centauri in 5 years becomes possible, at 1G acceleration.

The point is, with so much at stake, it doesn't make sense that he is peddling along in his homemade lab, with the occasional undergraduate student to help him keep his bare bones device patched up and ready for the next miniscule thrust experimental run.

It is really frustrating.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: wallofwolfstreet on 03/18/2016 07:22 pm
Not sure I know any supporters of MET that fight the argument that MET's could be used as power generators. All the supporters I have read on this forum and others seem to readily accept it. That said, supporters are still waiting on Woodward to improve his thrust figures and get those improved figures replicated. So I dont have a problem with any supporter not shouting from the mountain tops that they have a free energy device to save the world when at most the only thing you could point to is a few microNewtons of force that is way below the over-unity threshold.

What do you mean no supporters fight the argument that METs could be used as power generators?  Wasn't the whole point of Woodward's essay, posted back on page 29 of this very thread (here (http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf) is the essay) an attempt to refute that METs can be used as power generators?  A completely misguided attempt at that, because it is riddled with basic mechanics errors as well as a misunderstanding of how to use integrals to calculate work. 

The whole essay is (supposedly) a refutation of the idea that METs ever achieve local overunity with respect to their supplied electrical power.  If he had stuck with the explanation that METs are a sort of gravinertial transistor which only consumes electrical energy to harvest greater amounts of energy from the very distance mass of the universe, then conservation of energy would be satisfied within the framework of a constant thrust to power ratio.  Unfortunately he didn't.  From that essay, it is clear he doesn't believe METs achieve local overunity.   

So unless I'm missing something, the greatest supporter of all refutes that METs can be used for power generation, and that supporter is Woodward himself.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Paul451 on 03/18/2016 09:38 pm
But the principle of the Mach Effect Thruster is that it is not the electrical energy of the onboard power source that is converted into acceleration. Instead, the powersource merely enables the creation of the gravinertial flux, which then exchanges momentum with the rest of the mass of the universe.

That isn't adequate to remove the CoE issue.

The device produces constant force/acceleration at any specific constant input energy. That is velocity independent. However the kinetic energy available increases exponentially with velocity. The two are disconnected, due to the different effect of velocity, hence only one can be balanced by the "reaction" of the rest of the universe.

If the MET somehow produces its force by magically pushing off the rest of the universe, it's only that force that is balanced, proportional to energy input. The velocity-dependent energy output is not being balanced.

Once the velocity is high enough, over the critical value F/P, then the device will produce more kinetic energy than it consumes; and hence more than its reaction with the larger universe. Ie, that surplus is not being "balanced" by the rest of the universe. It's genuinely created energy, not just a local-portion of a larger equation.

[The only way out is if the drive isn't "pushing off" the rest of the universe, but is being dragged by an anisotropy. But that has an inherent velocity limit (the relative velocity of the anisotropy). So force/power ratio changes with velocity. And hence would produce diurnal and annual variations.]
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 03/19/2016 06:49 pm
The latest patent Jim Woodward filed in 2013 has been finally granted and assigned to SSI:

US patent 9287840 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=9287840&OS=9287840&RS=9287840), James F. Woodward, "Parametric amplification and switched voltage signals for propellantless propulsion", issued 2016-03-15, assigned to Space Studies Institute.


It covers the realistic realizations of Mach effects. Attached below as a PDF.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 03/19/2016 09:50 pm
...Here is a design I was considering if it could possibly violate momentum by pushing on light itself, red-shifting it.  It also looks allot like the Mach/Woodward effect in which the mass of the dielectric is changing when the light passes through it.  The dielectric undergoes acceleration when it changes mass and also red-shifts the light.  The light then goes around a circuit only to undergo the same process.  I've yet to work out the momentum equations for it to see if anything extraordinary could come out. 

Light changing the mass of a dielectric:
URL: Mass change of dielectric media induced by propagation of electromagnetic waves by C.Z. Tan (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=3116791111918076563&hl=en&as_sdt=0,48)
bold: edited at a later time
I am pretty sure this should be as simple as considering the frequency in the dielectric remains constant but the wavelength and speed of the photon changes.  f=n/lambda*c/n n=refractive index and n/lambda=photon mass c/n=velocity of photon in dielectric.  Due to the change in relative velocity of the dielectric on encounter/re-emission of the photon the photon is red-shifted in frequency and loses mass but not velocity in free space.  Therefore the dielectric pulls some of the momentum of the photon out as the photon passes through.  Normally in a cavity the energy exchanged with the cavity is a function of the photons effective mass with respect to the cavity so the photon hitting the front wall of the cavity imparts a fraction of the photons energy to the cavity and upon the photon hitting the back wall the photon regains the same fraction of energy.  The only differences is the dielectric is pulling momentum away from the photon when its going one direction.  As a result the photon loses momentum/energy over time inside the trapped cavity.

I can even get rid of the bottom dielectric by using 3 prisms to form a triangle (or 4 prisms to form a rectangle, I believe prisms can have very low reflective losses).  The return path of the photon on the 2nd leg is longer than the path through the dielectric so if the path is just right the photon always hits the osculating dielectric at just the right time. 

Strangely, if the photon enters in with positive momentum and the cavity is set to accelerate in the negative x direction the cavity can extract the photons momentum, on its leg when it has negative momentum, converting the photons positive momentum into negative momentum.  If what I am seeing is correct this may be a way to violate the direction of momentum. 

A real life application might be to make the light packets outside the cavity and inject it and allow it to lose wavelength/energy inside.  Maybe the dielectric could be osculated with a pezio-electric.  Maybe Gaussian wave-packets could be generated using a Josephson junction array.  http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01009578 or

Josephson Junction Oscillator Arrays
Matthew J. Lewis, Dale Durand, and Andrew D. Smith
TRW Space & Technology Group.
Peter Hadley*
Stanford University (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjn69KQo87LAhXIKiYKHVntDzQQFgghMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nrao.edu%2Fmeetings%2Fisstt%2Fpapers%2F1991%2F1991163178.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHKJNgh7fTJU2_eGORH9yP-Dl0Yiw&sig2=JwAWqG1a1nClPemcMN_dPQ&bvm=bv.117218890,d.eWE)


The ability of an osculating dielectric to extract/add energy/momentum from light could possibly be observed by passing light through said dielectric of high index while osculating and observing the red-blue shift of the light that passes through.  The thickness and index of the dielectric being tuned to the wavelength of light being used such that the dielectric can reverse velocity by the time the light departs.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 03/20/2016 12:17 am
Not sure I know any supporters of MET that fight the argument that MET's could be used as power generators. All the supporters I have read on this forum and others seem to readily accept it. That said, supporters are still waiting on Woodward to improve his thrust figures and get those improved figures replicated. So I dont have a problem with any supporter not shouting from the mountain tops that they have a free energy device to save the world when at most the only thing you could point to is a few microNewtons of force that is way below the over-unity threshold.

What do you mean no supporters fight the argument that METs could be used as power generators?  Wasn't the whole point of Woodward's essay, posted back on page 29 of this very thread (here (http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf) is the essay) an attempt to refute that METs can be used as power generators?  A completely misguided attempt at that, because it is riddled with basic mechanics errors as well as a misunderstanding of how to use integrals to calculate work. 

The whole essay is (supposedly) a refutation of the idea that METs ever achieve local overunity with respect to their supplied electrical power.  If he had stuck with the explanation that METs are a sort of gravinertial transistor which only consumes electrical energy to harvest greater amounts of energy from the very distance mass of the universe, then conservation of energy would be satisfied within the framework of a constant thrust to power ratio.  Unfortunately he didn't.  From that essay, it is clear he doesn't believe METs achieve local overunity.   

So unless I'm missing something, the greatest supporter of all refutes that METs can be used for power generation, and that supporter is Woodward himself.

I engaged with a length argument on this very thready about that issue. And after reading that paper over multiple times the only thing clear in my mind is that I dont believe that essay is meant to answer the question we want it to answer. Yes I know that sounds absurd. I can even admit it sounds like denial. But its the only logical conclusion I can reach after reading that essay and arguing about it here. That last paragraph in that paper in particular feels pretty weird. how can you spend 3/4 of an essay arguing that you cannot arbitrarily choose a time to restart acceleration. But then at the end argue that is exactly what you would need to do.

My gut tells me that if he actually believes a MET behaves in the manner described in that last paragraph then the only thing that he can be describing is the oscillating nature of the fluctuating mass in a MET device. which is constantly being accelerated and deccelerated as its mass fluctuates.

Unfortunately I have no way of confirming if my gut feeling is accurate as I have no line of communication with Woodward or Fern.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 03/20/2016 12:40 am
Hi Birchoff

Indeed. I have long followed your posts, and the posts of others both here and on Talk Polywell, with regard to Woodward's work. To me it seems a far more promising opportunity than the EMdrive which has garnered so much attention despite no one really having a proper theory on why it supposedly works.

The Woodward effect in contrast seems to be so much more elegant, and based on solid theoretical work supported by a number of very accomplished and respected people.

I simply cannot understand why someone with billions to spare hasn't invested a few million dollars to give Woodward the proper equipment and manpower he needs to prove it once and for all.

It seems clear to me that if the Woodward effect proves to be real and scalable, it will change the fabric of our society in almost unimaginable ways. Instantly oil becomes obsolete. As do airplanes as we currently know them. Anti-gravity technology effectively becomes real, as soon as 1G of thrust becomes available.

Heck, fusion power becomes obsolete before it is even perfected.

And all of that BEFORE we even talk about the implications for space travel. Travel to Alpha Centauri in 5 years becomes possible, at 1G acceleration.

The point is, with so much at stake, it doesn't make sense that he is peddling along in his homemade lab, with the occasional undergraduate student to help him keep his bare bones device patched up and ready for the next miniscule thrust experimental run.

It is really frustrating.

Some billionaire hasnt contributed money to woodward. Simply because no one believes it is possible. Humans who have acquired access to substantial sums of money dont get their because they easily believe. In addition, there is no real need for Woodwards technology right now. Sure Everyone here on NSF can appreciate the wonders a commercial version of a MET would bring to society.  But for the unwashed masses, if that technology isn't already on the shelf ready to be deployed it is of no use. This plus the high level of disbelief pretty much assures that any new propulsion technology will forever remain poorly funded.

Look at it this way. Everything we talk about doing in space on NSF could be done without MET's. Nuclear Thermal Rocket technology could have accomplished the same thing years ago. It could have provided us a thriving Cis-lunar  space along with probably research posts on Mars and Venus. And Thats with technology we already understand. I know the common refrain is that the fission is dangerous. But do you really believe that if humanity really felt it needed space resources to solve some important problem that we would let our fears of fission stop us from using it? I sure as hell dont.

Anyway for now. we will have to wait to see the slow development of the technology. I am very happy to see Heidi Fern continuing to develop the theoretical underpinnings of the technology. And there are replication results from external labs that are supposedly due some time this year. If those turn out to positive replication results as they have been rumored to be. And progress is made in the modelling and redesign. We could be looking forward to yet another milestone in the development of the technology. Which will cause more researchers with time and resources to invest in replications. Science is a slow trying process, even more so for us watching from the cheap seats dying to see some idea we have adopted come to fruition. But it is the best methodology humanity has for understanding nature's secrets.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: wallofwolfstreet on 03/20/2016 06:19 pm
I engaged with a length argument on this very thready about that issue. And after reading that paper over multiple times the only thing clear in my mind is that I dont believe that essay is meant to answer the question we want it to answer. Yes I know that sounds absurd. I can even admit it sounds like denial. But its the only logical conclusion I can reach after reading that essay and arguing about it here. That last paragraph in that paper in particular feels pretty weird. how can you spend 3/4 of an essay arguing that you cannot arbitrarily choose a time to restart acceleration. But then at the end argue that is exactly what you would need to do.

My gut tells me that if he actually believes a MET behaves in the manner described in that last paragraph then the only thing that he can be describing is the oscillating nature of the fluctuating mass in a MET device. which is constantly being accelerated and deccelerated as its mass fluctuates.

Unfortunately I have no way of confirming if my gut feeling is accurate as I have no line of communication with Woodward or Fern.

I think I see what you're saying, but the essay is pretty cut and dry in how it is worded in my opinion.  The last paragraph is funky as all hell, but it even opens:

Quote
To wrap this up, we ask: is it possible to do a correct calculation of the sort that
critics did that does not lead to wrong predictions of the violation of energy conservation?
By paying attention to the physics of the situation, yes, such a calculation is possible.

So it seems pretty clear he is talking about the energy calculation routinely done which demonstrates a constant thrust to power ratio eventually leads to over unity.  He even frames the "calculation of the sort that critics did" in the very first line of the essay:

Quote
We routinely hear a criticism of METs based upon an argument that claims: if a
MET is operated at constant power input for a sufficiently long time, it will acquire
enough kinetic energy to exceed the total input energy of operation

Taking those two lines together, it seems like he's definitely saying METs do not lead to a local gain in energy, and unfortunately he believes this by hand waving a physically nonsensical explanation into existence. Worse yet, he chose to write the whole essay in a startling arrogant tone with the whole "stupid and wrong" line.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: aceshigh on 03/21/2016 02:48 pm
Unfortunately I have no way of confirming if my gut feeling is accurate as I have no line of communication with Woodward or Fern.

there supposedly is a mailing list.

Paul March of NASA Eagleworks Lab should have access to it. You could PM him about it? (since he posts once every 6 months here :))
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: wallofwolfstreet on 03/21/2016 03:51 pm
Or you could just email him directly and ask.  His professional email is on his web page:

http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 03/23/2016 06:18 pm
...

Light changing the mass of a dielectric:
URL: Mass change of dielectric media induced by propagation of electromagnetic waves by C.Z. Tan (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=3116791111918076563&hl=en&as_sdt=0,48)

The diagram of the device I suggested to push on trapped light inside the cavity I believe would not work.  I should have realized this earlier.  Kudos to those that pointed this out.

It also appears the direction of momentum should not be being violated.  If the photon was made traveling towards the direction the cavity would move via the dielectric pushing, the cavity would get a kick from the photons creation in the opposite direction of dielectric push p=(hf/c).  The photon would then reflect pushing the cavity in the direction of the dielectric pushing on the light +p=(-2hf/c).  After this the photon strikes the back of the cavity, moving it in the opposite direction of the dielectric push +p=(2hf/c).  The photon then encounters the dielectric which pushes on the light and lets say the dielectric completely red-shifts the light +p=(-hf/c).  After this the cavity should have zero momentum.  Back to the drawing board. 

This was an attempt to make propulsion on the concept of the mach effect by somehow violating the direction of momentum.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Mezzenile on 03/28/2016 11:45 am
But the principle of the Mach Effect Thruster is that it is not the electrical energy of the onboard power source that is converted into acceleration. Instead, the powersource merely enables the creation of the gravinertial flux, which then exchanges momentum with the rest of the mass of the universe.

...

Hence, if the Wheeler-Feynman absorber aspect of Woodward's theory holds true, the mechanism for the instantaneous exchange of energy with the rest of the Universe can be explained, and hence, indeed, a Mach Effect Thruster also doubles as a generator of local energy, leeched from the distant universe.

...

Hence, from a local point of view, it does indeed represent a free energy device, but only because it is sourcing this energy from the closed system that is the entire universe. Thus, the surplus energy that is extracted here, thanks to the Mach Effect Thruster, is taken away from the entire rest of the Universe.

So the net energy gain is zero. The system in which this takes place is just colossal - it is the entire Universe.

I agree at 99% with the analysis which is presented herabove, but I am not sure that to present the entire universe as a closed system is really adequate.
In fact we should talk instead of the "closed entire universe" of "the causally connected universe" for  which the Mach Principle and its traduction by the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theoretical approach, predict an instantaneous interaction with any massive observer.
The "causally connected universe"  is in expansion (at least for its observable part) and so does  not present an overall time symmetry. This fact, according Emmy Noether theorem, has for consequence that most probably the causally connected universe is not governed by an overall law of energy conservation.
So it would be in my opinion preferrable to talk about a Woodward massive observer who exchanges energy with a causally connected universe whose overall energy increases thanks to its expansion dynamic.

Moreover the LIGO/VIRGO recent experimental direct discovery of gravitationnal waves re-inforces the radiative status of gravitation in the General Relativity Theory and so the Mach/Sciama/Papapetrou/Woodward idea that inertia forces have a gravitational origin.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: wallofwolfstreet on 03/29/2016 07:10 pm
Does anyone have a digital copy of Woodward's book?

I'm looking for a specific section of the book where he says he addresses an issue with his thrust derivation.  I have not seen him address this issue elsewhere.  I am in particular looking for pages 77 and 127.

I'd like to be able to see how he addressed this issue, but I'm not going to buy a book to read two or three pages of interest.

Thanks in advance. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 03/29/2016 09:01 pm
Does anyone have a digital copy of Woodward's book?

I'm looking for a specific section of the book where he says he addresses an issue with his thrust derivation.  I have not seen him address this issue elsewhere.  I am in particular looking for pages 77 and 127.

I'd like to be able to see how he addressed this issue, but I'm not going to buy a book to read two or three pages of interest.

Thanks in advance.

I have the kindle version. Unfortunately those pages are the book page numbers not the ebook one so I couldnt provide you the information you want.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: wallofwolfstreet on 03/30/2016 01:56 am
I have the kindle version. Unfortunately those pages are the book page numbers not the ebook one so I couldnt provide you the information you want.

Thanks for the consideration anyway.

The reason I am asking origintates in the followng quote from woodward's recent monograph (http://"http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf")

Quote
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. An argument based
on an incorrect application of Newton’s second law to METs was advanced as a criticism
of Mach Effects by an Oak Ridge scientist many years ago. It is dealt with on pages 77
and 127 of Making Starships and Stargates: the Science of Interstellar Propulsion and
Absurdly Benign Wormholes.
It will not be discussed further here.

As I understand it, the argument advanced by the Oak Ridge scientist was that F=ma is only correct at the system level for systems where the mass of the system is constant in time (which is clearly not true for METs).  This is because the more general expression for Force is correctly given by (I leave it to the reader to distinguish vectors from scalars):

Fnet=(d/dt)(p)
=d/dt(mv)
=(dm/dt)v + m(dv/dt)
=(dm/dt)v + ma

where:
F=external forces (i.e. forces applied across the system boundary)
p=momentum
m=mass
v=velocity
a=acceleration
d/dt= partial derivative with respect to time

Obviously we can return to the more familiar F=ma expression by just setting mass constant so that dm/dt=0.

To demonstrate that this is the correct expression, consider the case of a rocket expelling exhaust in free space (i.e. no gravity; the only thing in this universe is the rocket and it's exhaust).  Now draw a control volume around the rocket plus a portion of the exhaust stream that has been expelled from the rocket.  Let this control volume be fixed to the rocket so it moves with it (i.e. a lagrangian control volume). 

Now as is always the case, internal forces (f) are always equal and opposite to one another, and so they sum to zero.  Because the "rocket + some exhaust" system is in free space, it experiences no external forces either, so F=0.  Remember that the force applied to the rocket by the exhaust is equal and opposite the force on the exhaust applied by the rocket.  Since we have included this portion of the exhaust in our control volume, these forces are themselves internal, and sum to zero (see attached figure). 

Now if we applied F=ma we would get that 0=ma so a=0.  Apparently rockets don't work. 

But if we apply the correct force derivation, F=d/dt(p) then we get:

Fnet=(dm/dt)v + ma
0=(dm/dt)v + ma
a=((-dm/dt)v)/m

which is the correct equation of motion for a rocket.  Essentially, when we choose a control volume where a portion of the exhaust is in the control volume and that portion has been fully accelerated (such that any particle of exhaust has a=0), then the acceleration of a rocket is NOT in fact from a "force" at all, but from the expulsion of mass across the system boundary that envelops the control volume (at least in the lagrangian interpretation).

This preamble has to do with the MET because mass fluctuations only lead to an apparent force within a closed system IF you take the INCORRECT F=ma approach as opposed to the more general F=d/dt(p) approach.  If you have a closed system (i.e. nothing transfers across the system boundary) and you apply cyclic mass variations within the system, you would see that:

Fnet=(dm/dt)v + ma
0=(dm/dt)v + ma                       (Fnet=0 because the system is closed)
0=0 + ma                                   (since there is no flow of mass across the system boundary)***
a=0

And so (following this derivation) cyclic mass variation won't actually yield any propulsive benefits.

Basically I want to see how Woodward addresses this issue, and whether it is done so in such a way as to make METs viable.  I want to see why Woodward finds this argument "incorrect" as he says.  Welcome other posters to point out any issues with this derivation as well of course. 



***If there is energy flux across the system boundary in the form of gravinertial waves, then those would account for the dm/dt term and presumably gravinertial waves travel at the speed of light, so v=c.  However, if that were the case, then the MET would be unable to achieve thrust greater than a perfectly collimated photon rocket, which can be derived as follows:

E=mc2
m=E/c2
(d/dt)m=(d/dt)E/c2
dm/dt=P/c2

E=energy
P=power
c=speed of light

Sub this expression for dm/dt into the rocket equation (realizing that we have now replaced the exhaust flow with photons/gluons/W,Z bosons, gravitons, gravienterial waves, magic energy waves - literally anything that has energy but no rest mass) and you get:

0=(P/c2)c + ma
ma=P/c

So we are back to the thrust of a perfectly collimated photon rocket.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Mezzenile on 03/30/2016 07:08 pm
... 

Now as is always the case, internal forces (f) are always equal and opposite to one another, and so they sum to zero.  Because the "rocket + some exhaust" system is in free space, it experiences no external forces either, so F=0.  Remember that the force applied to the rocket by the exhaust is equal and opposite the force on the exhaust applied by the rocket.  Since we have included this portion of the exhaust in our control volume, these forces are themselves internal, and sum to zero (see attached figure). 

Now if we applied F=ma we would get that 0=ma so a=0.  Apparently rockets don't work.
...

Your rocket works perfectly !  ;) You have just forgotten that you have included in your rocket system all the plume delivered by its propulsion motor, so in fact the center of gravity of your whole rocket system does not move and so its acceleration a is zero even if the massive plume goes in one direction and the usefull rocket in the opposite direction !  ;)

One point that you seem to miss : The laws of galilean dynamics are valid only when expressed in a galilean referential (the natural referential attached to the rocket is not galilean as the rocket is accelerated and so is prone to fictious forces)

To discriminate True forces from Fictious forces is rather simple : True forces are invariant when observed from different galilean referentials. By opposition Fictious forces change with the galilean referential from which they are observed.

   
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: wallofwolfstreet on 03/30/2016 08:20 pm
... 

Now as is always the case, internal forces (f) are always equal and opposite to one another, and so they sum to zero.  Because the "rocket + some exhaust" system is in free space, it experiences no external forces either, so F=0.  Remember that the force applied to the rocket by the exhaust is equal and opposite the force on the exhaust applied by the rocket.  Since we have included this portion of the exhaust in our control volume, these forces are themselves internal, and sum to zero (see attached figure). 

Now if we applied F=ma we would get that 0=ma so a=0.  Apparently rockets don't work.
...

Your rocket works perfectly !  ;) You have just forgotten that you have included in your rocket system all the plume delivered by its propulsion motor, so in fact the center of gravity of your whole rocket system does not move and so its acceleration a is zero even if the massive plume goes in one direction and the usefull rocket in the opposite direction !  ;)

One point that you seem to miss : The laws of galilean dynamics are valid only when expressed in a galilean referential (the natural referential attached to the rocket is not galilean as the rocket is accelerated and so is prone to fictious forces)

To discriminate True forces from Fictious forces is rather simple : True forces are invariant when observed from different galilean referentials. By opposition Fictious forces change with the galilean referential from which they are observed.

 

Thanks for the response Mezzenile, but I think this misses the mark of my argument.  I'll try to address each of your paragraphs as follows:

Quote
Your rocket works perfectly !  ;) You have just forgotten that you have included in your rocket system all the plume delivered by its propulsion motor, so in fact the center of gravity of your whole rocket system does not move and so its acceleration a is zero even if the massive plume goes in one direction and the useful rocket in the opposite direction !  ;)
     

In my control volume, I only included part of the rocket plume; particularly the part experiencing acceleration from the propulsion motor.  The system boundary is at the point where the exhaust has been fully accelerated and no longer experiences any forces.  This means there is mass flux across the system boundary in the form of constant velocity rocket exhaust.  You are correct that if the control volume contained all of the rocket exhaust, then the center of mass of the total system (rocket + all exhaust) would experience no acceleration.  But in my control volume mass escapes across the system boundary (anisotropically), and so the center of mass contained in the control volume must in fact accelerate.

Quote
One point that you seem to miss : The laws of galilean dynamics are valid only when expressed in a galilean referential (the natural referential attached to the rocket is not galilean as the rocket is accelerated and so is prone to fictious forces)

This is true, but doesn't relate to my example.  A control volume and a referential (frame of reference) are not the same thing.  An accelerating frame of reference is an issue and prone to fictitious forces, but the frame of reference is not accelerating my example.  .  In my example the referential is taken to be instantaneously at rest with respect to the rocket prior to acceleration (i.e. the referential does not accelerate with the rocket; it is an inertial frame of reference).  Furthermore, the analysis only needs to apply instantaneously.  You could fix the control volume in space (you seem to not like that I fixed the control volume to the rocket, which on second thought I shouldn't have done), and as long as some of the exhaust plume is passing across the control volume boundary, you would have the exact same problem.  A fixed control volume can still have the center of mass contained within accelerate. 

Quote
To discriminate True forces from Fictitious forces is rather simple : True forces are invariant when observed from different galilean referentials. By opposition Fictitious forces change with the galilean referential from which they are observed.

Likewise true, but not relevant to the example at hand because none of the forces examined are fictitious because the forces are examined from the perspective of an inertial frame.  They are dependent on how we choose the control volume (i.e. how we define a 3D volume to encompass our system), not on the reference frame.

I think the bottom line is that you can fix the control volume in space, where at a given instant the rocket plus accelerating exhaust is contained within said control volume while constant velocity exhaust flowing across the control surface, and the problem is exactly the same, with no concerns as to non-inertial frames of reference or accelerating control volumes.                 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: 93143 on 03/30/2016 10:02 pm
I gotta say, your derivation of a=0 is downright hilarious.  You start by assuming the net force is zero, completely ignore the term you just got through saying was important (by setting it to zero too, in brazen disregard for the claimed operating principle of the device), and then declare that since there's no force (something you assumed a priori), there's no acceleration.

That's not what the Oak Ridge guys did, by the way.

An M-E thruster is not supposed to be a closed system.  You can't declare Fnet to be zero arbitrarily.  This means you now have to address what v is, and since the transactional interaction is in all directions and largely due to the action of the distant matter rather than the power input to the device, you can't assign v=c.

I'd assign v=0, actually, under the assumption for the sake of argument that the theory is correct, but I have yet to arrive at a satisfactory theoretical demonstration of this.  I think I've managed to show numerically that a naive application of the Doppler effect results in v being linear with the peculiar velocity of the thruster for small values thereof, but even if I haven't screwed up somewhere that's a pretty weak result...  and I'm rather busy these days so I can't devote a lot of effort to this right now...
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: wallofwolfstreet on 03/30/2016 11:48 pm
I gotta say, your derivation of a=0 is downright hilarious.  You start by assuming the net force is zero, completely ignore the term you just got through saying was important (by setting it to zero too, in brazen disregard for the claimed operating principle of the device), and then declare that since there's no force (something you assumed a priori), there's no acceleration.

Thanks for the feedback.

I don't believe that is how the operating principle of the device works.  My (potentially wrong) read of the device's operating principle is:

You have a reaction mass, actuator and fluctuating mass (see Fig. 3.1 in Woodward's book if possible).  When the fluctuating mass is high, you use the actuator to push the reaction mass and fluctuating mass away from one another.  When the fluctuating mass is low, you use the actuator to pull them back together.  This should give net momentum to the bulk device.  The equal and opposite momentum is to be found as momentum flux in the gravinertial field.  This would imply to me that you could place a control volume around the device and the radiating gravinertial field, and within this control volume Fnet=0 because the Force on the MET is equal and opposite the force applied to the local gravinertial field (and hence it can be contained in a finite control volume).  I also only set dm/dt=0 contingent on my footnote (marked with ***), which demonstrates that non-zero mass flux just brings us back to the case of a regular rocket

I think one way to help clear this up, is to ask:

Is the MET like a photon rocket, emitting gravinertial waves in place of photons, or is it like a charge in space, experiencing a force caused by some other, far off charge?  Clearly I subscribe to the former from reading Woodward's stuff.

Quote
       
That's not what the Oak Ridge guys did, by the way.

Okay, I'll have to do some more looking then.

Quote
An M-E thruster is not supposed to be a closed system.  You can't declare Fnet to be zero arbitrarily.  This means you now have to address what v is, and since the transactional interaction is in all directions and largely due to the action of the distant matter rather than the power input to the device, you can't assign v=c.

Like I said, I set Fnet=0 because I thought an MET plus it's radiating gravinertial wave would, while the wave is contained in the control volume, form a closed system.  Maybe this is wrong. 

I don't understand how v=c logically follows from the above argument though.   

Quote
I'd assign v=0, actually, under the assumption for the sake of argument that the theory is correct, but I have yet to arrive at a satisfactory theoretical demonstration of this.  I think I've managed to show numerically that a naive application of the Doppler effect results in v being linear with the peculiar velocity of the thruster for small values thereof, but even if I haven't screwed up somewhere that's a pretty weak result...  and I'm rather busy these days so I can't devote a lot of effort to this right now...

What exactly are you applying the Doppler effect to here?  The gravinertial wave emanating from the MET? 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: 93143 on 03/31/2016 01:58 am
This would imply to me that you could place a control volume around the device and the radiating gravinertial field, and within this control volume Fnet=0 because the Force on the MET is equal and opposite the force applied to the local gravinertial field (and hence it can be contained in a finite control volume).

Exactly the same argument applies as with the rocket - what happens when that gravinertial radiation leaves the control volume?  And you can't claim the thruster itself isn't generating force until then, because you can always draw the box smaller so that the wavefront in question has already left.

Quote
Is the MET like a photon rocket, emitting gravinertial waves in place of photons, or is it like a charge in space, experiencing a force caused by some other, far off charge?

More like the latter, I think.  Remember; this device is supposed to be tapping into the mechanism underlying inertia.  If you view it as a simple non-transactional radiator, you are ignoring the Machian interaction and thus missing the whole reason it's supposed to work.

Quote
I don't understand how v=c logically follows from the above argument though.

That's from your attempt to equate it with a photon rocket.  Again, this seems to proceed from viewing the device as a pure gravity wave generator in a potentially empty universe, rather than something that exploits the mechanism of inertia to generate a large transactional (therefore locally instant) response from all matter within its cosmic horizon.

Quote
What exactly are you applying the Doppler effect to here?  The gravinertial wave emanating from the MET?

Yes.  The cosmic redshift is isotropic, so it nulls out.  But the Doppler effect due to the peculiar velocity of the source does not.  So an M-E thruster should preferentially interact with matter in its direction of motion relative to the local comoving velocity, which in an expanding universe with a cosmic horizon might mean (I haven't proved this) that the mechanism is self-compensating with respect to the relative-velocity objection on the grounds of energy conservation.  (I need to do some more thinking about how exactly this stuff works in the context of cosmic expansion; I may be barking up the wrong tree entirely.  I should also read the latest papers and see if any of this is addressed...)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 03/31/2016 04:13 am
This conversation feels a bit sureal.

That's from your attempt to equate it with a photon rocket.  Again, this seems to proceed from viewing the device as a pure gravity wave generator in a potentially empty universe, rather than something that exploits the mechanism of inertia to generate a large transactional (therefore locally instant) response from all matter within its cosmic horizon.
Given the theoretical justifications offered so far for MET's working they cannot work in an empty universe. Really for a MET there are two processes at work.

1. Being able to fluctuate the mass of some matter
2. pushing on that fluctuating mass when it is Massive and pulling on it when it is less massive.

Yes.  The cosmic redshift is isotropic, so it nulls out.  But the Doppler effect due to the peculiar velocity of the source does not.  So an M-E thruster should preferentially interact with matter in its direction of motion relative to the local comoving velocity, which in an expanding universe with a cosmic horizon might mean (I haven't proved this) that the mechanism is self-compensating with respect to the relative-velocity objection on the grounds of energy conservation.  (I need to do some more thinking about how exactly this stuff works in the context of cosmic expansion; I may be barking up the wrong tree entirely.  I should also read the latest papers and see if any of this is addressed...)

Not sure I get why this would be a problem?

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: 93143 on 03/31/2016 05:39 am
Given the theoretical justifications offered so far for MET's working they cannot work in an empty universe.

Isn't that what I just said?

Quote
Not sure I get why this would be a problem?

Not a problem.  A solution, possibly.  Paul451 isn't the first to note that the energy conservation argument seems to depend on the average/effective relative velocity of the thruster with respect to the mass it's pushing on.  (I might be the first, but I hope not...)  If it could be shown that the effective mean velocity of the far-off active mass somehow tracks that of the thruster, energy conservation would no longer be a problem (aside from known issues like cosmological redshift).
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Mezzenile on 03/31/2016 07:00 am
This preamble has to do with the MET because mass fluctuations only lead to an apparent force within a closed system IF you take the INCORRECT F=ma approach as opposed to the more general F=d/dt(p) approach.  If you have a closed system (i.e. nothing transfers across the system boundary) and you apply cyclic mass variations within the system, you would see that:

Fnet=(dm/dt)v + ma
0=(dm/dt)v + ma                       (Fnet=0 because the system is closed)
0=0 + ma                                   (since there is no flow of mass across the system boundary)***
a=0

And so (following this derivation) cyclic mass variation won't actually yield any propulsive benefits.

Basically I want to see how Woodward addresses this issue, and whether it is done so in such a way as to make METs viable.  I want to see why Woodward finds this argument "incorrect" as he says.  Welcome other posters to point out any issues with this derivation as well of course. 

(Fnet=0 because the system is closed) : You do not demonstrate this point.
(since there is no flow of mass across the system boundary) : You do not demonstrate this point.

And so (following this derivation) cyclic mass variation won't actually yield any propulsive benefits. : false affirmation based on non demonstrated hypothesis.

I propose you to make the modelisation of the Woodward device using the following scheme which relies only on the law of Force Equality betweeen Action and Reaction.

(http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/840400WoodwardDeviceAnalysisPlan.png)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 03/31/2016 02:37 pm
Isn't that what I just said?

I am agreeing with you. just being explicit about it.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 03/31/2016 02:44 pm
This preamble has to do with the MET because mass fluctuations only lead to an apparent force within a closed system IF you take the INCORRECT F=ma approach as opposed to the more general F=d/dt(p) approach.  If you have a closed system (i.e. nothing transfers across the system boundary) and you apply cyclic mass variations within the system, you would see that:

Fnet=(dm/dt)v + ma
0=(dm/dt)v + ma                       (Fnet=0 because the system is closed)
0=0 + ma                                   (since there is no flow of mass across the system boundary)***
a=0

And so (following this derivation) cyclic mass variation won't actually yield any propulsive benefits.

Basically I want to see how Woodward addresses this issue, and whether it is done so in such a way as to make METs viable.  I want to see why Woodward finds this argument "incorrect" as he says.  Welcome other posters to point out any issues with this derivation as well of course. 

Why do you believe there is no mass flow across the system boundary? Assuming your system boundary only includes the MET device and not the rest of the universe?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Mezzenile on 03/31/2016 05:40 pm
I propose you to make the modelisation of the Woodward device using the following scheme which relies only on the law of Force Equality betweeen Action and Reaction
....
Fundamental relations governing the dynamic of the Woodward device.
(http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/225161WoodwardDeviceAnalysisPlan2.png)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: wallofwolfstreet on 03/31/2016 08:11 pm
Exactly the same argument applies as with the rocket - what happens when that gravinertial radiation leaves the control volume?  And you can't claim the thruster itself isn't generating force until then, because you can always draw the box smaller so that the wavefront in question has already left.
I know the same arguement applies to rockets, that was the point.  When the gravierrtial radiayion leaves the control volume then the MET becomes a rocket that uses gravientertital radiation as it's propellant, which per my footnote resticts it's performace to that of a photon rocket since presumable gravinertial radiation obeys E2=(pc)2+(moc2)2 which fundamentally limits performance.  The point of the control volume (in the incorrect gravinterial rocket interpretation) is that it can be drawn to enclose a system, in which case the mass flow acorss the boundary accounts for accelration of the CoM. 

Admittadely, I should have reoragnized the logic flow in my original post because the justifictaion is weak, with the main thrust of the arguement being lost.

Quote
More like the latter, I think.  Remember; this device is supposed to be tapping into the mechanism underlying inertia.  If you view it as a simple non-transactional radiator, you are ignoring the Machian interaction and thus missing the whole reason it's supposed to work.

I suppose I fundamentally don't understand how METs are supposed to work then.  I guess I need to do some more reading.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: wallofwolfstreet on 03/31/2016 08:22 pm
This preamble has to do with the MET because mass fluctuations only lead to an apparent force within a closed system IF you take the INCORRECT F=ma approach as opposed to the more general F=d/dt(p) approach.  If you have a closed system (i.e. nothing transfers across the system boundary) and you apply cyclic mass variations within the system, you would see that:

Fnet=(dm/dt)v + ma
0=(dm/dt)v + ma                       (Fnet=0 because the system is closed)
0=0 + ma                                   (since there is no flow of mass across the system boundary)***
a=0

And so (following this derivation) cyclic mass variation won't actually yield any propulsive benefits.

Basically I want to see how Woodward addresses this issue, and whether it is done so in such a way as to make METs viable.  I want to see why Woodward finds this argument "incorrect" as he says.  Welcome other posters to point out any issues with this derivation as well of course. 

Why do you believe there is no mass flow across the system boundary? Assuming your system boundary only includes the MET device and not the rest of the universe?

Sorry birchoff, that section is structured terribly on my part.  The key thing to take away there is the triple asterisk which points to my footnote, which demonstrates that mass flow across the system boundary in the form of gravienterial waves would yield thrust no greater than a perfectly collimated photon rocket (under some assumptions of course), which follows the relation between energy flux and mass flux.  I should have made that footnote the main thrust of the post and relegated the dm/dt=0 case to a footnote, or better yet left it out altogether. 

Here is question that I think would really help me understand:

Place a control volume around an MET so that only the MET is contained (the rest of the mass of the universe is on the other side of the control volume).  Let the MET experience a transient mass fluctuation so that it's mass goes from 1 kg to 1.0001 kg.  The delta(m) gained by the MET is thus 0.0001 kg.  Does this delta(m)=0.0001 kg come from the rest of the universe outside the control volume, so that somehow 0.0001 kg of mass has passed over the control surface, or does this delta(m) come from somewhere else?  If somewhere else, where?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: M.E.T. on 03/31/2016 08:55 pm
My understanding is that the interaction is with all the mass in the rest of the universe. So whatever the Mach Effect Spacecraft gains, is lost to a minute extent by every other bit of matter in the universe.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: wallofwolfstreet on 03/31/2016 09:44 pm
(Fnet=0 because the system is closed) : You do not demonstrate this point.
(since there is no flow of mass across the system boundary) : You do not demonstrate this point.

And so (following this derivation) cyclic mass variation won't actually yield any propulsive benefits. : false affirmation based on non demonstrated hypothesis.

I propose you to make the modelisation of the Woodward device using the following scheme which relies only on the law of Force Equality betweeen Action and Reaction.

(http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/840400WoodwardDeviceAnalysisPlan.png)

I propose you to make the modelisation of the Woodward device using the following scheme which relies only on the law of Force Equality betweeen Action and Reaction
....
Fundamental relations governing the dynamic of the Woodward device.
(http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/225161WoodwardDeviceAnalysisPlan2.png)

But this is exactly my point Mezzenile, Woodward's expressions here are missing terms, so the derivation of d2G(t)/dt2!=0 isn't accurate.  For systems that do not have constant mass, you can't just sum up the Forces.  You have to take into account dm/dt terms. 

Remember that all three of Newton's "Laws" are only different expressions of conservation of momentum.  Starting from conservation of momentum, you can derive all three laws.  You can apply apply these laws to certain systems that meet certain criteria, and the necessity of a constant system mass is one of these criteria (as I hopefully demonstrated with my rocket example), 

Woodward's "Newton's Law of Action and Reaction" equation has essentially dropped a term.  Maybe there is a theoretical justification for this which I am unaware of. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: GeneralRulofDumb on 04/01/2016 12:41 pm
Place a control volume around an MET so that only the MET is contained (the rest of the mass of the universe is on the other side of the control volume).  Let the MET experience a transient mass fluctuation so that it's mass goes from 1 kg to 1.0001 kg.  The delta(m) gained by the MET is thus 0.0001 kg.  Does this delta(m)=0.0001 kg come from the rest of the universe outside the control volume, so that somehow 0.0001 kg of mass has passed over the control surface, or does this delta(m) come from somewhere else?  If somewhere else, where?

Matter and energy are interchangeable, for lack of a better word.
Increasing a mass' or body's internal energy state will change its mass.
The mass fluctuation in a MET is a direct consequence of 'pumping' (in this case: electrical) energy into it.
There is no mass being transferred past boundaries during a MET's operation.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Mezzenile on 04/01/2016 03:25 pm
The change of mass value introduced by Woodward is considered to be the same in all isotropic directions. An image could be the one of a regular evaporation or condensation of mass everywhere on the body.
Whatever can be the amount of mass and its speed during evaporation or condensation, the geometrical integration of these isotropic speeds all over the body gives a null result (this is easy to see on a spherical body). So the total amount of exchanged momentum is also null.

Woodward has exposed a similar reasonning in his answer to Oak-ridge paper taking the example (if I remember well) of a bottle of water drilled by two identical holes diametrically opposite and installed on a moving cart.
If water escapes through gravity from one hole the bottle, this  has an impact on the movement of the cart. If water escapes through the two holes there is no impact..

Said differently a rocket motor with an omni-directionnal thruster would not move one centimeter whatever is its reserve of propergol ! 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: wallofwolfstreet on 04/01/2016 05:53 pm
The change of mass value introduced by Woodward is considered to be the same in all isotropic directions. An image could be the one of a regular evaporation or condensation of mass everywhere on the body.
Whatever can be the amount of mass and its speed during evaporation or condensation, the geometrical integration of these isotropic speeds all over the body gives a null result (this is easy to see on a spherical body). So the total amount of exchanged momentum is also null.

Do you mean that, given a spherical coordinate system at rest with respect to the MET, but instantaneously oriented so that the MET is located at the origin:

dm/dt=f(ρ,ϕ,θ)=f(ρ)
f(ρ0)=Const for every ρo?

Because if that is what you mean, then that isn’t a resolution to the problem.  A moving body which has mass isotopically (as defined above) evaporate or condense upon it does NOT stay at the same speed.  It slows down when mass condenses and it speeds up when the mass evaporates.

Think about it like this:
I have a moving body of mass m travelling at velocity v.  It has momentum mv.  Now isotopically condense some mass on this body, δm.  The condition of isotropic condensation means no momentum has entered the system.  However, we now have that the new momentum of the system post condensation is (m+δm)v, which is clearly impossible.  The issue is, when the mass condenses on the body, it gains momentum equal to δmv (remember that the isotopic condition gives δm an initial velocity of zero).  What isn’t being accounted for is that the body loses speed dues to the application of the “ force” (dδm/dt)v.  Remember that force is just the rate of change in momentum, so the “force” on the system is equal to the mass flow into the system times the change in velocity the mass inflow experiences.  This emerges from conservation of momentum.     

Quote
Woodward has exposed a similar reasonning in his answer to Oak-ridge paper taking the example (if I remember well) of a bottle of water drilled by two identical holes diametrically opposite and installed on a moving cart.
If water escapes through gravity from one hole the bottle, this  has an impact on the movement of the cart. If water escapes through the two holes there is no impact..

Quote
If water escapes through gravity from one hole the bottle, this  has an impact on the movement of the cart
This is actually incorrect.  If the water is escaping solely through gravity (i.e. force applied is vertical) then the moving cart continues to move at the same velocity, unaffected.  This is because each particle of water carries away momentum exactly proportional to the mass it has also carried away relative to the cart.  The change in velocity of the mass flow across the system boundary is zero. 

Quote
 
Said differently a rocket motor with an omni-directionnal thruster would not move one centimeter whatever is its reserve of propergol !

This does not relate to your supposition above, because an omni-directional thruster with non-zero velocity does NOT emit isotropic mass flow.  Isotropic mass flow is only true for an observer at rest with respect to the thruster.   Given a moving thruster, the mass flow in the direction of the thruster's velocity has velocity equal to (velocity of rocket + exhaust velocity) and the mass flow in the direction opposite the velocity of the thruster has velocity equal to (velocity of rocket – exhaust velocity).  A rocket moving with non-zero velocity which is expelling mass flow across the system boundary isotopically WOULD in fact experience a net impulse.  Once again, times the mass flow rate across the system boundary by the change in velocity the mass flow rate experiences as it cross the boundary.  For a mass flow rate to become isotropic after being expelled from a moving body, their must be a change in velocity. 

It is this impulse which Woodward, if you say he is claiming isotropic mass flow, has effectively dropped in the calculation you highlighted.  Doing so does not appear to be valid in the framework he has developed for transient mass fluctuations.

I think what you might be trying to say is that, somehow, the mass inflow and outflow with respect to the MET is always such that v=0 in the dm/dt term not matter the inertial frame (so dm/dt is isotropic when the MET is a rest, but anisotropic when the MET is not a rest).  The problem with this is, why should anyone believe that?  I have seen nothing in Woodward's derivations that validate such a belief.  Maybe I just haven't found it yet, as I'm still learning. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: 93143 on 04/01/2016 09:51 pm
The mass fluctuation in a MET is a direct consequence of 'pumping' (in this case: electrical) energy into it.

Wrong.  The mass fluctuations predicted by Woodward's theory are not E/c² mass; they are an inherently transient gravinertial effect that has not been previously observed, presumably due to the difficulty of exciting it.  The effect is supposed to be related to the second derivative of the energy, not to the energy itself, and supposedly only shows up during accelerations (I'm not clear on this part yet).

Think about it like this:
I have a moving body of mass m travelling at velocity v.  It has momentum mv.  Now isotopically condense some mass on this body, δm.  The condition of isotropic condensation means no momentum has entered the system.  However, we now have that the new momentum of the system post condensation is (m+δm)v, which is clearly impossible.

Why have you assumed "isotropic condensation" in the reference frame of a random observer rather than that of the thruster?  Have you never heard of Galilean relativity?

The equations Woodward presents are independent of the thruster's bulk velocity in any external reference frame.

Quote
If water escapes through gravity from one hole the bottle, this  has an impact on the movement of the cart
This is actually incorrect.  If the water is escaping solely through gravity (i.e. force applied is vertical) then the moving cart continues to move at the same velocity, unaffected.  This is because each particle of water carries away momentum exactly proportional to the mass it has also carried away relative to the cart.  The change in velocity of the mass flow across the system boundary is zero.

See - you do understand this principle.

What you don't understand is fluid mechanics.  A liquid reservoir with a small hole in the side will expel its contents sideways, not down, because while the liquid next to the hole is supported from below by more liquid, it is not supported from the side - the weight of the liquid above it means it's at a higher pressure than the gas next to it.  It is, in effect, a pressure-fed rocket motor.

Caveat - I haven't read Woodward's rebuttal lately, and a quick search hasn't uncovered it; I'm just going on the description given.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: wallofwolfstreet on 04/01/2016 10:52 pm
Why have you assumed "isotropic condensation" in the reference frame of a random observer rather than that of the thruster?  Have you never heard of Galilean relativity?

The equations Woodward presents are independent of the thruster's bulk velocity in any external reference frame.

I have heard of Galilean relativity.  Please explain to me what you think Galilean relativity is and what you think it means here. 

Consider this:  Let's say the condensation is isotropic in the rest frame of the thruster.  The thruster accelerates to some new velocity.  Is the condensation still isotropic in the rest frame of the thruster at this new velocity?  If so, how?  How has the condensation changed so that it is isotropic in both frames, despite the fact that one frame is boosted with respect to the other?

That's where Galilean relativity is working against you.  The frame of the thruster doesn't accelerate along with the thruster.  If the thruster is stationary with respect to the frame at some instant, then the thruster will be moving with respect to it at some later instance given non-zero acceleration.  How is the condensation staying isotropic, without accelerating the bulk velocity of the condensation along with the thruster?  What magical mechanism enables such an acceleration? 

Quote
The equations Woodward presents are independent of the thruster's bulk velocity in any external reference frame.

Again, that only works and makes any physical sense, if by some magic the bulk, averaged velocity of the mass inflow and outflow to the thruster is always the same as the velocity of the thruster in every frame of reference (including the inertial frames in which the thruster is seen as accelerating, and hence gains non-zero velocity with respect to an inertial observer who was initially at rest with the thruster), which is nonphysical, exactly because it doesn't respect Galilean (or Lorentz) invariance. 

Quote
See - you do understand this principle.

What you don't understand is fluid mechanics.  A liquid reservoir with a small hole in the side will expel its contents sideways, not down, because while the liquid next to the hole is supported from below by more liquid, it is not supported from the side - the weight of the liquid above it means it's at a higher pressure than the gas next to it.  It is, in effect, a pressure-fed rocket motor.

Caveat - I haven't read Woodward's rebuttal lately, and a quick search hasn't uncovered it; I'm just going on the description given.

Who said anything about a hole in the side?  I know I didn't.  Why not make the hole on the bottom? 
And yes, I can apply Bernoulli's equation along a streamline too; I understand fluid mechanics plenty, thanks.  You're point has nothing to do with the principle of the problem.  I have no idea why you felt the need to point it out, as I even clarified:

Quote
This is actually incorrect.  If the water is escaping solely through gravity (i.e. force applied is vertical) then the moving cart continues to move at the same velocity, unaffected.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: 93143 on 04/03/2016 01:12 am
You seem to have some unstated concept or mental picture of how this "condensation" works, that may be at variance with the actual theory.  Why would you think that an effect related to inertia (which behaves exactly the same regardless of the velocity of the object exhibiting it) should show a dependence on an outside reference frame?  Wouldn't that seem to constitute a violation of Lorentz covariance?

Remember, the mass fluctuation isn't a delayed effect; it's instantaneous, based on the acceleration state and second-order rate of change of internal energy.  The transactional nature of the interaction with distant matter means the response to the local perturbation is locally instantaneous.  There's nothing to 'leave behind'.

And since Woodward's equations show no dependence on a universal reference frame, it can be safely assumed that if the theory is correct, the math describing the interaction with distant matter must work out in such a way as to eliminate any dependence on the average velocity of said distant matter.  There's a precedent - Sciama's Machian model of inertia does exactly that.

...

Also, you may not have read the post you were responding to carefully enough re: water leaking from a hole, since the idea of two holes drilled "diametrically opposite" and both leaking water would seem to rule out either hole being on the bottom.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Mezzenile on 04/03/2016 06:16 am
Do you mean that, given a spherical coordinate system at rest with respect to the MET, but instantaneously oriented so that the MET is located at the origin:

dm/dt=f(ρ,ϕ,θ)=f(ρ)
f(ρ0)=Const for every ρo?

Because if that is what you mean, then that isn’t a resolution to the problem.  A moving body which has mass isotopically (as defined above) evaporate or condense upon it does NOT stay at the same speed.  It slows down when mass condenses and it speeds up when the mass evaporates.

Think about it like this:
I have a moving body of mass m travelling at velocity v.  It has momentum mv.  Now isotopically condense some mass on this body, δm.  The condition of isotropic condensation means no momentum has entered the system.  However, we now have that the new momentum of the system post condensation is (m+δm)v, which is clearly impossible.  The issue is, when the mass condenses on the body, it gains momentum equal to δmv (remember that the isotopic condition gives δm an initial velocity of zero).  What isn’t being accounted for is that the body loses speed dues to the application of the “ force” (dδm/dt)v.  Remember that force is just the rate of change in momentum, so the “force” on the system is equal to the mass flow into the system times the change in velocity the mass inflow experiences.  This emerges from conservation of momentum.     
...
This is actually incorrect.  If the water is escaping solely through gravity (i.e. force applied is vertical) then the moving cart continues to move at the same velocity, unaffected.  This is because each particle of water carries away momentum exactly proportional to the mass it has also carried away relative to the cart.  The change in velocity of the mass flow across the system boundary is zero. 
...
This does not relate to your supposition above, because an omni-directional thruster with non-zero velocity does NOT emit isotropic mass flow.  Isotropic mass flow is only true for an observer at rest with respect to the thruster.   Given a moving thruster, the mass flow in the direction of the thruster's velocity has velocity equal to (velocity of rocket + exhaust velocity) and the mass flow in the direction opposite the velocity of the thruster has velocity equal to (velocity of rocket – exhaust velocity).  A rocket moving with non-zero velocity which is expelling mass flow across the system boundary isotopically WOULD in fact experience a net impulse.  Once again, times the mass flow rate across the system boundary by the change in velocity the mass flow rate experiences as it cross the boundary.  For a mass flow rate to become isotropic after being expelled from a moving body, their must be a change in velocity. 

It is this impulse which Woodward, if you say he is claiming isotropic mass flow, has effectively dropped in the calculation you highlighted.  Doing so does not appear to be valid in the framework he has developed for transient mass fluctuations.

I think what you might be trying to say is that, somehow, the mass inflow and outflow with respect to the MET is always such that v=0 in the dm/dt term not matter the inertial frame (so dm/dt is isotropic when the MET is a rest, but anisotropic when the MET is not a rest).  The problem with this is, why should anyone believe that?  I have seen nothing in Woodward's derivations that validate such a belief.  Maybe I just haven't found it yet, as I'm still learning.
First the image of evaporation or condensation of matter on a body, to try to understand in a classical way the mass change introduced by Woodward, is only an image and I think that the analogy should not be pushed too far. The right approach of this mass variation phenomena is to be found in the mathematical study of the properties of the relativistic “Gravito-Magnetic” field as performed by Woodward. Moreover it seems that the special role of acceleration in the apparition of this change of mass can only be seeen througt the Gravito-Magnetic field modelisation of reality. We should never forget that a correct thinking can only be performed using the right concepts as intellectual tools.

Now let us go back to the simplified model of evaporation/condensation of matter on a body. Let us analyse your statement :

Quote
A moving body which has mass isotopically (as defined above) evaporate or condense upon it does NOT stay at the same speed. It slows down when mass condenses and it speeds up when the mass evaporates.

Let us suppose that the body is at rest in a Galilean frame. I imagine that you have no difficulty to consider that, as observed from this rest frame, the body will not suddenly accelerate in an arbitrary direction if some isotropic condensation or evaporation phenomena occurs. Now you seems to say that an other observer in an other galilean frame with a relative speed V will see a momentum change and so that evaporation/condensation is the source of a real force applied to the body. Moreover this force being real it should be present, as invariant, in any other galilean frame with the same magnitude (not same direction naturally).

In fact this is an apparent paradox which comes from the consideration of wrong forces by the false relation : F(t) = dP(t)/dt = M(t) dV(t)/dt + V(t) dM(t)/dt which should be replaced by F(t) = dP(t)/dt = M(t) dV(t)/dt - U(t) dM(t)/dt  where U(t) is the velocity of the ejected/accreted mass as seen in the body's galilean rest frame (*). For an isotropic condensation or evaporation the average value of U(t) over all the directions is zero and dM(t)/dt is constant, so the average value of the U(t) dM(t)/dt term for the whole body is zero. Woodward is right, Oak-Ridge was wrong  ;)

We should not push too far this simplified model of condensation/evaporation in a newtonian mechanic context ! It has the advantage to give some insight to the situation but only insight...

(*) The fact that the classical relation F(t) = dP(t)/dt = M(t) dV(t)/dt + V(t) dM(t)/dt cannot be applied comes from the fact that it supposes that the mechanical system is closed to be valid. This is not the case for a body on which matter either condense or evaporate.  The correct relation takes into account the fact that the system is initialy composed of two masses M and dM each having different velocities before becoming one body of mass M + dM.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: wallofwolfstreet on 04/12/2016 01:32 am
You seem to have some unstated concept or mental picture of how this "condensation" works, that may be at variance with the actual theory.

Sorry for the late response.

Well the condensation concept is something I’m working with from Mezzenile’s post, it’s not something I came up with.  It certainly could be at variance with the theory.  I’m just trying to work within the framework of “condensation” to demonstrate that there are terms missing in the force derivations I have seen so far from Woodward, and the missing term isn't peculiar to the "condensation" framework.

Quote
Why would you think that an effect related to inertia (which behaves exactly the same regardless of the velocity of the object exhibiting it) should show a dependence on an outside reference frame?  Wouldn't that seem to constitute a violation of Lorentz covariance?

Because inertia and momentum go hand in hand in all the frames of reference where the MET is not at rest.  Inertia is invariant, but momentum is not.  You can’t just add mass to the MET system and not have an impact on momentum.  THAT would constitute a violation of Lorentz covariance.

Quote
Remember, the mass fluctuation isn't a delayed effect; it's instantaneous, based on the acceleration state and second-order rate of change of internal energy.  The transactional nature of the interaction with distant matter means the response to the local perturbation is locally instantaneous.  There's nothing to 'leave behind'.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, you'll have to help me out. 

Quote
And since Woodward's equations show no dependence on a universal reference frame, it can be safely assumed that if the theory is correct, the math describing the interaction with distant matter must work out in such a way as to eliminate any dependence on the average velocity of said distant matter.  There's a precedent - Sciama's Machian model of inertia does exactly that.

I think in the preceding discussion, and I’m at fault here, it’s not really clear exactly what my argument is because I switch between inertial reference frames at rest with respect to the MET and boosted frames, but I also switch between different velocity states of the MET in a single frame, and it comes off muddled.

Here is the entire thrust of my argument:

The correct expression for Force on a system with non-constant mass is:
Fnet=dm/dtv+ma

Where as Mezzenile correctly points out, the v term is really the difference in velocity between the center of mass of the system and ejected mass crossing the system boundary.

So let’s say this v term is zero in an inertial reference frame in which the MET is a rest (this is equivalent to saying mass condensation is isotropic in the condensation model)  Now, let’s accelerate the MET under its own power in this frame of reference so it is no longer at rest.

How is it possible that the v term is still zero despite the fact that the MET has accelerated?  How is it that the mass always shows up with just the right momentum to always cancel the vdm/dt?  Ignoring the v term is the mathematical equivalent of saying that the mass fluctuations, and the momentum that must attend them BY Lorentz invariance (not in spite of it), is somehow just right for the vdm/dt term to be dropped.  Why is it that as the MET is accelerated, the momentum contained in the transient mass fluctuations is somehow accelerating along with it?

Quote
Also, you may not have read the post you were responding to carefully enough re: water leaking from a hole, since the idea of two holes drilled "diametrically opposite" and both leaking water would seem to rule out either hole being on the bottom.

Fair enough
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: wallofwolfstreet on 04/12/2016 01:47 am
Sorry for the lat reply.

First the image of evaporation or condensation of matter on a body, to try to understand in a classical way the mass change introduced by Woodward, is only an image and I think that the analogy should not be pushed too far. The right approach of this mass variation phenomena is to be found in the mathematical study of the properties of the relativistic “Gravito-Magnetic” field as performed by Woodward. Moreover it seems that the special role of acceleration in the apparition of this change of mass can only be seeen througt the Gravito-Magnetic field modelisation of reality. We should never forget that a correct thinking can only be performed using the right concepts as intellectual tools.

Is this regular Gravitomagnetism (GM)?  The GM I am (limitedly) familiar with is just a vanilla linearization of classical GR in the limit of weak field.  There is nothing within GM (that I know of) that has anything to do with a inertial fluctuations, any more than classical EM has to do with charge fluctuations.

Quote
 
Now let us go back to the simplified model of evaporation/condensation of matter on a body. Let us analyse your statement :


Quote
A moving body which has mass isotopically (as defined above) evaporate or condense upon it does NOT stay at the same speed. It slows down when mass condenses and it speeds up when the mass evaporates.

Let us suppose that the body is at rest in a Galilean frame. I imagine that you have no difficulty to consider that, as observed from this rest frame, the body will not suddenly accelerate in an arbitrary direction if some isotropic condensation or evaporation phenomena occurs. Now you seems to say that an other observer in an other galilean frame with a relative speed V will see a momentum change and so that evaporation/condensation is the source of a real force applied to the body.

No, I didn’t say that (and if it seems like I did, then sorry for the miscommunication).  What you’re missing is that the condensation is not isotropic in both frames.  Isotropic condensation in an frame of reference (FOR) where an observer is at rest is NOT isotropic as viewed by a moving observer.  Isotropic/anisotropic is NOT an invariant.  You can’t boost the frame and still talk about isotropic condensation in both frames.   

We have an inertial frame.  A body that is at rest with respect to frame has isotropic condensation.  As you say, it doesn't move.  If there is a body in this same frame which is not a rest, but it experiences isotropic condensation with respect to the frame of reference, it will slow down.  To continue along at the same speed, the condensation would have to be anisotropic as viewed by a stationary observer in the frame of reference.     

Quote
Moreover this force being real it should be present, as invariant, in any other galilean frame with the same magnitude (not same direction naturally).

In fact this is an apparent paradox which comes from the consideration of wrong forces by the false relation : F(t) = dP(t)/dt = M(t) dV(t)/dt + V(t) dM(t)/dt which should be replaced by F(t) = dP(t)/dt = M(t) dV(t)/dt - U(t) dM(t)/dt  where U(t) is the velocity of the ejected/accreted mass as seen in the body's galilean rest frame (*). For an isotropic condensation or evaporation the average value of U(t) over all the directions is zero and dM(t)/dt is constant, so the average value of the U(t) dM(t)/dt term for the whole body is zero. Woodward is right, Oak-Ridge was wrong  ;)

Okay, now we’re getting somewhere.  You are exactly right, your expression is even clearer.  Here is the problem though, and to save time I’m just going to post my response from above:

Here is the entire thrust of my argument:
Quote
The correct expression for Force on a system with non-constant mass is:
Fnet=dm/dtv+ma

Where as Mezzenile correctly points out, the v term is really the difference in velocity between the center of mass of the system and ejected mass crossing the system boundary.

So let’s say this v term is zero in an inertial reference frame in which the MET is a rest (this is equivalent to saying mass condensation is isotropic in the condensation model)  Now, let’s accelerate the MET under its own power in this frame of reference so it is no longer at rest.

How is it possible that the v term is still zero despite the fact that the MET has accelerated?  How is it that the mass always shows up with just the right momentum to always cancel the vdm/dt?  Ignoring the v term is the mathematical equivalent of saying that the mass fluctuations, and the momentum that must attend them BY Lorentz invariance (not in spite of it), is somehow just right for the vdm/dt term to be dropped.  Why is it that as the MET is accelerated, the momentum contained in the transient mass fluctuations is somehow accelerating along with it?

Coming back to this isotropic condescension idea; you are right, for isotropic condensation U(t) is zero when integrated over the whole control surface.  But when we accelerate the MET, the condensation does not stay isotropic.  For your explanation to work, something must be accelerating this mass along with the MET such that the condensation is always isotropic despite the acceleration of the MET.  My question is: what property allows the mass to accelerate along with the MET so that it is always just travelling fast enough to be ignored (ie. so that it can always condense isotropically)?  This something that I have not seen Woodward address in the things I have read so far.

Quote
We should not push too far this simplified model of condensation/evaporation in a newtonian mechanic context ! It has the advantage to give some insight to the situation but only insight...

As I mentioned above, the model doesn't matter.  Somehow, when mass fluctuate itself into existence on the MET, is it always just magically going at a velocity equal to the MET, so that we can ignore dm/dtv terms, despite the fact that MET's don't have a constant velocity.  Can you point me to anything in Woodwards work that specifically addresses this point? 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Paul451 on 04/12/2016 09:03 am
My understanding is that the interaction is with all the mass in the rest of the universe. So whatever the Mach Effect Spacecraft gains, is lost to a minute extent by every other bit of matter in the universe.

However, relative to any arbitrary non-accelerating observer, the MET can achieve a velocity where the rate of increase in kinetic energy exceeds that of the rate of energy input into the device.

Since the mass of the universe doesn't have a particularly strong anisotrophy, there's no outside net force to transfer energy from. Ie, the device can't steal energy from another system. So the increase in energy (output vs input) isn't accounted for by your (or Woodward's) explanation.

Whether it transfers momentum to the rest of the universe (by whatever magical means) or not, it isn't transferring momentum from the rest of the universe, therefore it doesn't solve the dilemma that the energy produced would exceed the energy input.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Mezzenile on 04/12/2016 09:56 am
Sorry for the lat reply.
...

For your explanation to work, something must be accelerating this mass along with the MET such that the condensation is always isotropic despite the acceleration of the MET.
You right, if we absolutely want to stay within the strict paradigm of the Newtoniak mechanics we can consider small daemons at rest in the instantaneous galilean frame tangent to the accelerating body and which smoothly deliver or remove increment of mass to the moving body ! :D
Now of course, I think there is no way to incorporate further these small daemeons within the frame of Newtonian mechanics. We have to follow rather now an other path shown by Woodward (have a look to the relevant chapter of his book) : Mach Principle and its traduction by General Relativity with the existence of advanced and delayed gravitational waves emitted by any accelerated body (energy, momentum) or its linearized/simplified version using Gravito-Magnetic field (as considered by Sciama, A. Papapetrou, Hawkings, Woodward if I am right).

The interest of the Newtonian approach is that it gives access with a good approximation to the equation of the movement of the body (see my previous posts with the beginning of relevant modelisation). With it we can quantify the influence on this movement of :

  - the respective values of active and inert mass,
  - the length of the link betwen the active and inert mass,
  - the frequency of operation.

Quote
when mass fluctuate itself into existence on the MET, is it always just magically going at a velocity equal to the MET, so that we can ignore dm/dtv terms, despite the fact that MET's don't have a constant velocity. Can you point me to anything in Woodwards work that specifically addresses this point?

Cf Part I of Making Starships and Stargates written by Woodward and edited by Springer.

The big merit of Woodward is that he presents at the same time both a theoretical frame and an experimental frame to his thesis.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 04/25/2016 12:58 pm
If water escapes through gravity from one hole the bottle, this  has an impact on the movement of the cart
This is actually incorrect.  If the water is escaping solely through gravity (i.e. force applied is vertical) then the moving cart continues to move at the same velocity, unaffected.  This is because each particle of water carries away momentum exactly proportional to the mass it has also carried away relative to the cart.  The change in velocity of the mass flow across the system boundary is zero. 
Also, you may not have read the post you were responding to carefully enough re: water leaking from a hole, since the idea of two holes drilled "diametrically opposite" and both leaking water would seem to rule out either hole being on the bottom.

Folks, apparently you already understood what has caused that transient misunderstanding ;) but I will point out the fundamentals.
Woodward's experiment as an answer to the Oak Ridge paper (http://web.ornl.gov/~webworks/cppr/y2001/pres/111404.pdf) involved the following apparatus, i.e. water escaping from two opposite holes on the side of a bottle, on a moving PASCO Dynamics demonstration cart:

(http://ayuba.fr/MET/ORNL/fig2.jpg)
(http://ayuba.fr/MET/ORNL/fig3.png)
(http://ayuba.fr/MET/ORNL/fig4.jpg)

Please find attached below Woodward's short (3 pages) answer. I suggest reading it before commenting on its content.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 04/25/2016 08:37 pm
If water escapes through gravity from one hole the bottle, this  has an impact on the movement of the cart
This is actually incorrect.  If the water is escaping solely through gravity (i.e. force applied is vertical) then the moving cart continues to move at the same velocity, unaffected.  This is because each particle of water carries away momentum exactly proportional to the mass it has also carried away relative to the cart.  The change in velocity of the mass flow across the system boundary is zero. 
Also, you may not have read the post you were responding to carefully enough re: water leaking from a hole, since the idea of two holes drilled "diametrically opposite" and both leaking water would seem to rule out either hole being on the bottom.

Folks, apparently you already understood what has caused that transient misunderstanding ;) but I will point out the fundamentals.
Woodward's experiment as an answer to the Oak Ridge paper (http://web.ornl.gov/~webworks/cppr/y2001/pres/111404.pdf) involved the following apparatus, i.e. water escaping from two opposite holes on the side of a bottle, on a moving PASCO Dynamics demonstration cart:

(http://ayuba.fr/MET/ORNL/fig2.jpg)
(http://ayuba.fr/MET/ORNL/fig3.png)
(http://ayuba.fr/MET/ORNL/fig4.jpg)

Please find attached below Woodward's short (3 pages) answer. I suggest reading it before commenting on its content.

thank you very much for finding that. it is the response to a question that has been asked many times on this thread.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: wallofwolfstreet on 05/09/2016 03:59 pm

...

(http://ayuba.fr/MET/ORNL/fig4.jpg)

Please find attached below Woodward's short (3 pages) answer. I suggest reading it before commenting on its content.

Except that this paper by Woodward is incorrect, and doesn’t offer any insight into distinguishing between the correct equation of motion offered by the Oak Ridge Scientists (ORS) and Woodward’s wrong one.  All it does is offer some insight as to where Woodward went wrong in his analysis and why he fails to properly account for the necessary terms to accurately express the physics.

Quote
But the ORS are wrong. Inclusion of the vdm/dt term in the equation of motion of M in the rest frame of B when calculating the force on B communicated through A is simply incorrect. This is not to say that including a vdm/dt term in the equation of motion for M is inappropriate in all circumstances. For example, if the mass fluctuation in M is achieved by the expulsion and recovery of some mass, that acts as a propellant, in the direction of the motion produced by A, then a force arising from vdm/dt would be communicated from M to B through A. But v in this case would be the invariant velocity of the propellant plume with respect to M, not the velocity of M relative to B.

So Woodward does understand the principle of needing to account for momentum flux across system boundaries.  Despite that, he still manages to go off the rails:

Quote
Pedagogically, the fact that the vdm/dt term in Newton’s second law must be treated with some care is often made in simple problem situations. For example, one such problem asks: Does a flatcar rolling down a smooth level track at constant velocity accelerate if a pile of sand it carries is allowed to fall through a hole in the floor of the car onto the track? The obvious answer, of course, is no. The present case, where an external force acts on an object with a changing mass, in the context of this example, leads to the question: If an external force is applied to the flatcar as the sand falls through the hole, aside from the fact that m in ma must be treated as a function of time, does the falling sand affect the acceleration of the car produced by external force? Woodward says no. The ORS, to be consistent with their vdm/dt based cancellation claim, must say yes.

The bold section is where Woodward goes wrong.  The ORS claim is not at all consistent with a “yes” answer.  Woodward has misinterpreted or maybe even misunderstood the claim he is refuting, and so his supposed experiment to distinguish between the two claims is completely bunk; in the specific experiment he is examining, the ORS equation of motion and Woodward’s equation of motion yield identical results because vdm/dt = 0.  This is because the net velocity of the water flow relative to the cart is zero (due to the holes being diametrically opposed).  Even in the case where there is only one hole, but the hole is still drilled orthogonal to the direction of motion of the cart, the acceleration of the cart is unaffected because the force from the vdm/dt term is orthogonal to the track of the cart.  Woodward is examining a case where both equations of motion are in fact equivalent, it is only his misuse of the ORS equation that seems to give results in favor of his incorrect equation.

Quote
Simple, compelling arguments for the absence of vdm/dt effects in the circumstances under consideration can easily be made. For instance, should one use the (inertial) instantaneous rest frame of M as that in which the force on B is computed, the vdm/dt term vanishes. Plainly, if the vdm/dt “force” vanishes in this inertial frame, it cannot act on B in any other inertial frame, for real forces that produce accelerations are invariant under the Galilean transformation group. That is, they cannot be made to vanish by simple choice of inertial frame of reference. Several years ago Woodward advanced such arguments to the ORS (and others). Those arguments, obviously, at least at ORNL, fell on deaf ears.

It falls on deaf ears because it makes no sense.  Why in the world should the vdm/dt term vanish in the rest frame of M?  The whole point of MET’s is that they are claimed to accelerate, so the instantaneous rest frame at time t1 should be different than the instantaneous rest frame at time t2.  The v term associated with the transient mass flux into the MET system cannot be zero in both frames.

Quote
The proposition to be tested is: If a Pasco dynamics demonstration cart, fitted with a one liter water bottle that discharges its contents through two opposed nozzles (in a little more than two seconds), is accelerated by an external force, does the equation of motion (in the lab frame) of the cart include the vdm/dt term that arises from its velocity and changing mass? That is, is the correct equation of motion of the cart F = m(t)dv/dt + vdm/dt ? Or is it F = m(t)dv/dt? The ORS, to be consistent with their cancellation claim, must say the former. Woodward says the latter.

Yes, the ORS must use the first and correct equation of motion.  It is Woodward’s incorrect application of this equation that leads to the trivially flawed figure 4.  The first equation of motion reduces to the second, so the red line is in fact coincident with the blue line. 

Quote
The results of the tests of this system for twenty runs of the cart are shown in Figure 4, where the ORS’ prediction for the velocity of the cart as a function of time is shown in red, and the prediction for vdm/dt not contributing to the equation of motion of the cart is shown in blue. Reality is represented by the black data error bar.  The obvious need not be belabored. The ORS’ claim is wrong.
   

Yeah, no.  Woodward should have actually shown his work and demonstrated how he arrived at that red bar.  It’s certainly not the result anyone correctly applying basic physics would arrive at. 

Quote
Indeed, the only counter-argument mentioned here unknown to the ORS by the spring of 2000 is the results of the Physics 100 level experiment reported above. That experiment was only carried out recently, and its results give the lie to the ORS claims. Those interested in “revolutionary” propulsion physics would be ill advised to give any credence whatsoever to the ORS claims related thereto. As shown here, they rest on bad physics and faulty analysis.

Bad physics and faulty analysis definitely occurred, but it wasn’t advanced by ORS.  Woodward doesn’t seem to have a grip on what it is he is trying to refute.

One way to demonstrate why Woodward’s equation of motion is wrong is to consider a flatcar rolling down a smooth level track at constant velocity, where a hopper from above is pouring sand onto the cart.  This is the exact inverse of Woodward’s thought experiment, so Woodward’s equation of motion, F=m(t)dv/dt, should be applicable:

Quote
Does a flatcar rolling down a smooth level track at constant velocity accelerate if a pile of sand it carries is allowed to fall through a hole in the floor of the car onto the track? The obvious answer, of course, is no
   

In Woodward’s above example, if both Woodward’s equation of motion and the ORS equation of motion are correctly applied, they predict zero acceleration.
My question is this:  Does the flatcar in my example accelerate, or continue to travel at constant velocity when the sand is being poured onto the flatcar?

So people who read Woodward’s rebuttal and actually thought it made sense, please use Woodward’s equation of motion in this instance to make a prediction: does the flatcar slow down or not?     

What does the Woodward equation of motion predict, what does the ORS equation of motion predict, and what actually happens?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: wallofwolfstreet on 05/09/2016 04:13 pm
You right, if we absolutely want to stay within the strict paradigm of the Newtoniak mechanics we can consider small daemons at rest in the instantaneous galilean frame tangent to the accelerating body and which smoothly deliver or remove increment of mass to the moving body ! :D
Now of course, I think there is no way to incorporate further these small daemeons within the frame of Newtonian mechanics. We have to follow rather now an other path shown by Woodward (have a look to the relevant chapter of his book) : Mach Principle and its traduction by General Relativity with the existence of advanced and delayed gravitational waves emitted by any accelerated body (energy, momentum) or its linearized/simplified version using Gravito-Magnetic field (as considered by Sciama, Petroz, Hawkings, Woodward if I am right).

This doesn't really have anything to do with Newtonian Mechanics or limitations therein.  Nor does Woodward's "other path" refute the issues raised.  I have read the relevant work by Woodward, and he doesn't offer any solution.  In fact, the recent paper posted by flux capacitor indicates to me that he doesn't really understand the issue in the first place.  Woodward is dropping terms without meaningful theoretical justification.  There is nothing within Gravitomagnetism that supports dropping terms from an equation of motion.  There is nothing in "Mach's Principle and its traduction by General Relativity with the existence of advanced and delayed gravitational waves emitted by any accelerated body" that supports dropping terms from an equation of motion (that I have seen in any of Woodward's work).       

Quote
Cf Part I of Making Starships and Stargates written by Woodward and edited by Springer.

The big merit of Woodward is that he presents at the same time both a theoretical frame and an experimental frame to his thesis.

I have read the work and don't see any coherent theoretical justification for Woodward's continuing use of the incorrect equation of motion (which was pointed out as incorrect to him almost 15 years ago).  If there is a specific page number or quote you could give me from the book that you think justifies generally ignoring vdm/dt terms, that would be very much appreciated.     
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: mubahni on 05/09/2016 05:42 pm
Hallo wallofwolfstreet,

can you comment on this paper?

Thanks.
 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: wallofwolfstreet on 05/09/2016 09:51 pm
Hallo wallofwolfstreet,

can you comment on this paper?

Thanks.

Sure thing.  Unfortunately the pdf has content copying not allowed, so I can’t just copy and paste.  To save myself time I’ll just offer the first little bit of a section I want to quote and you can ctrl+f it.  Apologies in advance for any mistakes in copying. 

In general, the paper offers  a result that is completely consistent with the Oak Ridge Scientists (ORS) interpretation of the correct form of the equation of motion for a variable mass system (John Cramer of the University of Washington also advances this equation of motion, see the second paragraph of the intro of this 2004 paper (http://www.otherhand.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/John-Cramers-final-report.pdf)).

Right in the abstract, Wanser writes:

Quote
There is no rocket type thrust in the usual sense of ejecting propellant, since it is supposed that there is no relative velocity along the direction of motion associated with the mass changes.

Emphasis mine.

This assumption of zero relative velocity is critical, because it allows him to present F=ma+dmdtvrel as just F=ma (i.e. he has reduced the general equation of motion to the Woodward's equation of motion under the constraint that vrel=0).  To be honest, I kind of feel that this paper is presenting a bit of a trivial result.  It is simply showing that when the mass flow into and out of a variable mass system is contrived so that there is no net relative velocity, then the center of mass of the open system can be made to accelerate.  This is basically what Mezzenile has said in his preceding posts.  The issue is, in order for the mass that flows in and out of the system to have vrel=0 despite the acceleration of the MET, there must be some net force accelerating this variable mass, which Wanser correctly identifies in his Discussion:

(start reading at ‘the center of mass of the cart’)

Quote

This momentum must be made up by the rest of the universe allowing the isotropically ejected mass (in the rest frame of the accelerating body) to return isotropically to the body in its rest frame, that has in the mean time accelerated forward, to keep pace with the MET device, thus requiring the “spherical shell  of ejected mass to move forward.

Wanser also reiterates that the results are contingent on assuming vrel=0.  It’s this assumption that doesn’t have any theoretical motivation as being applicable to METs as far as I can see, and in fact Woodward routinely advances explanations as to how you can set vrel=0 which just aren’t consistent with physics.

Quote
The unidirectional acceleration found here is a consequence of our primary assumption, the possibility of changing the mass of an isolated system with zero relative velocity associated with the net convective momentum flux which produces the changing mass


Essentially, what Wanser has done is what I consider to be a bit of slight of hand (at least in regard to METs).  He has moved the problem from within a control volume containing the MET to outside the control volume.  The only way the variable mass can consistently have vrel=0 despite the claimed acceleration of the MET is that somehow the variable mass which exists outside the control volume is being accelerated by some unknown force alongside the MET.  The question is simply reframed from “what causes the MET to accelerate?” to “what causes the variable mass outside the system boundary of the MET to accelerate with the MET, so the net velocity of this mass is always just right to ignore vrel dependent terms?”

So like I said, I think this result is a bit trivial, because it just flips the problem definition around, demonstrating that it is possible to self-accelerate a variable mass system if you are somehow able to accelerate the variable mass when it is outside your control volume boundary.  I don’t think that's a very surprising result. 

There are a few things in the paper that I disagree with (Newton’s third law more fundamental that Conservation of Momentum? – I don’t think so), but I don’t think they are particularity relevant to the question at hand.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 05/09/2016 10:47 pm
Hallo wallofwolfstreet,

can you comment on this paper?

Thanks.

Sure thing.  Unfortunately the pdf has content copying not allowed, so I can’t just copy and paste.  To save myself time I’ll just offer the first little bit of a section I want to quote and you can ctrl+f it.  Apologies in advance for any mistakes in copying. 

In general, the paper offers  a result that is completely consistent with the Oak Ridge Scientists (ORS) interpretation of the correct form of the equation of motion for a variable mass system (John Cramer of the University of Washington also advances this equation of motion, see the second paragraph of the intro of this 2004 paper (http://” http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20050080680.pdf”)).

Right in the abstract, Wanser writes:

Quote
There is no rocket type thrust in the usual sense of ejecting propellant, since it is supposed that there is no relative velocity along the direction of motion associated with the mass changes.

Emphasis mine.

This assumption of zero relative velocity is critical, because it allows him to present F=ma+dmdtvrel as just F=ma (i.e. he has reduced the general equation of motion to the Woodward's equation of motion under the constraint that vrel=0).  To be honest, I kind of feel that this paper is presenting a bit of a trivial result.  It is simply showing that when the mass flow into and out of a variable mass system is contrived so that there is no net relative velocity, then the center of mass of the open system can be made to accelerate.  This is basically what Mezzenile has said in his preceding posts.  The issue is, in order for the mass that flows in and out of the system to have vrel=0 despite the acceleration of the MET, there must be some net force accelerating this variable mass, which Wanser correctly identifies in his Discussion:

(start reading at ‘the center of mass of the cart’)

Quote

This momentum must be made up by the rest of the universe allowing the isotropically ejected mass (in the rest frame of the accelerating body) to return isotropically to the body in its rest frame, that has in the mean time accelerated forward, to keep pace with the MET device, thus requiring the “spherical shell  of ejected mass to move forward.

Wanser also reiterates that the results are contingent on assuming vrel=0.  It’s this assumption that doesn’t have any theoretical motivation as being applicable to METs as far as I can see, and in fact Woodward routinely advances explanations as to how you can set vrel=0 which just aren’t consistent with physics.

Quote
The unidirectional acceleration found here is a consequence of our primary assumption, the possibility of changing the mass of an isolated system with zero relative velocity associated with the net convective momentum flux which produces the changing mass


Essentially, what Wanser has done is what I consider to be a bit of slight of hand (at least in regard to METs).  He has moved the problem from within a control volume containing the MET to outside the control volume.  The only way the variable mass can consistently have vrel=0 despite the claimed acceleration of the MET is that somehow the variable mass which exists outside the control volume is being accelerated by some unknown force alongside the MET.  The question is simply reframed from “what causes the MET to accelerate?” to “what causes the variable mass outside the system boundary of the MET to accelerate with the MET, so the net velocity of this mass is always just right to ignore vrel dependent terms?”

So like I said, I think this result is a bit trivial, because it just flips the problem definition around, demonstrating that it is possible to self-accelerate a variable mass system if you are somehow able to accelerate the variable mass when it is outside your control volume boundary.  I don’t think that's a very surprising result. 

There are a few things in the paper that I disagree with (Newton’s third law more fundamental that Conservation of Momentum? – I don’t think so), but I don’t think they are particularity relevant to the question at hand.

So in short. your calling into question the explaination used to argue that the mass change said to affect the FM component of a MET device can be done in a manner that is consistent with known physics?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: wallofwolfstreet on 05/10/2016 12:09 am
So in short. your calling into question the explaination used to argue that the mass change said to affect the FM component of a MET device can be done in a manner that is consistent with known physics?

In short, Yes.

This is basically my read on Mach effects and Woodward's work:

There are three Mach effects proposed by Woodward.  The first Mach effect (also called the Woodward effect) is proposed to cause transient mass fluctuations.  It is then proposed that by fluctuating a mass (the FM component of an MET) in phase with a cyclical displacement one can generate acceleration of a closed system.  It is this second proposal that lacks a coherent derivation in my opinion.  I honestly don't have the theoretical grounding in general relativity or the work of Sciama to either confirm or deny whether the first proposal has a valid derivation.

Transient mass fluctuations may or may not be real, but transient mass fluctuations do not necessarily imply METs.

I'm not the first person to take this view either.  It is essentially the view taken by Cramer et al. (2004) in Test of Mach's Principle with a Mechanical Oscillator (http://www.otherhand.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/John-Cramers-final-report.pdf)

Quote
Unfortunately, this scheme for observing the
inertia variation appears to be at odds with the
relativistically invariant form of Newton's 2nd law of
motion:

F = dp/dt = mdv/dt + vdm/dt                              (1)

Since the inertial mass m of the test body is
expected to vary with time, the last term of Equation
(1) cannot be ignored. It is not surprising, in view of
Newton's 3rd law of motion, that for any sinusoidal
variations of the mass around a central value, the force
contribution from the v dm/dt term is found to
precisely cancel the supposed "unbalanced force"
arising from the m dv/dt term, leading to a time averaged
net force of zero on the overall system.
From this simple calculation, it appears that
unbalanced force searches are not good tests of the
proposed effect.

There remains the question of
whether the Woodward inertia variation is present in a
system having an energy flow. In the present work, we
have devised two tests of this effect that do not require the
presence of an unbalanced inertial force.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 05/10/2016 06:05 am
So in short. your calling into question the explaination used to argue that the mass change said to affect the FM component of a MET device can be done in a manner that is consistent with known physics?

In short, Yes.

This is basically my read on Mach effects and Woodward's work:

There are three Mach effects proposed by Woodward.  The first Mach effect (also called the Woodward effect) is proposed to cause transient mass fluctuations.  It is then proposed that by fluctuating a mass (the FM component of an MET) in phase with a cyclical displacement one can generate acceleration of a closed system.  It is this second proposal that lacks a coherent derivation in my opinion.  I honestly don't have the theoretical grounding in general relativity or the work of Sciama to either confirm or deny whether the first proposal has a valid derivation.

Transient mass fluctuations may or may not be real, but transient mass fluctuations do not necessarily imply METs.

I'm not the first person to take this view either.  It is essentially the view taken by Cramer et al. (2004) in Test of Mach's Principle with a Mechanical Oscillator (http://www.otherhand.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/John-Cramers-final-report.pdf)

Quote
Unfortunately, this scheme for observing the
inertia variation appears to be at odds with the
relativistically invariant form of Newton's 2nd law of
motion:

F = dp/dt = mdv/dt + vdm/dt                              (1)

Since the inertial mass m of the test body is
expected to vary with time, the last term of Equation
(1) cannot be ignored. It is not surprising, in view of
Newton's 3rd law of motion, that for any sinusoidal
variations of the mass around a central value, the force
contribution from the v dm/dt term is found to
precisely cancel the supposed "unbalanced force"
arising from the m dv/dt term, leading to a time averaged
net force of zero on the overall system.
From this simple calculation, it appears that
unbalanced force searches are not good tests of the
proposed effect.

There remains the question of
whether the Woodward inertia variation is present in a
system having an energy flow. In the present work, we
have devised two tests of this effect that do not require the
presence of an unbalanced inertial force.

Thank you for clarifying that. In that case your critique of the paper Flux Capacitor posted a few posts back, in light of your your comments on the Wasner paper that mubahni posted to the forum; Is either misdirected, wrong, or I am simply reading more into it than you intended. Since that paper explains pretty much the same thing that the wasner paper does, with one difference that I think is a minor one. It does not explicitly state that it is making the assumption that it is possible to create a system where one can change the mass of a component in just such a way that it is possible to zero out the vdm/dt term. The paper in question basically assumes such a thing is possible and talks about an example of such a system. The Wasner paper goes a bit further on the analysis of why such a thing doesnt violate newtons second law, and takes as an assumption that the Mach Effect demonstrated in the MET device is capable of changing the mass in the FM component as described.

Now as for your real critique. I think Woodward and Fearn have put alot of theoretical effort into trying to show that the transient mass change mach effect is real. Part 1 of Making Starships and Stargates is intended to be a narration at an engineers level of how the two Mach Effects are derived from GRT, the first one being the transient mass change. At the end of Chapter 3 (the last chapter in part 1), Addendum #2 covers the step by step derivation of the Mach effect terms discussed in Chapter 3. Where Addendum #2 is sourced directly from his published paper "Flux Capacitors and the Origin of Inertia" which you can find on his faculty page.

As for being able to turn that transient mass change into motion. i would agree that their isnt much theoretical work about why this would work. From what I have read it looks like the idea is simply that we can piggy back off of the equal and opposite inertial force applied to the fluctuating mass. So if we push on the FM while it is larger we should get a large inertial force applied to the actuator doing the pushing. If we pull on the FM when it is smaller we should get a smaller inertial force. This should yield a net unidirectional force. So from where I stand, its no the generation of the uni directional force that requires proof and eventual acceptance its the transient mass change. If you can transiently change the mass of the FM component of a MET in the manner described in the Wasner paper then generating a uni directional force from such a scheme is the easy part.

So I would definately ask. What is missing from the work Woodward and Fern has done so far?

N.B. Where did you see there were three Mach Effects. Woodward has only ever talked about two Mach Effects. First one is the transient mass change (impulse) term, and the second one is referred to as the Worm Hole term.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 05/10/2016 05:17 pm
...

In short, Yes.

This is basically my read on Mach effects and Woodward's work:

There are three Mach effects proposed by Woodward.  The first Mach effect (also called the Woodward effect) is proposed to cause transient mass fluctuations.  It is then proposed that by fluctuating a mass (the FM component of an MET) in phase with a cyclical displacement one can generate acceleration of a closed system.  It is this second proposal that lacks a coherent derivation in my opinion.  I honestly don't have the theoretical grounding in general relativity or the work of Sciama to either confirm or deny whether the first proposal has a valid derivation.

Transient mass fluctuations may or may not be real, but transient mass fluctuations do not necessarily imply METs.

I'm not the first person to take this view either.  It is essentially the view taken by Cramer et al. (2004) in Test of Mach's Principle with a Mechanical Oscillator (http://www.otherhand.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/John-Cramers-final-report.pdf)

Quote
Unfortunately, this scheme for observing the
inertia variation appears to be at odds with the
relativistically invariant form of Newton's 2nd law of
motion:

F = dp/dt = mdv/dt + vdm/dt                              (1)

Since the inertial mass m of the test body is
expected to vary with time, the last term of Equation
(1) cannot be ignored. It is not surprising, in view of
Newton's 3rd law of motion, that for any sinusoidal
variations of the mass around a central value, the force
contribution from the v dm/dt term is found to
precisely cancel the supposed "unbalanced force"
arising from the m dv/dt term, leading to a time averaged
net force of zero on the overall system.
From this simple calculation, it appears that
unbalanced force searches are not good tests of the
proposed effect.

There remains the question of
whether the Woodward inertia variation is present in a
system having an energy flow. In the present work, we
have devised two tests of this effect that do not require the
presence of an unbalanced inertial force.

So now that i have a little sleep in me. Something else has occured to me about your critique. Why assert that cramer takes the perspective that you quoted. When in the Wasner paper, that you seem to agree with, it is said that Cramer incorrectly includes the vdm/dt term because it the transient mass change as far as the wasner paper is concerned is the type of mass change that allows you to set that term to 0. What I would expect to see in the Cramer paper is some exposition on why the transient mass change term in woodwards derivation would not lead to the type of mass change that allows you to set the vdm/dt term to 0.

I think what gets on my nerves most about this criticism is that both sides seem to be talking past each other. Woodward pretty much believes that the theoretical work he has done up till now justifies that the transient mass change is such that you are allowed to set the vdm/dt term to 0. While criticisms I have seen so far amount to saying "YOU CAN NEVER SET THE vdm/dt TERM to ZERO". Even though the Wasner paper outlines a thorough explaination of when you are allowed to set the vdm/dt term to zero. So either the Wasner paper is pure rubbish, or it isnt and there are specific situations where you are allowed to do what woodward has done. If the later is true then the only valid criticism should be centered on his derivation of the transient mass change and showing how it doesnt lead to a situation where it is correct to set the vdm/dt term to zero.

Personally I think the ball is in the critics court mostly because Woodward has laid out his step by step derivations in published work and provided alot of exposition explaining his reasoning. In addition Fearn's recent work has  allowed them to use Hoyle and Narlikar's Theory of Gravitation as a starting point for the mach effect derivation, after updating it to handle the divergence issue Hawking raised. This doesnt mean the theory is right. I dont think Woodward believes the theory is completely right.  Primarily because the predicted force magnitudes are way higher than they have been able to show with experiments. However, the HN Theory work Fearn did seems to have corrected the derivation enough to make better predictions about how thrust could scale.

Anyway. now that I understand what your criticism is. I think the focus on newtons equation of motion is misplaced. The real focus as I see it should be on why Woodward's transient mass change term does not produce an effect that allows the vdm/dt term of the equation of motion to be set to 0.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: wallofwolfstreet on 05/11/2016 02:19 am
Thank you for clarifying that. In that case your critique of the paper Flux Capacitor posted a few posts back, in light of your your comments on the Wasner paper that mubahni posted to the forum; Is either misdirected, wrong, or I am simply reading more into it than you intended.

Please quote exactly what you feel is wrong, misdirected, or what you want me to clarify from my original comments:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1531414#msg1531414 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1531414#msg1531414)
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1531664#msg1531664    (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1531664#msg1531664)

Quote
Since that paper explains pretty much the same thing that the wasner paper does, with one difference that I think is a minor one.

The papers are very much different. The Wasner paper and the ORNL response paper (what flux capacitor just posted; attached as Woodward answer to ORNL.pdf) are not the same thing.  The ORNL response paper has a basic physics error in it; the entire experiment Woodward is claiming supports his equation of motion over the correct ORS equation of motion is complete nonsense because you can’t discern the difference between the two equations of motion from the experiment.   You have to understand, the entire meat of that paper, namely the draining water bottle on a track experiment, is completely botched as I demonstrated in my original response.  Figure 4, which is supposed to demonstrate the victory of F=ma over F=ma + vdm/dt, is wrong; the red line should be coincident with the blue line (and the measured data points).  If Woodward wants a basic mechanics experiment to determine the correct equation of motion, he should try the experiment I suggested:
Quote
One way to demonstrate why Woodward’s equation of motion is wrong is to consider a flatcar rolling down a smooth level track at constant velocity, where a hopper from above is pouring sand onto the cart.  This is the exact inverse of Woodward’s thought experiment, so Woodward’s equation of motion, F=m(t)dv/dt, should be applicable

My question is this:  Does the flatcar in my example accelerate, or continue to travel at constant velocity when the sand is being poured onto the flatcar?

So people who read Woodward’s rebuttal and actually thought it made sense, please use Woodward’s equation of motion in this instance to make a prediction: does the flatcar slow down or not?     

What does the Woodward equation of motion predict, what does the ORS equation of motion predict, and what actually happens?

I know I seem a bit condensing here, but I didn’t mean the above questions to be rhetorical.  I’d actually appreciate an answer to those questions, because the answer to that question lets you know whether to toss out the ORNL response paper or not.  Answer those questions correctly, and you will see I went easy on the ORNL response paper. 

Quote
It does not explicitly state that it is making the assumption that it is possible to create a system where one can change the mass of a component in just such a way that it is possible to zero out the vdm/dt term. The paper in question basically assumes such a thing is possible and talks about an example of such a system.

Excerpt for the fact that you've completely omitted the experimental part?  And if the assumption isn't explicity stated, then how so you know it's been made at all?  And if Woodward is assuming that vrel = 0, how does that answer anything?  He has to prove it, not assume it, for anyone to care. 

Quote
 
The Wasner paper goes a bit further on the analysis of why such a thing doesnt violate newtons second law, and takes as an assumption that the Mach Effect demonstrated in the MET device is capable of changing the mass in the FM component as described.

Correct, assumption is the critical word here.  That's why I accused the Wasner paper of being trivial.  It's not hard to show the self acceleration of a control volume if you assume mass just shows up with no relative velocity.  That's the rocket equivalent of attaching a fuel hose to your rocket so that as it flies, more propellant just shows up in the fuel tank without altering the momentum of the rocket.  It's not unexpected that the rocket now self accelerates when you ignore the action exterior to the rocket (which is what Wanser does), namely the need of accelerating the propellant to get it to the rocket in the first place. 

Quote
So I would definately ask. What is missing from the work Woodward and Fern has done so far?

What is missing is that I have yet to see a coherent explanation that validates dropping vdm/dt.  Without that explanation, the entire theory of METs is foundation less.  I’m really just echoing Whealton et al. and Cramer et al. when I say this, who were evidently as unimpressed by Woodward’s response as I am seeing as how they never pursued METs further.  In fact, see the attached ORNL presentation, slides 9,24,25.

Quote
N.B. Where did you see there were three Mach Effects. Woodward has only ever talked about two Mach Effects. First one is the transient mass change (impulse) term, and the second one is referred to as the Worm Hole term.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect)

Quote from: wikipedia
The Woodward effect, also referred to as a Mach effect, one of at least three predicted Mach effects

According to Woodward, at least three Mach effects are theoretically possible: vectored impulse thrust, open curvature of spacetime, and closed curvature of spacetime

So now that i have a little sleep in me. Something else has occured to me about your critique. Why assert that cramer takes the perspective that you quoted. When in the Wasner paper, that you seem to agree with, it is said that Cramer incorrectly includes the vdm/dt term because it the transient mass change as far as the wasner paper is concerned is the type of mass change that allows you to set that term to 0. What I would expect to see in the Cramer paper is some exposition on why the transient mass change term in woodwards derivation would not lead to the type of mass change that allows you to set the vdm/dt term to 0.

Nothing in the known universe lets you set the vdm/dt term to 0 globally for an object that is accelerating, and hence has infinitely many different possible velocities in a single reference frame.  That’s the whole point.  It’s not Cramers job to show that METs obey established physics, it’s Woodward’s job to show they don’t.

Quote
I think what gets on my nerves most about this criticism is that both sides seem to be talking past each other. Woodward pretty much believes that the theoretical work he has done up till now justifies that the transient mass change is such that you are allowed to set the vdm/dt term to 0. While criticisms I have seen so far amount to saying "YOU CAN NEVER SET THE vdm/dt TERM to ZERO".

EXACTLY.  That’s literally the whole criticism for a device which claims to accelerate.  Woodward’s supposed response to that criticism, as contained in the ORNL response paper, is complete rubbish because it cocks up a physics 101 experiment.  So here we are back to square one.

Quote
Even though the Wasner paper outlines a thorough explaination of when you are allowed to set the vdm/dt term to zero.

No it doesn't, it assumes that you can set it equal to zero (you yourself just said this a few quotes up).  It doesn’t validate the belief that you can set it to zero, and I don't see any explanation of when you are allowed to set it to zero.  It’s more or less an assumption of the paper; there is no theoretical justification for it.

Quote
So either the Wasner paper is pure rubbish, or it isnt and there are specific situations where you are allowed to do what woodward has done.

The Wasner paper isn’t pure rubbish because it doesn’t try to sweep the all important assumption under the rug.  That’s the critical difference.   Right from the Wasner paper:

Quote from: Wasner
We can not have any net ejection of mass in a cyclic process, so this condition is satisfied if, we assume that mass fluctuations are of this type, i.e. that vrel=0

Quote
Personally I think the ball is in the critics court mostly because Woodward has laid out his step by step derivations in published work and provided alot of exposition explaining his reasoning.

He has provided alot of exposition.  The problem is, at least in the case of the ORNL response, is that the exposition and reasoning is completely wrong.  I went through point by point in that paper and showed the flaws, and the sand falling onto the cart problem clarifies why Woodward is wrong and ORNL are right.

Quote
Anyway. now that I understand what your criticism is. I think the focus on newtons equation of motion is misplaced. The real focus as I see it should be on why Woodward's transient mass change term does not produce an effect that allows the vdm/dt term of the equation of motion to be set to 0.

Well, no.  Like I mentioned above, every single phenomena known to man “does not produce an effect that allows the vdm/dt term of the equation of motion to be [universally] set to zero [when the control volume in question is claimed to accelerate] ”.  If Woodward wants to claim that METs break out of that paradigm sure, but the onus is purely on him to back up that claim.   
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Mezzenile on 05/19/2016 08:27 am
I discover the here above cited article from Cramer et al. (2004) : Test of Mach's Principle with a Mechanical Oscillator (http://www.otherhand.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/John-Cramers-final-report.pdf)

It is a pity to see that even seasoned professionals occasionally make mistakes when applying the second law, even in simple circumstances :

The first equation of the article (F = dp/dt = mdv/dt + vdm/dt) is introduced as beeing the relativistically  invariant  form  of  Newton's  2nd law  of motion.

But this formulation is FALSE. The term vdm/dt is completely wrong ! It should be replaced by udm/dt where u is a speed that all observers can agree on and so which has an invariant meaning – for example, the velocity of the just ejected exhaust plume of a rocket with respect to the rocket ( and not the speed v of the rocket !).

Apparently the three distinguished authors of the article : John G. Cramer , Curran W. Fey, and Damon V. Casissi are not yet fully convinced that rockets can work !!!  :D :D



Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: wallofwolfstreet on 05/22/2016 04:17 am
I discover the here above cited article from Cramer et al. (2004) : Test of Mach's Principle with a Mechanical Oscillator (http://www.otherhand.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/John-Cramers-final-report.pdf)

It is a pity to see that even seasoned professionals occasionally make mistakes when applying the second law, even in simple circumstances :

The first equation of the article (F = dp/dt = mdv/dt + vdm/dt) is introduced as beeing the relativistically  invariant  form  of  Newton's  2nd law  of motion.

But this formulation is FALSE. The term vdm/dt is completely wrong ! It should be replaced by udm/dt where u is a speed that all observers can agree on and so which has an invariant meaning – for example, the velocity of the just ejected exhaust plume of a rocket with respect to the rocket ( and not the speed v of the rocket !).

Apparently the three distinguished authors of the article : John G. Cramer , Curran W. Fey, and Damon V. Casissi are not yet fully convinced that rockets can work !!!  :D :D

True, it would have been better for them to have been more rigorous and use the correct expression with relative velocity.  Goes to show how easy it is to get tripped up.  This trip up reduces the generality of Equation (7), but it doesn't adversely affect the paper as a whole. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Mezzenile on 05/22/2016 12:47 pm
True, it would have been better for them to have been more rigorous and use the correct expression with relative velocity.  Goes to show how easy it is to get tripped up.  This trip up reduces the generality of Equation (7), but it doesn't adversely affect the paper as a whole.

It is not only a question to be more rigorous and to use the correct expression. It challenges also the main thesis of the article which relies on this false equation together with what the authors call a “simple calculation” to support the claim that the searches of unbalanced force are not good tests of the Woodward effect.

This beeing said does somebody know if the authors finally managed to get rid of the the spurious excitation which perturbated their measurements ?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 05/23/2016 11:23 pm
True, it would have been better for them to have been more rigorous and use the correct expression with relative velocity.  Goes to show how easy it is to get tripped up.  This trip up reduces the generality of Equation (7), but it doesn't adversely affect the paper as a whole.

It is not only a question to be more rigorous and to use the correct expression. It challenges also the main thesis of the article which relies on this false equation together with what the authors call a “simple calculation” to support the claim that the searches of unbalanced force are not good tests of the Woodward effect.

This beeing said does somebody know if the authors finally managed to get rid of the the spurious excitation which perturbated their measurements ?

I see your point. but after my discussion with wallofwolfstreet. I am beginning to understand that the core problem here isnt so much what that term in the equation of motion means. Its whether or not the effect being displayed is allowed to zero out that term in the equation of motion.

So the million dollar question remains, where in the work woodward et al have done does it show that the transient mass fluctuation mach effect is just such an effect that allows you to zero out that term in the motion equation.

Personally I think the answer to that question is the experimental evidence that woodward is building. Their theory argues that this particular mach effect should work this way. Now they are on to proving that their experiments match their theoretical predictions.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: wallofwolfstreet on 05/24/2016 03:26 pm
I see your point. but after my discussion with wallofwolfstreet. I am beginning to understand that the core problem here isnt so much what that term in the equation of motion means. Its whether or not the effect being displayed is allowed to zero out that term in the equation of motion.

Exactly.  In the case where we use the correct  F = dp/dt = mdv/dt + udm/dt, you just substitute u=w-v, where w is the velocity of the mass flow in the frame of reference in which v is measured.  You still end up with the exact same probelm, namely "How can the velocity term in the full equation of motion F=dp/dt be zero despite the fact the MET is accelerating?", only now the question has shifted to why should w=0?   

Quote
 
So the million dollar question remains, where in the work woodward et al have done does it show that the transient mass fluctuation mach effect is just such an effect that allows you to zero out that term in the motion equation.

I agree.  I hope I was able to show in my previous post that Woodward's previous attempt at showing this (i.e. the ORNL repsonse paper posted by FluxCapacitor and attached here) is wrong.  Woodward should consider trying to readdress this issue since it is critical for being able to claim propulsion applications from Mass fluctuations

This beeing said does somebody know if the authors finally managed to get rid of the the spurious excitation which perturbated their measurements ?

I don't know what ultimately came of the experiment; it's an interesting question.   
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Mezzenile on 05/28/2016 05:11 am
True, it would have been better for them to have been more rigorous and use the correct expression with relative velocity.  Goes to show how easy it is to get tripped up.  This trip up reduces the generality of Equation (7), but it doesn't adversely affect the paper as a whole.

It is not only a question to be more rigorous and to use the correct expression. It challenges also the main thesis of the article which relies on this false equation together with what the authors call a “simple calculation” to support the claim that the searches of unbalanced force are not good tests of the Woodward effect.

This beeing said does somebody know if the authors finally managed to get rid of the the spurious excitation which perturbated their measurements ?

I see your point. but after my discussion with wallofwolfstreet. I am beginning to understand that the core problem here isnt so much what that term in the equation of motion means. Its whether or not the effect being displayed is allowed to zero out that term in the equation of motion.

So the million dollar question remains, where in the work woodward et al have done does it show that the transient mass fluctuation mach effect is just such an effect that allows you to zero out that term in the motion equation.

Personally I think the answer to that question is the experimental evidence that woodward is building. Their theory argues that this particular mach effect should work this way. Now they are on to proving that their experiments match their theoretical predictions.
Good luck  ;) ;) if you want to understand the origin of inertia by Mach principle and associated mass fluctuation as proposed by Woodward using only the tool of newtonian mechanics. You condemn yourself to stay in the interior of a circle from which you will never escape. If for you an exchange of momentum can only be represented by a mass m moving at a classical speed u you will have no chance to grasp the key corner of momentum flux vehiculed by the gravinertial waves both to the future and from the future and which propagates most probably at the speed of the light.

The roots of Woodward insight come from the Hoyle-Narlikar (HN) theory (which leads to General Relativity in the presence of an event horizon). The best would be to calculate the dynamics of the Woodward test set-up and the associated emerging force, from HN-theory and its first principles using the Euler Lagrange equation. This derivation is a work in progress as announced by H. Fearn, J. F. Woodward and N. van Rossum.

If you want to stick to Newtonian mechanics in an an absolute space, you should simply consider the isotropy of u or in somewhat equivalent form, a null value for it.

Of course, as you write, the experimental evidence that Woodward is building gives confidence in the capability of HN theory to confirm by a theoretical frame the experimental results.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: mubahni on 06/01/2016 06:33 pm
In this video, Nembo Buldrini seems to talk and even present results of a replication. I say seem, because I don't understand nor speak italian. Watch from the 54th minute.

https://youtu.be/FzxHhUpeAJk
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Mezzenile on 06/02/2016 07:55 pm
In this video, Nembo Buldrini seems to talk and even present results of a replication...
Nembo Buldrini is a long time collaborator of Woodward and the illustrator of his book  "Making Starships and Stargates".
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 09/03/2016 12:16 pm
In the video Buldrini is presenting results for a validation of a device provided by Woodward, it's not a replica.

He shows how the results he obtained are compatible to those claimed by W. : the thrust profile in both cases looks similar, with a peak at the start and at the end.
One difference though is the order of magnitude of the thrust observed, Buldrini test gave as a result a thrust about 10 times lower.
The reason of this could be, in his opinion, either the electronic component used for coupling the source of power with the device, because output hasn't been measured directly and the piece is different from the one used by W.,
or a wrong calibration of the thrust balances. This two reasons aren't mutually exclusive.

These results haven't been published on any paper because of these defects regarding validation of the device, but he said that these preliminary results are much stronger than those that he obtained many years ago, when he tested the MLT, because a clear thrust signal is very noticeable.
He added that more complete tests could happen during 2016


Is there any news from Woodward and Fearn?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 09/25/2016 01:40 pm
Dr. Rodal,

In light of the presentation you recently did on HN Theory. I would love to know what your take is on where Woodward and Fearn are as far as having a theory that can be used to describe Mach Effects. To the best of my knowledge the last step needed for then to be able to confidently claim their theory is accurate is being able to derive force equations from it that accurately predict thrust. Which means they need to build better MET devices to test thrust scaling as predicted. Are there other things Heidi and Woodward need to do that we are not aware of?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Rodal on 09/25/2016 01:59 pm
Dr. Rodal,

In light of the presentation you recently did on HN Theory. I would love to know what your take is on where Woodward and Fearn are as far as having a theory that can be used to describe Mach Effects. To the best of my knowledge the last step needed for then to be able to confidently claim their theory is accurate is being able to derive force equations from it that accurately predict thrust. Which means they need to build better MET devices to test thrust scaling as predicted. Are there other things Heidi and Woodward need to do that we are not aware of?
1. I presented an exact solution for the force (under suitable, well specified assumptions) and its comparison with experiments.  Prior to the workshop, Prof. Hearn actually independently checked the validity of my solution (which comprises hundreds of terms) by hand !

2. The solution predicts the optimal mass for the tail mass section, in agreement with experiments.  The solution correctly predicts the direction of the force.  The solution predicts the extreme dependence of the amplitude of the force with other parameters in the vicinity of resonance.  The solution also predicts other effects.

3. The solution shows various ways on how it may be possible to increase the force from what has been demonstrated in experiments up to now.

4.  In addition, at the Estes Park Breakthrough Propulsion workshop, a physicist that works with General Relativity presented another derivation of Woodward's equation based on linearization of Einstein's General Relativity. 

5.  In addition, at the Estes Park Breakthrough Propulsion workshop independent experimental measurements of the Mach/Sciama/Wooward effect force were presented from 3 other researchers, in 2 separate continents.

-----

 You will be able to watch my presentation (as well as other presentations) at the Space Studies Institute website: www.ssi.org and ensuing discussion with the participants.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 09/25/2016 03:06 pm
Dr. Rodal,

In light of the presentation you recently did on HN Theory. I would love to know what your take is on where Woodward and Fearn are as far as having a theory that can be used to describe Mach Effects. To the best of my knowledge the last step needed for then to be able to confidently claim their theory is accurate is being able to derive force equations from it that accurately predict thrust. Which means they need to build better MET devices to test thrust scaling as predicted. Are there other things Heidi and Woodward need to do that we are not aware of?
1. I presented an exact solution for the force (under suitable, well specified assumptions) and its comparison with experiments.  Prior to the workshop, Prof. Hearn actually independently checked the validity of my solution (which comprises hundreds of terms) by hand !

2. The solution predicts the optimal mass for the tail mass section, in agreement with experiments.  The solution correctly predicts the direction of the force.  The solution predicts the extreme dependence of the amplitude of the force with other parameters in the vicinity of resonance.  The solution also predicts other effects.

3. The solution shows various ways on how it may be possible to increase the force from what has been demonstrated in experiments up to now.

4.  In addition, at the Estes Park Breakthrough Propulsion workshop, a physicist that works with General Relativity presented another derivation of Woodward's equation based on linearization of Einstein's General Relativity. 

5.  In addition, at the Estes Park Breakthrough Propulsion workshop independent experimental measurements of the Mach/Sciama/Wooward effect force were presented from 3 other researchers, in 2 separate continents.

-----

 You will be able to watch my presentation (as well as other presentations) at the Space Studies Institute website: www.ssi.org and ensuing discussion with the participants.

So I am going to beg your forgiveness for what I am about to do...


INNER SPACE GEEK > IT WORKS!!!!!!?
Translation > Given the strong theoretical support. Are you saying that the only thing left is engineering?

Also, I am curious to know if you spent anytime reflecting on the possibility for Mach Effects to "POTENTIALLY" allow the creation of worn holes. I know unlike the thrust term. The Worm hole creation part still has theoretical rough spots. In particular the use of the ADM model of the electron. However, if you have I was curious about your take on that part of Woodward's derivation of Mach Effects.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 09/25/2016 03:42 pm
I have a couple questions about this solution. I have not gotten around to studying general relativity in detail, so I can't directly critique the calculations, but there are a few implications this brings up.

Are these calculations based on general relativity as it is generally known, or are there some tweaks/ additional assumptions?

As I understand it, the explanation for energy/momentum balance is remote interaction with the other objects in the universe. There are 2 ways I can understand this:
1. Instantaneous interaction with remote objects - this would cause problems with causality.
2. Gravitational waves, which as I understand them have the same Energy/momentum constraints as photon thrusters.

I could see the energy/momentum ratio for gravity waves being modified if you don't take the weak-field limit, but that brings up how any non-planet sized device could be outside the weak field limit.

On a related note, considering the size of the constant G, even if the device was only as efficient for propulsion as a photon thruster, being able control and put significant energy energy into gravitational waves could open up all sorts of interesting applications.

Does the theory really predict meaningful magnitude of the forces, or is it just far enough to say that there is a force in a given direction? From what you said I believe it is the former, but I want to check since I know this could be a very hard calculation to do.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star One on 09/25/2016 03:43 pm
Dr. Rodal,

In light of the presentation you recently did on HN Theory. I would love to know what your take is on where Woodward and Fearn are as far as having a theory that can be used to describe Mach Effects. To the best of my knowledge the last step needed for then to be able to confidently claim their theory is accurate is being able to derive force equations from it that accurately predict thrust. Which means they need to build better MET devices to test thrust scaling as predicted. Are there other things Heidi and Woodward need to do that we are not aware of?
1. I presented an exact solution for the force (under suitable, well specified assumptions) and its comparison with experiments.  Prior to the workshop, Prof. Hearn actually independently checked the validity of my solution (which comprises hundreds of terms) by hand !

2. The solution predicts the optimal mass for the tail mass section, in agreement with experiments.  The solution correctly predicts the direction of the force.  The solution predicts the extreme dependence of the amplitude of the force with other parameters in the vicinity of resonance.  The solution also predicts other effects.

3. The solution shows various ways on how it may be possible to increase the force from what has been demonstrated in experiments up to now.

4.  In addition, at the Estes Park Breakthrough Propulsion workshop, a physicist that works with General Relativity presented another derivation of Woodward's equation based on linearization of Einstein's General Relativity. 

5.  In addition, at the Estes Park Breakthrough Propulsion workshop independent experimental measurements of the Mach/Sciama/Wooward effect force were presented from 3 other researchers, in 2 separate continents.

-----

 You will be able to watch my presentation (as well as other presentations) at the Space Studies Institute website: www.ssi.org and ensuing discussion with the participants.

So I am going to beg your forgiveness for what I am about to do...


INNER SPACE GEEK > IT WORKS!!!!!!?
Translation > Given the strong theoretical support. Are you saying that the only thing left is engineering?

Also, I am curious to know if you spent anytime reflecting on the possibility for Mach Effects to "POTENTIALLY" allow the creation of worn holes. I know unlike the thrust term. The Worm hole creation part still has theoretical rough spots. In particular the use of the ADM model of the electron. However, if you have I was curious about your take on that part of Woodward's derivation of Mach Effects.

Probably going to sound a noob question but how can a drive create a worm hole when all along it's been pointed out this is not a warp drive.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Stormbringer on 09/25/2016 05:55 pm
Woodward's derivation of  an equation for mach's principle has two components: a part that is similar to the EM Drive but different in operating detail; and a second part that leads to navigable wormholes.

While currently mucking about with wormholes experimentally is beyond the capabilities of anyone on earth- Woodward  (rightly, I think) says that if the first half of his equation is supported by experiment then the wormhole bit must be correct as well.

So the Woodward drive if proven valid will be highly suggestive that wormhole engineering should eventually work too.

Woodward does not think his Mach drive and the EM drive  operate on the same principle. As of the 1st edition of his book he was skeptical of the EM drive as being anything other than experimental error of some sort. Of course with the cross fertilization that has happened since then (E.G; the SSI conference) he may have changed his opinion on that point. The conference attendees would know if that is still the case or not.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 09/25/2016 07:56 pm
I have a couple questions about this solution. I have not gotten around to studying general relativity in detail, so I can't directly critique the calculations, but there are a few implications this brings up.

Are these calculations based on general relativity as it is generally known, or are there some tweaks/ additional assumptions?

As I understand it, the explanation for energy/momentum balance is remote interaction with the other objects in the universe. There are 2 ways I can understand this:
1. Instantaneous interaction with remote objects - this would cause problems with causality.
2. Gravitational waves, which as I understand them have the same Energy/momentum constraints as photon thrusters.

I could see the energy/momentum ratio for gravity waves being modified if you don't take the weak-field limit, but that brings up how any non-planet sized device could be outside the weak field limit.

On a related note, considering the size of the constant G, even if the device was only as efficient for propulsion as a photon thruster, being able control and put significant energy energy into gravitational waves could open up all sorts of interesting applications.

Does the theory really predict meaningful magnitude of the forces, or is it just far enough to say that there is a force in a given direction? From what you said I believe it is the former, but I want to check since I know this could be a very hard calculation to do.

the energy-momentum balance is due to instantaneous interaction with the mass of the rest of the universe. What Hoyle and Narlikar theory provides is a Theory of Gravitation that leverages the ideas in Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory as a mechanism for explaining how the mass in the outer regions of the universe have the ability to communicate with the mass here. Woodward was able to do mostly the same thing with GR because from his background as a historian he believes (and provides documented proof) that Einstein intended for GR to be machian. It just never had a way to explain the instantaneous communication. Which is why the latest theory papers out of their Lab are talking more about Hoyle Narliker theory of gravitation. As of the papers that came out last year. They have rederived the mach effect equations for at least the first term (the space drive). I would need to re read to see if the term, dubbed the worm hole term. Is still there.

In the end, if correct the instantaneous interaction is carried out by a mechanism that allows all mass to emit advanced/retarded waves through time.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Rodal on 09/25/2016 09:19 pm
...As of the papers that came out last year. They have rederived the mach effect equations for at least the first term (the space drive). I would need to re read to see if the term, dubbed the worm hole term. Is still there....
Woodward's derivation of  an equation for mach's principle has two components: a part that is similar to the EM Drive but different in operating detail; and a second part that leads to navigable wormholes.

While currently mucking about with wormholes experimentally is beyond the capabilities of anyone on earth- Woodward  (rightly, I think) says that if the first half of his equation is supported by experiment then the wormhole bit must be correct as well....
In my derivation I show that the splitting of the expression into both of those terms is a) mathematically unnecessary and b) of no mathematical benefit.  I found a mathematical expression that rigorously takes into account both terms and enables a solution of the equations under rigorous, and explicit conditions.   What you call the worm hole term involves the square of the first derivative with respect to time while what you call the impulse term involves the second derivative with respect to time.  To have one without the other would need to have a linear time variation such that the first derivative with respect to time is constant and such that the second derivative with respect to time is zero.  Such a time variation is artificial.  The time variation used in Woodward's experiments has been a harmonic, for example a Cosine variation of the voltage V=Vo Cos[omega t], where obviously both derivatives are present: - Vo omega Sin[omega t] and Vo omega^2 Cos[omega t].  In general, there is no mathematical benefit to split them apart and consider them separate.  Furthermore, in the experiments they have been conducting, both terms are present  ;)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Rodal on 09/25/2016 11:14 pm
...Are these calculations based on general relativity as it is generally known, or are there some tweaks/ additional assumptions?...
Your question is not precise enough to understand what you mean by "generally known". My derivation is based on Hoyle-Narlikar's theory of gravitation. Dr. Lance Williams, at the Estes Park Workshop presented another derivation based on a linearization of Einstein's General Relativity.  Prof. Martin Tajmar derived these terms from a linearization of Einstein's General Relativity using yet another approach.

I don't know what you mean by "additional tweaks".  Nothing additional is needed to be added to General Relativity.  The only reason why many people are unfamiliar with these terms is because most treatments disregard, "ab initio", the derivatives with respect to time in general relativity.  The possible objection is whether such time rate terms can be confirmed by experiments.  Whether they are present in Nature or whether they are just a mathematical solution, a mathematical curiosity.

There are many unusual solutions in general relativity (not surprisingly  :) ), for example when the black hole solution first appeared as a mathematical solution, Einstein's first reaction was that it must be a mathematical non-physical solution.  Only much later the black hole solutions were confirmed to be present in Nature, contrary to Einstein's intuition.  Ditto for other solutions.  On the other hand, Goedel's rotating universe and its strange implications for the flow of time still looks like a mathematical solution that may not be present in the Universe we live in. (*)

Naturally, to proceed to derive a force, once you obtain the expressions that are dependent on the time rates, you need to derive the equation of motion.  But an equation of motion is not a "tweak".  Equations of motion follow from a Lagrangian (for no damping).  I also take into account damping. 

...
As I understand it, the explanation for energy/momentum balance is remote interaction with the other objects in the universe. There are 2 ways I can understand this:
1. Instantaneous interaction with remote objects - this would cause problems with causality.
2. Gravitational waves, which as I understand them have the same Energy/momentum constraints as photon thrusters.

....
Please read Hoyle-Narlikar's papers.  Advanced-retarded waves an application of Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory to general gravitation.

We are not talking here about sending information with advanced-retarded waves or superluminally so there are no issues of causality as you infer above.  Such issues of causality and the arrow of time can only occur when attempting to send information or macro processes.  In my derivation I explicitly state that the velocity of the mass particles is explicitly assumed to be much smaller than the speed of light.  Rather, the issue for Feynman's theory was self-interaction.

Again, if you prefer, rather than dealing with the nonlinear, fully covariant formulation of Hoyle-Narlikar, you can linearize general relativity and obtain such time-dependent terms.  While these solutions are possible solutions from relativity, the ultimate question is whether they are physically possible in Nature.  At the Estes Park Conference, there were three groups in 2 continents that had independently confirmed non-null results with experimental measurements of such a force, in the same direction as predicted by theory.  The experiments also agreed as to similar magnitudes (for the specific material and geometry of the stack being tested) .More experiments, are obviously needed.

To my mind, one of the best experiments conducted up to date was the experiment conducted by Fearn and Woodward a couple of years ago, with equal tail and head masses that showed no significant force.  This is in excellent agreement with the solution I obtained that shows that there is no force for a completely symmetric system.

-------------

(*) For curiosity, I just googled Goedel rotating universe to see whether any interesting new papers have been writen about it and found out this paper where somebody tried to look at it as an explanation for the Pioneer anomaly  :)  https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0908/0908.4067.pdf

It looks like everybody is throwing the kitchen sink to try to explain by means other than just a thermal radiation propulsion issue  :)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 09/26/2016 12:00 am
Thank you for this information. My first question wasn't stated rigorously because I do not know enough about the details of general relativity to ask it properly, but you provided the information I was interested in.

I think I would want to pick up a general relativity textbook and get more comfortable with the basics before I jump into the papers you mentioned, but once I find the time to do so, I will come back to this and study the implications in more detail. I have the math background where I could probably read them now, but I wouldn't understand what it means physically. (at least to my satisfaction, since I can be picky, I want to understand things inside and out)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Rodal on 09/26/2016 12:07 am
Thank you for this information. My first question wasn't stated rigorously because I do not know enough about the details of general relativity to ask it properly, but you provided the information I was interested in.

I think I would want to pick up a general relativity textbook and get more comfortable with the basics before I jump into the papers you mentioned, but once I find the time to do so, I will come back to this and study the implications in more detail. I have the math background where I could probably read them now, but I wouldn't understand what it means physically. (at least to my satisfaction, since I can be picky, I want to understand things inside and out)

Actually the Hoyle Narlikar papers are very difficult to read because they use an unconventional notation, just like Feynman did.  The best thing to do is to go to Hoyle Narlikar's books (*), rather than the papers.  A more straightforward approach is to start with a good General Relativity book and linearize the equations but preserving the time rates that are usually neglected.  If you like to follow this approach, I would suggest you look at Dr. Lance Williams paper in the proceedings of the Estes Workshop (when it comes out).


(*) "Lectures on Cosmology and action at a distance electrodynamics" by Fred Hoyle and Jayant V. Narlikar  world scientific 1996

"Action at a distance in physics and cosmology" Hoyle and Narlikar Freeman and co. (1974).    (recommended !)

EDIT: By the way Dirac used advanced waves in 1938 to derive the standard  theory of radiation reaction of a charged particle, see Jackson E&M.  Einstein was present when Feynman gave his first talk in absorber theory.. See "The Beat of a Different Drum: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman,
by Jagdish Mehra ". So was Bohr. Bohr turned to Einstein and said, this just can't be right Dr Einstein, don't you agree? Einstein is said to have replied... "I just think it would be hard to come up with a gravitational equivalent."  Narlikar and Hoyle (1965) went on to derive a gravitational version of absorber theory where one mass interacts directly with another to produce gravitation.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: M.E.T. on 09/26/2016 08:39 am
Dr. Rodal

As a long time follower of Woodward's experiments, (and to a lesser extent of the EMdrive which seems to have received the more serious scientific attention in recent years) I find it exciting that you have had the opportunity interact with and contribute to Heidi and Jim's work.

I am curious. Do I sense a warming from your side to the possibilities presented by Prof. Woodward's Mach Effect theories? In your view, could we, in the EM drive and Mach Effect Thruster, potentially be looking at two unrelated mechanisms that might both eventually prove to have value in the area of thrust generation?

I would find this a rather remarkable development, if so.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Rodal on 09/26/2016 01:10 pm
...could we, in the EM drive and Mach Effect Thruster, potentially be looking at two unrelated mechanisms that might both eventually prove to have value in the area of thrust generation?

I would find this a rather remarkable development, if so.
Perhaps the same mechanism is responsible for both the EM Drive and the piezoelectric/electrostrictive stacks tested by Woodward/Fearn: see

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1588165#msg1588165

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1588214#msg1588214

for Dr. Montillet's paper explaining the EM Drive's acceleration as being due to the Mach/Sciama/Woodward gravitational effect.

...Woodward does not think his Mach drive and the EM drive  operate on the same principle. As of the 1st edition of his book he was skeptical of the EM drive as being anything other than experimental error of some sort. Of course with the cross fertilization that has happened since then (E.G; the SSI conference) he may have changed his opinion on that point. The conference attendees would know if that is still the case or not.
I don't know what was his opinion previously, but the above statement is incorrect as of the Estes Park Breakthrough Workshop, as Prof. Woodward was agreeable to Dr. Montillet's explanation of the EM Drive as being due to the Mach effect.  Actually Prof. Woodward proposed an experiment (that a superconducting EM Drive's performance will be less than expected because of the much reduced skin depth) to test this idea. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: M.E.T. on 09/26/2016 01:26 pm
...could we, in the EM drive and Mach Effect Thruster, potentially be looking at two unrelated mechanisms that might both eventually prove to have value in the area of thrust generation?

I would find this a rather remarkable development, if so.
Perhaps the same mechanism is responsible for both the EM Drive and the piezoelectric/electrostrictive stacks tested by Woodward/Fearn: see

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1588165#msg1588165

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1588214#msg1588214

for Dr. Montillet's paper explaining the EM Drive's acceleration as being due to the Mach/Sciama/Woodward gravitational effect.

...Woodward does not think his Mach drive and the EM drive  operate on the same principle. As of the 1st edition of his book he was skeptical of the EM drive as being anything other than experimental error of some sort. Of course with the cross fertilization that has happened since then (E.G; the SSI conference) he may have changed his opinion on that point. The conference attendees would know if that is still the case or not.
I don't know what was his opinion previously, but the above statement is incorrect as of the Estes Park Breakthrough Workshop, as Prof. Woodward was agreeable to Dr. Montillet's explanation of the EM Drive as being due to the Mach effect.  Actually Prof. Woodward proposed an experiment (that a superconducting EM Drive's performance will be less than expected because of the much reduced skin depth) to test this idea.

Am I interpreting the above correctly? Is the suggestion that the Mach Effect was the underlying cause of the thrust signatures all along, and that the EMdrive theorists' search for alternative explanations might merely lead them back to the Mach Effect in the end?

If so, I believe this is something Prof. Woodward alluded to some years ago. Rather than saying that the EMdrive results were completely flawed, I seem to recall him suggesting originally that if there is any thrust there, it might be due to accidental Mach Effects being generated.

Are we approaching some kind of consensus among those involved in studying both phenomena that this might indeed be the case?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 09/26/2016 01:42 pm
...could we, in the EM drive and Mach Effect Thruster, potentially be looking at two unrelated mechanisms that might both eventually prove to have value in the area of thrust generation?

I would find this a rather remarkable development, if so.
Perhaps the same mechanism is responsible for both the EM Drive and the piezoelectric/electrostrictive stacks tested by Woodward/Fearn: see

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1588165#msg1588165

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1588214#msg1588214

for Dr. Montillet's paper explaining the EM Drive's acceleration as being due to the Mach/Sciama/Woodward gravitational effect.

...Woodward does not think his Mach drive and the EM drive  operate on the same principle. As of the 1st edition of his book he was skeptical of the EM drive as being anything other than experimental error of some sort. Of course with the cross fertilization that has happened since then (E.G; the SSI conference) he may have changed his opinion on that point. The conference attendees would know if that is still the case or not.
I don't know what was his opinion previously, but the above statement is incorrect as of the Estes Park Breakthrough Workshop, as Prof. Woodward was agreeable to Dr. Montillet's explanation of the EM Drive as being due to the Mach effect.  Actually Prof. Woodward proposed an experiment (that a superconducting EM Drive's performance will be less than expected because of the much reduced skin depth) to test this idea.

Am I interpreting the above correctly? Is the suggestion that the Mach Effect was the underlying cause of the thrust signatures all along, and that the EMdrive theorists' search for alternative explanations might merely lead them back to the Mach Effect in the end?

If so, I believe this is something Prof. Woodward alluded to some years ago. Rather than saying that the EMdrive results were completely flawed, I seem to recall him suggesting originally that if there is any thrust there, it might be due to accidental Mach Effects being generated.

Are we approaching some kind of consensus among those involved in studying both phenomena that this might indeed be the case?

your recollection is correct. I remember the same comment. However, Woodward was never actually against the EmDrive. He was just against the theory, Dr. White's i believe, that was being used to explain it. I would have to troll through the em drive thread but I believe this was relayed to us by Paul March in one of his ghostly appearances on the forum.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: M.E.T. on 09/26/2016 01:50 pm
...could we, in the EM drive and Mach Effect Thruster, potentially be looking at two unrelated mechanisms that might both eventually prove to have value in the area of thrust generation?

I would find this a rather remarkable development, if so.
Perhaps the same mechanism is responsible for both the EM Drive and the piezoelectric/electrostrictive stacks tested by Woodward/Fearn: see

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1588165#msg1588165

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1588214#msg1588214

for Dr. Montillet's paper explaining the EM Drive's acceleration as being due to the Mach/Sciama/Woodward gravitational effect.

...Woodward does not think his Mach drive and the EM drive  operate on the same principle. As of the 1st edition of his book he was skeptical of the EM drive as being anything other than experimental error of some sort. Of course with the cross fertilization that has happened since then (E.G; the SSI conference) he may have changed his opinion on that point. The conference attendees would know if that is still the case or not.
I don't know what was his opinion previously, but the above statement is incorrect as of the Estes Park Breakthrough Workshop, as Prof. Woodward was agreeable to Dr. Montillet's explanation of the EM Drive as being due to the Mach effect.  Actually Prof. Woodward proposed an experiment (that a superconducting EM Drive's performance will be less than expected because of the much reduced skin depth) to test this idea.

Am I interpreting the above correctly? Is the suggestion that the Mach Effect was the underlying cause of the thrust signatures all along, and that the EMdrive theorists' search for alternative explanations might merely lead them back to the Mach Effect in the end?

If so, I believe this is something Prof. Woodward alluded to some years ago. Rather than saying that the EMdrive results were completely flawed, I seem to recall him suggesting originally that if there is any thrust there, it might be due to accidental Mach Effects being generated.

Are we approaching some kind of consensus among those involved in studying both phenomena that this might indeed be the case?

your recollection is correct. I remember the same comment. However, Woodward was never actually against the EmDrive. He was just against the theory, Dr. White's i believe, that was being used to explain it. I would have to troll through the em drive thread but I believe this was relayed to us by Paul March in one of his ghostly appearances on the forum.

Yes, the Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation theory in particular was the one he disagreed with I believe. Also, in his audio interview on the Space Show about a year or so ago, which I listened to, he was quite clear in his disagreement with the above.

I just find it exciting that after all of the focus on the EMDrive, and the apparent disregard for Woodward's work during this time (this thread received almost no updates for months on end compared to the multitude of EMDrive threads), things seem to be going full circle, back to his Mach Effect theories once more.

What I'm trying to ascertain is whether this is indeed the case, or whether I am misinterpreting the latest developments.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star One on 09/26/2016 02:24 pm
...could we, in the EM drive and Mach Effect Thruster, potentially be looking at two unrelated mechanisms that might both eventually prove to have value in the area of thrust generation?

I would find this a rather remarkable development, if so.
Perhaps the same mechanism is responsible for both the EM Drive and the piezoelectric/electrostrictive stacks tested by Woodward/Fearn: see

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1588165#msg1588165

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1588214#msg1588214

for Dr. Montillet's paper explaining the EM Drive's acceleration as being due to the Mach/Sciama/Woodward gravitational effect.

...Woodward does not think his Mach drive and the EM drive  operate on the same principle. As of the 1st edition of his book he was skeptical of the EM drive as being anything other than experimental error of some sort. Of course with the cross fertilization that has happened since then (E.G; the SSI conference) he may have changed his opinion on that point. The conference attendees would know if that is still the case or not.
I don't know what was his opinion previously, but the above statement is incorrect as of the Estes Park Breakthrough Workshop, as Prof. Woodward was agreeable to Dr. Montillet's explanation of the EM Drive as being due to the Mach effect.  Actually Prof. Woodward proposed an experiment (that a superconducting EM Drive's performance will be less than expected because of the much reduced skin depth) to test this idea.

Am I interpreting the above correctly? Is the suggestion that the Mach Effect was the underlying cause of the thrust signatures all along, and that the EMdrive theorists' search for alternative explanations might merely lead them back to the Mach Effect in the end?

If so, I believe this is something Prof. Woodward alluded to some years ago. Rather than saying that the EMdrive results were completely flawed, I seem to recall him suggesting originally that if there is any thrust there, it might be due to accidental Mach Effects being generated.

Are we approaching some kind of consensus among those involved in studying both phenomena that this might indeed be the case?

your recollection is correct. I remember the same comment. However, Woodward was never actually against the EmDrive. He was just against the theory, Dr. White's i believe, that was being used to explain it. I would have to troll through the em drive thread but I believe this was relayed to us by Paul March in one of his ghostly appearances on the forum.

Yes, the Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation theory in particular was the one he disagreed with I believe. Also, in his audio interview on the Space Show about a year or so ago, which I listened to, he was quite clear in his disagreement with the above.

I just find it exciting that after all of the focus on the EMDrive, and the apparent disregard for Woodward's work during this time (this thread received almost no updates for months on end compared to the multitude of EMDrive threads), things seem to be going full circle, back to his Mach Effect theories once more.

What I'm trying to ascertain is whether this is indeed the case, or whether I am misinterpreting the latest developments.

Well this one has the advantage of not running roughshod over some of the strongest laws in physics so it was always in with a more than equal chance of being the best theoretical explanation.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 09/26/2016 03:21 pm
...

Yes, the Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation theory in particular was the one he disagreed with I believe. Also, in his audio interview on the Space Show about a year or so ago, which I listened to, he was quite clear in his disagreement with the above.

I just find it exciting that after all of the focus on the EMDrive, and the apparent disregard for Woodward's work during this time (this thread received almost no updates for months on end compared to the multitude of EMDrive threads), things seem to be going full circle, back to his Mach Effect theories once more.

What I'm trying to ascertain is whether this is indeed the case, or whether I am misinterpreting the latest developments.

While the recent focus has been on the EmDrive. the focus in the EmDrive thread has really shifted to experimentation. Every so often there would be discussions of theory. But the bulk of the correspondence in the thread is really talking about simulations and feedback on builds. I think Dr. Rodal even went as far as spinning up a different thread to expound on his mathematical comments which he would reference in the EmDrive thread.

As for whether or not things are coming full circle. I would say pump the brakes a bit. from everything I have seen Dr. Rodal say. I would say it is more accurate that the list of possible theories that could be used to explain experimental results is getting smaller with Mach Effect being close to the top. In the end, I actually wonder if Mach Effects as described by Woodward doesnt end up being more of a modal of a fraction of reality in the end.

I have in particular always been a fan of his theory given the firmer footing it always seemed to have Theoretically. In addition to it leaving open the possibility of creating traversable worm holes. However, in light of the work Dr. Rodal has recently done on Hoyle Narlikar Theory of Gravitation. Worm holes may end up being a mirage on the horizon. Though if we end up with a legit space drive with the ability to scale to thrust levels seen in current rocket technology and higher. I would gladly make that trade; it just means I will have to invest in the idea of sleeper ships if I ever hope to see humanity leave its mother star.

That said, I really really want to see this linearized GR version of Mach Effects. Mainly becasue I have been operating under the assumption that the only reason Headi adopted HN Theory was because it already had Gravitational absorber theory integrated into it. So if there is a linearized GR version of Mach Effects, one has to wonder if the absorber theory is really neccessary. Would love to hear Dr. Rodals take.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Rodal on 09/26/2016 03:40 pm
...That said, I really really want to see this linearized GR version of Mach Effects. Mainly becasue I have been operating under the assumption that the only reason Headi adopted HN Theory was because it already had Gravitational absorber theory integrated into it. So if there is a linearized GR version of Mach Effects, one has to wonder if the absorber theory is really neccessary. Would love to hear Dr. Rodals take.
1.  I think not much can be said about black holes and this theory at the moment.  It is a purely gravitational theory.  No quantum effects.  The theory and experiments is mainly directed towards space propulsion based on gravitational inertial effects and significant work remains ahead just in this very small domain.

2. Dr. Lance Williams has shown that the Mach effect transient terms can be derived from a linearized GR.  That is comforting, certainly.  Whether these solutions are present in Nature has to be resolved by experiments.  The Hoyle-Narlikar derivation from Heidi Fearn is robust from the point of view that she derives it from the fully nonlinear, covariant formulation.  My contribution is to rigorously derive a force from those transient terms.  Action at a distance (advanced waves) is needed to justify this mathematical solution as a physical solution:  under either derivation.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Tellmeagain on 09/28/2016 02:27 pm
I have the kindle version. Unfortunately those pages are the book page numbers not the ebook one so I couldnt provide you the information you want.

Thanks for the consideration anyway.

The reason I am asking origintates in the followng quote from woodward's recent monograph (http://"http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf")

Quote
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. An argument based
on an incorrect application of Newton’s second law to METs was advanced as a criticism
of Mach Effects by an Oak Ridge scientist many years ago. It is dealt with on pages 77
and 127 of Making Starships and Stargates: the Science of Interstellar Propulsion and
Absurdly Benign Wormholes.
It will not be discussed further here.

As I understand it, the argument advanced by the Oak Ridge scientist was that F=ma is only correct at the system level for systems where the mass of the system is constant in time (which is clearly not true for METs).  This is because the more general expression for Force is correctly given by (I leave it to the reader to distinguish vectors from scalars):

Fnet=(d/dt)(p)
=d/dt(mv)
=(dm/dt)v + m(dv/dt)
=(dm/dt)v + ma

where:
F=external forces (i.e. forces applied across the system boundary)
p=momentum
m=mass
v=velocity
a=acceleration
d/dt= partial derivative with respect to time

Obviously we can return to the more familiar F=ma expression by just setting mass constant so that dm/dt=0.

To demonstrate that this is the correct expression, consider the case of a rocket expelling exhaust in free space (i.e. no gravity; the only thing in this universe is the rocket and it's exhaust).  Now draw a control volume around the rocket plus a portion of the exhaust stream that has been expelled from the rocket.  Let this control volume be fixed to the rocket so it moves with it (i.e. a lagrangian control volume). 

Now as is always the case, internal forces (f) are always equal and opposite to one another, and so they sum to zero.  Because the "rocket + some exhaust" system is in free space, it experiences no external forces either, so F=0.  Remember that the force applied to the rocket by the exhaust is equal and opposite the force on the exhaust applied by the rocket.  Since we have included this portion of the exhaust in our control volume, these forces are themselves internal, and sum to zero (see attached figure). 

Now if we applied F=ma we would get that 0=ma so a=0.  Apparently rockets don't work. 

But if we apply the correct force derivation, F=d/dt(p) then we get:

Fnet=(dm/dt)v + ma
0=(dm/dt)v + ma
a=((-dm/dt)v)/m

which is the correct equation of motion for a rocket.  Essentially, when we choose a control volume where a portion of the exhaust is in the control volume and that portion has been fully accelerated (such that any particle of exhaust has a=0), then the acceleration of a rocket is NOT in fact from a "force" at all, but from the expulsion of mass across the system boundary that envelops the control volume (at least in the lagrangian interpretation).

This preamble has to do with the MET because mass fluctuations only lead to an apparent force within a closed system IF you take the INCORRECT F=ma approach as opposed to the more general F=d/dt(p) approach.  If you have a closed system (i.e. nothing transfers across the system boundary) and you apply cyclic mass variations within the system, you would see that:

Fnet=(dm/dt)v + ma
0=(dm/dt)v + ma                       (Fnet=0 because the system is closed)
0=0 + ma                                   (since there is no flow of mass across the system boundary)***
a=0

And so (following this derivation) cyclic mass variation won't actually yield any propulsive benefits.

Basically I want to see how Woodward addresses this issue, and whether it is done so in such a way as to make METs viable.  I want to see why Woodward finds this argument "incorrect" as he says.  Welcome other posters to point out any issues with this derivation as well of course. 



***If there is energy flux across the system boundary in the form of gravinertial waves, then those would account for the dm/dt term and presumably gravinertial waves travel at the speed of light, so v=c.  However, if that were the case, then the MET would be unable to achieve thrust greater than a perfectly collimated photon rocket, which can be derived as follows:

E=mc2
m=E/c2
(d/dt)m=(d/dt)E/c2
dm/dt=P/c2

E=energy
P=power
c=speed of light

Sub this expression for dm/dt into the rocket equation (realizing that we have now replaced the exhaust flow with photons/gluons/W,Z bosons, gravitons, gravienterial waves, magic energy waves - literally anything that has energy but no rest mass) and you get:

0=(P/c2)c + ma
ma=P/c

So we are back to the thrust of a perfectly collimated photon rocket.

I wrote an analysis to Professor Woodward's monograph linked in your post. I posted it in the EmDrive thread,
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1589319#msg1589319
(link to pdf available in that post)
There I included a section talking about when the equation dp/dt=Mdv/dt vdM/dt holds and when it does not hold. I think it is relevant to your discussion.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 09/29/2016 01:35 pm
I have the kindle version. Unfortunately those pages are the book page numbers not the ebook one so I couldnt provide you the information you want.

Thanks for the consideration anyway.

The reason I am asking origintates in the followng quote from woodward's recent monograph (http://"http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf")

Quote
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. An argument based
on an incorrect application of Newton’s second law to METs was advanced as a criticism
of Mach Effects by an Oak Ridge scientist many years ago. It is dealt with on pages 77
and 127 of Making Starships and Stargates: the Science of Interstellar Propulsion and
Absurdly Benign Wormholes.
It will not be discussed further here.

As I understand it, the argument advanced by the Oak Ridge scientist was that F=ma is only correct at the system level for systems where the mass of the system is constant in time (which is clearly not true for METs).  This is because the more general expression for Force is correctly given by (I leave it to the reader to distinguish vectors from scalars):

Fnet=(d/dt)(p)
=d/dt(mv)
=(dm/dt)v + m(dv/dt)
=(dm/dt)v + ma

where:
F=external forces (i.e. forces applied across the system boundary)
p=momentum
m=mass
v=velocity
a=acceleration
d/dt= partial derivative with respect to time

Obviously we can return to the more familiar F=ma expression by just setting mass constant so that dm/dt=0.

To demonstrate that this is the correct expression, consider the case of a rocket expelling exhaust in free space (i.e. no gravity; the only thing in this universe is the rocket and it's exhaust).  Now draw a control volume around the rocket plus a portion of the exhaust stream that has been expelled from the rocket.  Let this control volume be fixed to the rocket so it moves with it (i.e. a lagrangian control volume). 

Now as is always the case, internal forces (f) are always equal and opposite to one another, and so they sum to zero.  Because the "rocket + some exhaust" system is in free space, it experiences no external forces either, so F=0.  Remember that the force applied to the rocket by the exhaust is equal and opposite the force on the exhaust applied by the rocket.  Since we have included this portion of the exhaust in our control volume, these forces are themselves internal, and sum to zero (see attached figure). 

Now if we applied F=ma we would get that 0=ma so a=0.  Apparently rockets don't work. 

But if we apply the correct force derivation, F=d/dt(p) then we get:

Fnet=(dm/dt)v + ma
0=(dm/dt)v + ma
a=((-dm/dt)v)/m

which is the correct equation of motion for a rocket.  Essentially, when we choose a control volume where a portion of the exhaust is in the control volume and that portion has been fully accelerated (such that any particle of exhaust has a=0), then the acceleration of a rocket is NOT in fact from a "force" at all, but from the expulsion of mass across the system boundary that envelops the control volume (at least in the lagrangian interpretation).

This preamble has to do with the MET because mass fluctuations only lead to an apparent force within a closed system IF you take the INCORRECT F=ma approach as opposed to the more general F=d/dt(p) approach.  If you have a closed system (i.e. nothing transfers across the system boundary) and you apply cyclic mass variations within the system, you would see that:

Fnet=(dm/dt)v + ma
0=(dm/dt)v + ma                       (Fnet=0 because the system is closed)
0=0 + ma                                   (since there is no flow of mass across the system boundary)***
a=0

And so (following this derivation) cyclic mass variation won't actually yield any propulsive benefits.

Basically I want to see how Woodward addresses this issue, and whether it is done so in such a way as to make METs viable.  I want to see why Woodward finds this argument "incorrect" as he says.  Welcome other posters to point out any issues with this derivation as well of course. 



***If there is energy flux across the system boundary in the form of gravinertial waves, then those would account for the dm/dt term and presumably gravinertial waves travel at the speed of light, so v=c.  However, if that were the case, then the MET would be unable to achieve thrust greater than a perfectly collimated photon rocket, which can be derived as follows:

E=mc2
m=E/c2
(d/dt)m=(d/dt)E/c2
dm/dt=P/c2

E=energy
P=power
c=speed of light

Sub this expression for dm/dt into the rocket equation (realizing that we have now replaced the exhaust flow with photons/gluons/W,Z bosons, gravitons, gravienterial waves, magic energy waves - literally anything that has energy but no rest mass) and you get:

0=(P/c2)c + ma
ma=P/c

So we are back to the thrust of a perfectly collimated photon rocket.

I wrote an analysis to Professor Woodward's monograph linked in your post. I posted it in the EmDrive thread,
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1589319#msg1589319
(link to pdf available in that post)
There I included a section talking about when the equation dp/dt=Mdv/dt vdM/dt holds and when it does not hold. I think it is relevant to your discussion.


I had considered this discussion to be concluded. with the result being that WallOfWolfStreet having a problem that Woodward has not shown why fluctuating the mass allows him to zero out the vdM/dt term of the general equation. However, in light of new comments made about this issue. I realized that this discussion was predetermined to ending the way it did. The reason for this is neither I or any of the people who understand Woodward's theory enough believe you can draw the box to do your CoE/CoM calculation around only the MET. If you do you will end up with a violation. Woodward's Theory plainly calls for an energy exchange with the rest of the mass in the universe. I didn't have a good way of describing this before but Dr. Rodal's description of this being a type of Gravity assist I think is very apt. The only difference is you wouldn't need to sling your way around a gravitating body to gain that momentum and instead of leveraging one Gravitating mass you are leveraging all of it, chiefly the stuff very far away.

Now the impasse WallOfWolfstreet and I reached about the zeroing out of the vdM/dt term probably still exists. But I think until we have a better understanding of what happens to the mass of the FMC (Fluctuating Mass Component) part of the MET during the oscillations. I don't think a firm answer of the kind that Wall would like can be put forward. For now, the only thing that can be offered is experimental results that so far agree with the theoretical predictions of not only Woodward's original Thrust equation. But also with additional refinements of that equation. Where the refinements continue to reduce the delta between what is predicted and what is observed.

The first set of Refinements came, as I understand it, from Headi Fearn rederiving Mach Effects from Hoyle and Narlikar Theory of Gravitation while answering the critique that Stephen Hawking had raised about HN Theory. As of this month I learned from Dr. Rodal
...

2. Dr. Lance Williams has shown that the Mach effect transient terms can be derived from a linearized GR.  That is comforting, certainly.  Whether these solutions are present in Nature has to be resolved by experiments.  The Hoyle-Narlikar derivation from Heidi Fearn is robust from the point of view that she derives it from the fully nonlinear, covariant formulation.  My contribution is to rigorously derive a force from those transient terms.  Action at a distance (advanced waves) is needed to justify this mathematical solution as a physical solution:  under either derivation.

I believe Dr. Rodal has also left comments in either this thread of the EmDrive thread recently referring to successful replications being done by other experimenters outside Woodward's lab. Now, while the inner space geek in me is pretty convinced this works. My more rational side is aware of the fact that there is still work to be done. I don't think anyone is going to really accept any Mach Effect theory be it derived from HN Theory or Linearized GR until there is a high level of agreement between Experiment and predictions; they do have some of that now but the confidence bars need to further be increased.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star One on 09/29/2016 04:30 pm
I have the kindle version. Unfortunately those pages are the book page numbers not the ebook one so I couldnt provide you the information you want.

Thanks for the consideration anyway.

The reason I am asking origintates in the followng quote from woodward's recent monograph (http://"http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf")

Quote
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. An argument based
on an incorrect application of Newton’s second law to METs was advanced as a criticism
of Mach Effects by an Oak Ridge scientist many years ago. It is dealt with on pages 77
and 127 of Making Starships and Stargates: the Science of Interstellar Propulsion and
Absurdly Benign Wormholes.
It will not be discussed further here.

As I understand it, the argument advanced by the Oak Ridge scientist was that F=ma is only correct at the system level for systems where the mass of the system is constant in time (which is clearly not true for METs).  This is because the more general expression for Force is correctly given by (I leave it to the reader to distinguish vectors from scalars):

Fnet=(d/dt)(p)
=d/dt(mv)
=(dm/dt)v + m(dv/dt)
=(dm/dt)v + ma

where:
F=external forces (i.e. forces applied across the system boundary)
p=momentum
m=mass
v=velocity
a=acceleration
d/dt= partial derivative with respect to time

Obviously we can return to the more familiar F=ma expression by just setting mass constant so that dm/dt=0.

To demonstrate that this is the correct expression, consider the case of a rocket expelling exhaust in free space (i.e. no gravity; the only thing in this universe is the rocket and it's exhaust).  Now draw a control volume around the rocket plus a portion of the exhaust stream that has been expelled from the rocket.  Let this control volume be fixed to the rocket so it moves with it (i.e. a lagrangian control volume). 

Now as is always the case, internal forces (f) are always equal and opposite to one another, and so they sum to zero.  Because the "rocket + some exhaust" system is in free space, it experiences no external forces either, so F=0.  Remember that the force applied to the rocket by the exhaust is equal and opposite the force on the exhaust applied by the rocket.  Since we have included this portion of the exhaust in our control volume, these forces are themselves internal, and sum to zero (see attached figure). 

Now if we applied F=ma we would get that 0=ma so a=0.  Apparently rockets don't work. 

But if we apply the correct force derivation, F=d/dt(p) then we get:

Fnet=(dm/dt)v + ma
0=(dm/dt)v + ma
a=((-dm/dt)v)/m

which is the correct equation of motion for a rocket.  Essentially, when we choose a control volume where a portion of the exhaust is in the control volume and that portion has been fully accelerated (such that any particle of exhaust has a=0), then the acceleration of a rocket is NOT in fact from a "force" at all, but from the expulsion of mass across the system boundary that envelops the control volume (at least in the lagrangian interpretation).

This preamble has to do with the MET because mass fluctuations only lead to an apparent force within a closed system IF you take the INCORRECT F=ma approach as opposed to the more general F=d/dt(p) approach.  If you have a closed system (i.e. nothing transfers across the system boundary) and you apply cyclic mass variations within the system, you would see that:

Fnet=(dm/dt)v + ma
0=(dm/dt)v + ma                       (Fnet=0 because the system is closed)
0=0 + ma                                   (since there is no flow of mass across the system boundary)***
a=0

And so (following this derivation) cyclic mass variation won't actually yield any propulsive benefits.

Basically I want to see how Woodward addresses this issue, and whether it is done so in such a way as to make METs viable.  I want to see why Woodward finds this argument "incorrect" as he says.  Welcome other posters to point out any issues with this derivation as well of course. 



***If there is energy flux across the system boundary in the form of gravinertial waves, then those would account for the dm/dt term and presumably gravinertial waves travel at the speed of light, so v=c.  However, if that were the case, then the MET would be unable to achieve thrust greater than a perfectly collimated photon rocket, which can be derived as follows:

E=mc2
m=E/c2
(d/dt)m=(d/dt)E/c2
dm/dt=P/c2

E=energy
P=power
c=speed of light

Sub this expression for dm/dt into the rocket equation (realizing that we have now replaced the exhaust flow with photons/gluons/W,Z bosons, gravitons, gravienterial waves, magic energy waves - literally anything that has energy but no rest mass) and you get:

0=(P/c2)c + ma
ma=P/c

So we are back to the thrust of a perfectly collimated photon rocket.

I wrote an analysis to Professor Woodward's monograph linked in your post. I posted it in the EmDrive thread,
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1589319#msg1589319
(link to pdf available in that post)
There I included a section talking about when the equation dp/dt=Mdv/dt vdM/dt holds and when it does not hold. I think it is relevant to your discussion.


I had considered this discussion to be concluded. with the result being that WallOfWolfStreet having a problem that Woodward has not shown why fluctuating the mass allows him to zero out the vdM/dt term of the general equation. However, in light of new comments made about this issue. I realized that this discussion was predetermined to ending the way it did. The reason for this is neither I or any of the people who understand Woodward's theory enough believe you can draw the box to do your CoE/CoM calculation around only the MET. If you do you will end up with a violation. Woodward's Theory plainly calls for an energy exchange with the rest of the mass in the universe. I didn't have a good way of describing this before but Dr. Rodal's description of this being a type of Gravity assist I think is very apt. The only difference is you wouldn't need to sling your way around a gravitating body to gain that momentum and instead of leveraging one Gravitating mass you are leveraging all of it, chiefly the stuff very far away.

Now the impasse WallOfWolfstreet and I reached about the zeroing out of the vdM/dt term probably still exists. But I think until we have a better understanding of what happens to the mass of the FMC (Fluctuating Mass Component) part of the MET during the oscillations. I don't think a firm answer of the kind that Wall would like can be put forward. For now, the only thing that can be offered is experimental results that so far agree with the theoretical predictions of not only Woodward's original Thrust equation. But also with additional refinements of that equation. Where the refinements continue to reduce the delta between what is predicted and what is observed.

The first set of Refinements came, as I understand it, from Headi Fearn rederiving Mach Effects from Hoyle and Narlikar Theory of Gravitation while answering the critique that Stephen Hawking had raised about HN Theory. As of this month I learned from Dr. Rodal
...

2. Dr. Lance Williams has shown that the Mach effect transient terms can be derived from a linearized GR.  That is comforting, certainly.  Whether these solutions are present in Nature has to be resolved by experiments.  The Hoyle-Narlikar derivation from Heidi Fearn is robust from the point of view that she derives it from the fully nonlinear, covariant formulation.  My contribution is to rigorously derive a force from those transient terms.  Action at a distance (advanced waves) is needed to justify this mathematical solution as a physical solution:  under either derivation.

I believe Dr. Rodal has also left comments in either this thread of the EmDrive thread recently referring to successful replications being done by other experimenters outside Woodward's lab. Now, while the inner space geek in me is pretty convinced this works. My more rational side is aware of the fact that there is still work to be done. I don't think anyone is going to really accept any Mach Effect theory be it derived from HN Theory or Linearized GR until there is a high level of agreement between Experiment and predictions; they do have some of that now but the confidence bars need to further be increased.

As to you last point I can confirm that I also remember Dr. Rodal mentioning recently there has been further successful replications which came out of the SSI conference.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star One on 09/30/2016 06:39 am
CUBESAT MISSION CLARIFICATION

Quote
There has been a lot of erroneous information in media articles regarding Cannae’s upcoming launch of a cubesat mission into LEO. To clarify our previous post and press release: Cannae is not using an EmDrive thruster in our upcoming launch. Cannae is using it’s own proprietary thruster technology which requires no on-board propellant to generate thrust. In addition, this project is being done as a private venture. Cannae is only working with our private commercial partners on the upcoming mission.

http://cannae.com/cubesat-mission-clarification/
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Rodal on 12/03/2016 06:46 pm
I am periodically updating drafts of my article on Mach Effect Propulsion, a chapter in the proceedings of the 2016 Advanced Propulsion Workshop at Estes Park Colorado, to be published in the near future.

If you like, you can download my report from here:

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Mach-effect-propulsion

Best regards
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: M.E.T. on 12/03/2016 08:19 pm
I am periodically updating drafts of my article on Mach Effect Propulsion, a chapter in the proceedings of the 2016 Advanced Propulsion Workshop at Estes Park Colorado, to be published in the near future.

If you like, you can download my report from here:

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Mach-effect-propulsion

Best regards

Thank you, Dr. Rodal.

I read through it - skipping past the maths which are way beyond me.

From your expert point of view, would you say that there is something going on here? Obviously you state all the further areas that require investigation. But given the knowledge that exists now, is there a way to build a scaled up version of Woodward's lab device, which could prove or disprove whether there is an effect once and for all, by generating thrusts of useful magnitudes?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: aceshigh on 12/14/2016 01:37 am
I am periodically updating drafts of my article on Mach Effect Propulsion, a chapter in the proceedings of the 2016 Advanced Propulsion Workshop at Estes Park Colorado, to be published in the near future.

If you like, you can download my report from here:

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Mach-effect-propulsion

Best regards

Thank you, Dr. Rodal.

I read through it - skipping past the maths which are way beyond me.

From your expert point of view, would you say that there is something going on here? Obviously you state all the further areas that require investigation. But given the knowledge that exists now, is there a way to build a scaled up version of Woodward's lab device, which could prove or disprove whether there is an effect once and for all, by generating thrusts of useful magnitudes?

quoting MultiVac, MicroVac, Galactic AC and UniversalAC: "THERE IS INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER."

:)

ps: The Last Question. Isaac Asimov
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: aceshigh on 12/16/2016 12:41 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mliNE_B_vNQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9DjHfDj0Vc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcIcRS4ehZQ
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tchernik on 12/16/2016 03:06 am
Thanks. We can forget among the latest Emdrive brouhaha, that there is another competitor for space drive in town.

And this one with a pretty solid theory and experimental record itself.

BTW it was great to see all these people we hear so much about or see them posting here, now in video.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 12/19/2016 11:55 pm
BPW 2016: 23. Jeremiah Hansen "Phased Array Mach Thrusters" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0bwJriSELI&index=23&list=PL_YvUODKu7Ct45wRbvvM7ZLAr180Wmjct)

Looks like more updates. I found this particular presentation the most interesting. While I have considered the stacking idea to be useful way of increasing total thrust due to the size of each thruster. The idea that you could leverage the phased array idea to get a thrust increase was never something that occured to me. I am going to have to sit with this for a bit.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star-Drive on 12/31/2016 03:04 pm
...could we, in the EM drive and Mach Effect Thruster, potentially be looking at two unrelated mechanisms that might both eventually prove to have value in the area of thrust generation?

I would find this a rather remarkable development, if so.
Perhaps the same mechanism is responsible for both the EM Drive and the piezoelectric/electrostrictive stacks tested by Woodward/Fearn: see

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1588165#msg1588165

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1588214#msg1588214

for Dr. Montillet's paper explaining the EM Drive's acceleration as being due to the Mach/Sciama/Woodward gravitational effect.

...Woodward does not think his Mach drive and the EM drive  operate on the same principle. As of the 1st edition of his book he was skeptical of the EM drive as being anything other than experimental error of some sort. Of course with the cross fertilization that has happened since then (E.G; the SSI conference) he may have changed his opinion on that point. The conference attendees would know if that is still the case or not.
I don't know what was his opinion previously, but the above statement is incorrect as of the Estes Park Breakthrough Workshop, as Prof. Woodward was agreeable to Dr. Montillet's explanation of the EM Drive as being due to the Mach effect.  Actually Prof. Woodward proposed an experiment (that a superconducting EM Drive's performance will be less than expected because of the much reduced skin depth) to test this idea.

Am I interpreting the above correctly? Is the suggestion that the Mach Effect was the underlying cause of the thrust signatures all along, and that the EMdrive theorists' search for alternative explanations might merely lead them back to the Mach Effect in the end?

If so, I believe this is something Prof. Woodward alluded to some years ago. Rather than saying that the EMdrive results were completely flawed, I seem to recall him suggesting originally that if there is any thrust there, it might be due to accidental Mach Effects being generated.

Are we approaching some kind of consensus among those involved in studying both phenomena that this might indeed be the case?

your recollection is correct. I remember the same comment. However, Woodward was never actually against the EmDrive. He was just against the theory, Dr. White's i believe, that was being used to explain it. I would have to troll through the em drive thread but I believe this was relayed to us by Paul March in one of his ghostly appearances on the forum.

Yes, the Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation theory in particular was the one he disagreed with I believe. Also, in his audio interview on the Space Show about a year or so ago, which I listened to, he was quite clear in his disagreement with the above.

I just find it exciting that after all of the focus on the EMDrive, and the apparent disregard for Woodward's work during this time (this thread received almost no updates for months on end compared to the multitude of EMDrive threads), things seem to be going full circle, back to his Mach Effect theories once more.

What I'm trying to ascertain is whether this is indeed the case, or whether I am misinterpreting the latest developments.

MET:

I've always found it curious that Dr. Woodward so wanted to bash the quantum vacuum (QV) approach to this business, especially the way Dr. White derived his QV conjecture that uses Woodward's Mach-Effect wave equation at the heart of Sonny's conjecture, see attached 05-09-2012 Q-Thruster Operations slide.

Best, Paul M.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: sanman on 01/01/2017 09:55 am
I've always found it curious that Dr. Woodward so wanted to bash the quantum vacuum (QV) approach to this business, especially the way Dr. White derived his QV conjecture that uses Woodward's Mach-Effect wave equation at the heart of Sonny's conjecture, see attached 05-09-2012 Q-Thruster Operations slide.

Best, Paul M.

Well, if he's from the Mach-Einstein relativistic school/perspective, then he'll similarly distrust the quantum "spooky action" approach, which lies completely outside of that school/ perspective.

I'm curious - does Prof Woodward believe in the Quantum Vacuum itself?

http://www.ibtimes.com/neutron-star-provides-first-observational-evidence-vacuum-birefringence-empty-space-2454411
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star-Drive on 01/03/2017 02:04 pm
I've always found it curious that Dr. Woodward so wanted to bash the quantum vacuum (QV) approach to this business, especially the way Dr. White derived his QV conjecture that uses Woodward's Mach-Effect wave equation at the heart of Sonny's conjecture, see attached 05-09-2012 Q-Thruster Operations slide.

Best, Paul M.

Well, if he's from the Mach-Einstein relativistic school/perspective, then he'll similarly distrust the quantum "spooky action" approach, which lies completely outside of that school/ perspective.

I'm curious - does Prof Woodward believe in the Quantum Vacuum itself?

http://www.ibtimes.com/neutron-star-provides-first-observational-evidence-vacuum-birefringence-empty-space-2454411


Sanman:

"I'm curious - does Prof Woodward believe in the Quantum Vacuum itself?"

In short, no he does not.  Jim's view is that the vacuum is a pure void with no structure over than GRT based spacetime itself and that is as far is Dr. Woodward is willing to go in that venue.  Of course the next question one should ask is, "What is spacetime?"  Drum roll please...

Best, Paul M.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Rodal on 01/03/2017 05:35 pm
I've always found it curious that Dr. Woodward so wanted to bash the quantum vacuum (QV) approach to this business, especially the way Dr. White derived his QV conjecture that uses Woodward's Mach-Effect wave equation at the heart of Sonny's conjecture, see attached 05-09-2012 Q-Thruster Operations slide.

Best, Paul M.

Well, if he's from the Mach-Einstein relativistic school/perspective, then he'll similarly distrust the quantum "spooky action" approach, which lies completely outside of that school/ perspective.

I'm curious - does Prof Woodward believe in the Quantum Vacuum itself?

http://www.ibtimes.com/neutron-star-provides-first-observational-evidence-vacuum-birefringence-empty-space-2454411


Sanman:

"I'm curious - does Prof Woodward believe in the Quantum Vacuum itself?"

In short, no he does not.  Jim's view is that the vacuum is a pure void with no structure over than GRT based spacetime itself and that is as far is Dr. Woodward is willing to go in that venue.  Of course the next question one should ask is, "What is spacetime?"  Drum roll please...

Best, Paul M.

I think that Woodward subscribes to Einstein's 1920 interpretation of the aether:

http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

Quote from: Einstein
Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnetic field, our present view of the universe presents two realities which are completely separated from each other conceptually, although connected causally, namely, gravitational ether and electromagnetic field, or - as they might also be called - space and matter.

Of course it would be a great advance if we could succeed in comprehending the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field together as one unified conformation. Then for the first time the epoch of theoretical physics founded by Faraday and Maxwell would reach a satisfactory conclusion. The contrast between ether and matter would fade away, and, through the general theory of relativity, the whole of physics would become a complete system of thought, like geometry, kinematics, and the theory of gravitation. An exceedingly ingenious attempt in this direction has been made by the mathematician H Weyl; but I do not believe that his theory will hold its ground in relation to reality. Further, in contemplating the immediate future of theoretical physics we ought not unconditionally to reject the possibility that the facts comprised in the quantum theory may set bounds to the field theory beyond which it cannot pass.

Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.

Bold added for emphasis
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Rodal on 01/03/2017 05:40 pm
1) I added new calculations for the Mach effect drive free in space and compares with the results for damping force end fixity, a preliminary model of the Fearn-Woodward experiments.

2) Book format

3) Thanks to NSF member Meberbs once again for pointing out the difference between a Woodward MEGA drive in space vs. a Woodward MEGA drive in the Woodward experiments, (concerning damping force fixity in the second case).  I solved the equations for the MEGA drive in space (which are much simpler in space than in the experiment) and are featured in this new version:


https://www.researchgate.net/project/Mach-effect-propulsion
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: CW on 01/03/2017 06:02 pm
I've always found it curious that Dr. Woodward so wanted to bash the quantum vacuum (QV) approach to this business, especially the way Dr. White derived his QV conjecture that uses Woodward's Mach-Effect wave equation at the heart of Sonny's conjecture, see attached 05-09-2012 Q-Thruster Operations slide.

Best, Paul M.

Well, if he's from the Mach-Einstein relativistic school/perspective, then he'll similarly distrust the quantum "spooky action" approach, which lies completely outside of that school/ perspective.

I'm curious - does Prof Woodward believe in the Quantum Vacuum itself?

http://www.ibtimes.com/neutron-star-provides-first-observational-evidence-vacuum-birefringence-empty-space-2454411


Sanman:

"I'm curious - does Prof Woodward believe in the Quantum Vacuum itself?"

In short, no he does not.  Jim's view is that the vacuum is a pure void with no structure over than GRT based spacetime itself and that is as far is Dr. Woodward is willing to go in that venue.  Of course the next question one should ask is, "What is spacetime?"  Drum roll please...

Best, Paul M.

I would reply this: A 'pure void' is a thing that the human mind in principle cannot even imagine. A biological mind only works if there is 'something' (sensory and/or self-generated neural data) that it can process. Believing in spacetime to be a 'void', which actually cannot be imagined due to, uh, (bio)technical reasons rooted in the way a thinking mind works, opens a dangerous path into self-delusion. 'Spacetime' is very obviously something that connects everything in a mind-boggling manner which our minds, that simply have evolved to survive on this planet and nothing more in the first place, simply cannot process. Humans need food, shelter, clothing and produce offspring that hopefully repeat the process (perhaps even more successfully). That's what our brains and minds are good at. It is no wonder at all why so many people fail miserably at modern life. It is too demanding on a brain that just didn't evolve to be excellent at abstract thinking and process the immense data flow nowadays. A small fraction of people can do and cope with this, as can be observed. But overall.. nah  :D .
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: sanman on 01/05/2017 09:56 am
Sanman:

"I'm curious - does Prof Woodward believe in the Quantum Vacuum itself?"

In short, no he does not.  Jim's view is that the vacuum is a pure void with no structure over than GRT based spacetime itself and that is as far is Dr. Woodward is willing to go in that venue.  Of course the next question one should ask is, "What is spacetime?"  Drum roll please...

Best, Paul M.

Heh, it's like believing in the carpet but not the threads, or believing in the air/water but not the molecules.

I wonder how Prof Woodward explains Hawking Radiation from black holes...



I think that Woodward subscribes to Einstein's 1920 interpretation of the aether:

http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

Quote from: Einstein
Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnetic field, our present view of the universe presents two realities which are completely separated from each other conceptually, although connected causally, namely, gravitational ether and electromagnetic field, or - as they might also be called - space and matter.

Of course it would be a great advance if we could succeed in comprehending the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field together as one unified conformation. Then for the first time the epoch of theoretical physics founded by Faraday and Maxwell would reach a satisfactory conclusion. The contrast between ether and matter would fade away, and, through the general theory of relativity, the whole of physics would become a complete system of thought, like geometry, kinematics, and the theory of gravitation. An exceedingly ingenious attempt in this direction has been made by the mathematician H Weyl; but I do not believe that his theory will hold its ground in relation to reality. Further, in contemplating the immediate future of theoretical physics we ought not unconditionally to reject the possibility that the facts comprised in the quantum theory may set bounds to the field theory beyond which it cannot pass.

Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.

Bold added for emphasis

"as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."

And yet the idea of "foam" accommodates Einstein's restrictions, due to the transient brevity of its "bubbles" which don't persist beyond a Planck-length in time.
Like the "snow" you see on your TV set, when you're not receiving a signal.

Michelson-Morley only disproved the existence of a persistent aether, but did not disprove the idea of the transient/dynamic quantum-foam aether.

What's most important is Occam's Razor. Whether you find the Quantum Vacuum idea to be the more convenient visualization, or whether you find some other form of expression to be more convenient to deal with, they still need to tie multiple fundamental phenomena together to explain everything more economically.

I wonder if there's some way to reach/attain Planck-scale frequencies, to find some way to briefly couple with those short-lived vacuum constituents, pushing off them before they vanish. Like those animals that can walk on water by moving their legs fast enough, before the water gives way beneath each step of their feet. When a virtual particle-antiparticle pair has vanished, it's beyond the point of being able to interact with it -- it's only during that brief fleeting appearance that there's a possibility of interacting with and pushing off it.

And yet, anytime we see some fundamental conversion event happening - like when a photon transfers its energy to an electron, or when a photon/wave reflects off some matter to change direction - aren't these seemingly instantaneous events happening on that Planck-time scale? Is what why an EMdrive or MEGA could work? Is that where the coupling with the Quantum Vacuum fluctuations is happening, to "push" off them?  :-X
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 01/05/2017 10:32 am
I've always found it curious that Dr. Woodward so wanted to bash the quantum vacuum (QV) approach to this business, especially the way Dr. White derived his QV conjecture that uses Woodward's Mach-Effect wave equation at the heart of Sonny's conjecture, see attached 05-09-2012 Q-Thruster Operations slide.

Best, Paul M.

Well, if he's from the Mach-Einstein relativistic school/perspective, then he'll similarly distrust the quantum "spooky action" approach, which lies completely outside of that school/ perspective.

I'm curious - does Prof Woodward believe in the Quantum Vacuum itself?

http://www.ibtimes.com/neutron-star-provides-first-observational-evidence-vacuum-birefringence-empty-space-2454411


Sanman:

"I'm curious - does Prof Woodward believe in the Quantum Vacuum itself?"

In short, no he does not.  Jim's view is that the vacuum is a pure void with no structure over than GRT based spacetime itself and that is as far is Dr. Woodward is willing to go in that venue.  Of course the next question one should ask is, "What is spacetime?"  Drum roll please...

Best, Paul M.

I think that Woodward subscribes to Einstein's 1920 interpretation of the aether:

http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

Quote from: Einstein
Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnetic field, our present view of the universe presents two realities which are completely separated from each other conceptually, although connected causally, namely, gravitational ether and electromagnetic field, or - as they might also be called - space and matter.

Of course it would be a great advance if we could succeed in comprehending the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field together as one unified conformation. Then for the first time the epoch of theoretical physics founded by Faraday and Maxwell would reach a satisfactory conclusion. The contrast between ether and matter would fade away, and, through the general theory of relativity, the whole of physics would become a complete system of thought, like geometry, kinematics, and the theory of gravitation. An exceedingly ingenious attempt in this direction has been made by the mathematician H Weyl; but I do not believe that his theory will hold its ground in relation to reality. Further, in contemplating the immediate future of theoretical physics we ought not unconditionally to reject the possibility that the facts comprised in the quantum theory may set bounds to the field theory beyond which it cannot pass.

Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.

Bold added for emphasis

Exactly. Let me add Woodward's own comment on that text:

"Einstein's use of the term "aether" and the role of spacetime in general relativity.  This goes back to a lecture given by Einstein at Leiden in 1920 with Lorentz in the audience.  Einstein allowed as how general relativity had reintroduced the notion of the aether in spacetime, something he knew Lorentz would view with approval.  Einstein had no intention of reintroducing the aether of Maxwell and Lorentz.  He was in the process of adopting the view that spacetime IS the gravitational field.  In part, he was motivated by his view of inertia, for he was of the view that inertia is a property conferred on material stuff by the spacetime in which it resides.  Just as it is in Newtonian mechanics.

Between the publication of general relativity in late 1915 and the early 1920s Einstein's take on his own theory underwent some serious critiques, and Einstein seemed to vacillate on some foundational points.  We've already noted that he was seduced by the idea that gravity equals curvature, and had to be corrected by Levi-Civita.  This was the time when he floated the idea and name) of "Mach's principle", which he was forced to abandon under the withering criticism of Willem deSitter.  Nonetheless, he remained firmly committed to what he called "the relativity of inertia",  which was code for Mach's principle without the action at a distance field theory that theory demanded.

By 1924, Einstein had pretty well figured out where he stood on the foundational issues and how he thought general relativity should be understood.  He wrote this up in an essay "On the Aether", readily accessible in English translation on the web.  In the essay he quickly rejects the earlier ideas on "aethers" and says that by aether what he means is a physically existent entity, spacetime, which, unlike the space and time of classical physics, is a deformable entity that responds to the presence of matter.  Actually, he goes farther and asserts that spacetime IS the gravitational field  He did this because in his view the chief role of spacetime is to confer inertia on stuff therein, and produce the actions that we recognize as inertial effects.  Note that by doing this, Einstein makes inertia a gravitational effect.  This is the essence of Mach's principle without the label and controversy.

Einstein's 1924 essay "On the Aether" is the culmination of his thought on the issues of the meaning of general relativity.  How do we know?  Well, if  you read his letter to Born in 1950 you'll find his remarks informed by his essay, and the exchanges with Levi-Civita and deSitter.  This is NOT the "modern" view of general relativity in the eyes of some relativists."
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: sanman on 01/06/2017 10:50 am
So just a question regarding the relationship between Mach Effect and the whole "distant masses of the rest of universe" thing -- why would the oscillation of the masses in the apparatus produce an instantaneous effect in terms of motion, when the rest of the universe that the apparatus is supposed to be interacting with is so distant? Doesn't Mach's Principle take into account lightspeed delay when interaction is happening across vast distances?

If inertia itself is something which we know is experienced instantaneously, then how is this rationalized under Mach's Principle that inertia is the result of interaction with the entire rest of the universe? How can the entire rest of the universe - much of which is so distant - communicate its side of the interaction with us so quickly, from so far away?

Doesn't this stuff violate Locality?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 01/06/2017 11:10 am
So just a question regarding the relationship between Mach Effect and the whole "distant masses of the rest of universe" thing -- why would the oscillation of the masses in the apparatus produce an instantaneous effect in terms of motion, when the rest of the universe that the apparatus is supposed to be interacting with is so distant? Doesn't Mach's Principle take into account lightspeed delay when interaction is happening across vast distances?

Inertial reaction forces are instantaneous and do not propagate at (are not limited by) the speed of light. Mach's principle need a field for such an "action-at-a-distance" provided by the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler–Feynman_absorber_theory).

Dennis Sciama, who first formulated Mach's principle as a vector theory of gravity then in a tensor formalism equivalent to general relativity, stated that instantaneous inertial forces in all accelerating objects are produced by a primordial gravity-based inertial radiative field created by distant cosmic matter and propagating both forwards and backwards in time at light speed.

As previously formulated by Sciama, Woodward suggests that the Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory would be the correct way to understand the action of instantaneous inertial forces in Machian terms:

• J. F. Woodward: "Radiation Reaction" (https://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/general/radreact/)

The Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory is an interpretation of electrodynamics that starts from the idea that a solution to the electromagnetic field equations has to be symmetric with respect to time-inversion, as are the field equations themselves. Wheeler and Feynman showed that the propagating solutions to classical wave equations can either be "retarded" (i.e. propagate forward in time) or "advanced" (propagate backward in time). The absorber theory has been used to explain quantum entanglement and led to the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics, as well as the Hoyle-Narlikar theory of gravity, a Machian version of Einstein's general relativity, that is now used to explain Mach effect propulsion or "Woodward effect".
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: sanman on 01/06/2017 12:15 pm
I hear what you're saying, and I can parse it at an abstract level - but when you talk of "propagating backwards in time", this to me makes it difficult to reconcile with what we experience as observers, which is always in a forward chronological direction of causality. It's extremely counter-intuitive, and I realize that abstracting it into mathematics helps us to cope with that, but I want to know why this "propagating backwards in time" isn't construed as a violation of causality.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 01/06/2017 12:30 pm
I agree our brain is not wired to visualize two simultaneous events counter-propagating in time. But the absorber theory doesn't violate causality because the advanced wave never propagate before (said in our own chronological order) the event that triggered the departure of the retarded wave.

There is a concrete image given by Woodward in his book "Making Starships and Stargates" allowing to grasp the mathematical idea a bit, that I wrote in this post in the EM drive thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1586983#msg1586983):
Quote from: flux_capacitor
A first image to understand would be filming a sequence where a rock is thrown in the middle of a pond, making concentric ripples on the water propagating towards the shore.
Running the sequence backwards (thinking it as seeing events running backward in time) we then observe concentric waves propagating from the shore towards the center of the pond, where a rock emerges.
The thing to understand is that advanced waves coming back from the future never propagate farther into the past than the rock hitting the water that initiated all of the waves.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: sanman on 01/06/2017 01:19 pm
I agree our brain is not wired to visualize two simultaneous events counter-propagating in time. But the absorber theory doesn't violate causality because the advanced wave never propagate before (said in our own chronological order) the event that triggered the departure of the retarded wave.

There is a concrete image given by Woodward in his book "Making Starships and Stargates" allowing to grasp the mathematical idea a bit, that I wrote in this post in the EM drive thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1586983#msg1586983):
Quote from: flux_capacitor
A first image to understand would be filming a sequence where a rock is thrown in the middle of a pond, making concentric ripples on the water propagating towards the shore.
Running the sequence backwards (thinking it as seeing events running backward in time) we then observe concentric waves propagating from the shore towards the center of the pond, where a rock emerges.
The thing to understand is that advanced waves coming back from the future never propagate farther into the past than the rock hitting the water that initiated all of the waves.

But it seems to hint at "pre-determination" though -- that wave is heading "backward in time" toward you, the observer -- meaning that it's coming backwards from the future.

You're saying that's okay, just as long as you haven't experienced any of these events yet, that they can keep moving back towards you from the farther future into your immediate future, where they will then combine to create your present.

But from a causality perspective, something that hasn't happened yet is reacting to my present-moment action -- ie. the distant mass of the universe is already interacting with something I have yet to do -- moving on an intercept course with it.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 01/06/2017 06:55 pm
I agree our brain is not wired to visualize two simultaneous events counter-propagating in time. But the absorber theory doesn't violate causality because the advanced wave never propagate before (said in our own chronological order) the event that triggered the departure of the retarded wave.

There is a concrete image given by Woodward in his book "Making Starships and Stargates" allowing to grasp the mathematical idea a bit, that I wrote in this post in the EM drive thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1586983#msg1586983):
Quote from: flux_capacitor
A first image to understand would be filming a sequence where a rock is thrown in the middle of a pond, making concentric ripples on the water propagating towards the shore.
Running the sequence backwards (thinking it as seeing events running backward in time) we then observe concentric waves propagating from the shore towards the center of the pond, where a rock emerges.
The thing to understand is that advanced waves coming back from the future never propagate farther into the past than the rock hitting the water that initiated all of the waves.

But it seems to hint at "pre-determination" though -- that wave is heading "backward in time" toward you, the observer -- meaning that it's coming backwards from the future.

You're saying that's okay, just as long as you haven't experienced any of these events yet, that they can keep moving back towards you from the farther future into your immediate future, where they will then combine to create your present.

But from a causality perspective, something that hasn't happened yet is reacting to my present-moment action -- ie. the distant mass of the universe is already interacting with something I have yet to do -- moving on an intercept course with it.

I could be wrong here... but I am wondering if the model you're applying in your question is really the problem here.

It feels like your question presupposes that pre-determination requires that actions define the space of possible reactions available to the universe.

I would argue another model would be, what if the universe already has defined every possible action that could ever be taken within it. It doesn't know or need to know the order of those actions. It doesn't need to know when or how far away those actions are. It has simply defined that only these set of actions will be allowed for the lifetime of the universe. If that is true, then one potential answer to your question about pre-determination; would be that the chiefly distant matter of the universe is always emitting advanced waves of every possible configuration. Then when you trigger an event, that event emits a specific retarded wave that matches a specifically configured advanced wave. Thereby bringing the effect the event is supposed to trigger into existence.

It is in a way a kind of pre-determination. but I would argue this kind of pre-determination is required for the scientific method to work. The system has a finite set of possibilities and is aware of all the possibilities it can support. It just can't pre-determine which possibility it will see next.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 01/06/2017 08:33 pm
You really should read Woodward's MUSH paper he published in 1995 (cited in the first page of this thread BTW) and see what he has to say regarding causality, determinism and the nature of time, according to the various interpretations of quantum mechanics, especially the Transactional Interpretation which uses the absorber theory and its advanced and retarded solutions:

• Woodward, J. F. (1995). "Making the Universe Safe for Historians: Time Travel and the Laws of Physics" (http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/MUSH.pdf). Foundations of Physics Letters, 8(1).
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: sanman on 01/07/2017 02:44 am
I could be wrong here... but I am wondering if the model you're applying in your question is really the problem here.

It feels like your question presupposes that pre-determination requires that actions define the space of possible reactions available to the universe.

Fair enough - I'd had the same idea in mind when I posed my question, and so I guess I was awaiting this kind of response as a validation.


Quote
I would argue another model would be, what if the universe already has defined every possible action that could ever be taken within it. It doesn't know or need to know the order of those actions. It doesn't need to know when or how far away those actions are. It has simply defined that only these set of actions will be allowed for the lifetime of the universe. If that is true, then one potential answer to your question about pre-determination; would be that the chiefly distant matter of the universe is always emitting advanced waves of every possible configuration. Then when you trigger an event, that event emits a specific retarded wave that matches a specifically configured advanced wave. Thereby bringing the effect the event is supposed to trigger into existence.

It is in a way a kind of pre-determination. but I would argue this kind of pre-determination is required for the scientific method to work. The system has a finite set of possibilities and is aware of all the possibilities it can support. It just can't pre-determine which possibility it will see next.

Yeah, I wonder about that stuff, from time to time.

The very process of consciousness/thinking amounts to proceeding through a sequence of electrochemical entropy states, and that sequence becomes the ordinal we define as "time". It's therefore no mere coincidence that the "Arrow of Entropy" is highly correlated to the axis of "time". The whole concept of "time" -- whether past, present, future, or even the "passage of time" -- is an illusion, a byproduct of how our brains work. This creates a fundamental bias in how we humans function as observers.

This "time" axis or dimension which we use to define spacetime when analyzing the universe, has thus arisen from our inherent and inalienable biases owing to the very way our brains work. We then rely upon mathematics to allow us to objectively analyze the world, and yet our human biases once again reappear as we attempt to interpret mathematical results and place them in "real-world" context ("real-world" as we see it).

This stuff perhaps sounds metaphysical (aka. hokey), but it's useful to be aware of these things - because even though in our everyday lives we're stuck on this "track" called "time" because of how our brains work, the rest of reality isn't confined to how we experience things as observers.

So while "spacetime" implies 4 degrees of freedom (x,y,z,t), one of them is pinned down in a particular orientation, (entropy orientation) and we call it "time".

Can we then make additional use of that entropy correlation somehow, to extract further insight into "spacetime" - including its hidden background processes like the Quantum Vacuum?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: CW on 01/07/2017 12:02 pm
OK, here is my take on the absorber theory. One has to wonder where all the antimatter is. I suppose it exists, but beyond a sort of higher dimensional mirror surface that mirrors each action exactly as it appears in our universe. By my understanding of the current model (please correct me if I'm wrong), antimatter can be viewed as matter that travels backwards in time (see electron <-> positron, Feynman et al.) . If we draw a 2D half space on paper with a particle p+ at (x,y), and a particle p- at (-x,-y) and all vectors / properties (including time axis) reversed, then it all adds up to zero, which would satisfy absolute conservation of momentum and energy. This means that in the entirety of reality, all is a zero sum game, as it should be, lest we want to involve 'gods' which are substitutions for 'x' , solving nothing.

In my idea, half of physical reality is actually inaccessible to us. So we are missing something important. In the case of the EM drive, if one exists and works in our part of reality then it also exists and works in the other part. They are mirror images of each other, reflections of a dimensional mirror. In that model, an EM drive that seems to produce energy when accelerating for long enough, does this in both 'half-realities' with - relative to our viewpoint - reversed properties. All properties compensate each other to exactly zero at any point in time, when doing the integral over both half spaces. So in my idea, there is no violation of any conservation laws. It may look like that in our part of reality, but it actually is not.

Just some brainstorming and philosophy here. Let me know what you think of this ;D .
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 01/07/2017 12:55 pm
CW, the "exact event mirror of two parallel folds" is not the way the absorber theory works, but your point about the antimatter travelling backwards in time is interesting.

Antimatter has a positive mass, it does not "fall upwards" in a gravitational potential. Having a positive mass, it has a positive energy, for E = mc2. Incidentally, if antimatter had a negative energy, the annihilation of an antiparticle of energy -E with a particle of energy E would produce… nothing.

An antiparticle in the sense of Dirac is the C-symmetry of its particle (charge conjugation).

It is true Feynman described another beast, PT-symmetry of a particle: Parity and time reversal of normal matter. This "antimatter in the sense of Feynman" does indeed "travel backwards in time". It is NOT Dirac's antimatter as we know it.

This idea of Feynman (PT-symmetrical particles) implies the presence of antichron components in the complete extended Poincaré group. Yet, such antichron components are usually withdrawn from conventional physics equations, in both general relativity and quantum mechanics. Yet, when you work with the complete Poincaré group in the dynamic group theory, you see that time inversion from the coadjoint action of the group on its momentum space changes the sign of the mass and energy.

T-symmetry of a particle simply means inverting the energy of that particle, and its mass if it has one.

If you search for the roots of such a withdrawal of antichron and negative energy particle in physics, you will discover this has been decided because such solutions (the negative mass solution in particular) are "evidently preposterous" due to the runaway paradox. See "Negative mass: Runaway motion" on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass#Runaway_motion).

So instead of finding theoretical ways to resolve such a paradox due to the physical existence of negative energy particles, scientists decided to use only half of Physics!

And there is a way to resolve the preposterous runaway motion paradox, which rightly uses Feynman's PT-symmetrical particles and a 2-metric description of the universe in general relativity, allowing the physical existence of the two kinds of particles. BTW it is very similar to your own idea! Such a solution is described in the last two peer-reviewed papers referenced at the end of the section "Arrow of time and space inversion" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass#Arrow_of_time_and_space_inversion) of the same page about the negative mass.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Stormbringer on 01/07/2017 01:12 pm
it is generally assumed that such anti physical results of physics math are unreal and thus should be excluded when modeling what is possible in the physical universe. But this is not a universally held notion. At least not when exploring strange phenomenon. At such times theorists sometimes evoke hidden sectors in which at least some if not all of the normally discarded non physical results are real. These hidden sectors preserve real physics in our familiar world while allowing really weird physics to be real so long as they are generally walled off from measurement.

I have mentioned this several times in the past and just the other day in the EM drive thread. The first time i heard of hidden sectors was in reference to mirror neutrons. The last time was about something else all together. I know considering such things makes"serious" physicists buttocks itch but these ideas come from serious physicists as well;  so i suggest getting some analgesic creme for that itch.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 01/07/2017 01:27 pm
Yes, "hidden sector" is a trending name nowadays. In the past cosmologists used other terms such as "parallel universe", "multiverse", "bubble universe", "membrane universe", "shadow universe", "mirror matter", "twin fold", "bimetric", bigravity, etc. (not all equivalent)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Stormbringer on 01/07/2017 01:47 pm
well this is the article i referred to as being the most recent:

http://phys.org/news/2017-01-multiple-standard-hierarchy-problem.html

and the one below is the one that originally blew my mind. i consider myself as wading in the fringe a bit. But i knew of no serious credentialed respectable science equivalent of the gooey raving mad goodness of some of the fringe stuff that holds my interest. And i know nearly all of it is utter fantasy.

Until i saw:

http://phys.org/news/2012-06-neutrons-parallel-world.html

and later i saw

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060325232140.htm

(It's not important that Dr Tajmar retracted due to experimental error. It's important that the articles on this acknowledge a predicted coupling (in relativity) between magnetism and gravity. and that credentialed commentary acknowledged that this has been known all along (at least since the time of Einstein.) )

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 01/07/2017 01:58 pm
and later i saw

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060325232140.htm

(It's not important that Dr Tajmar retracted due to experimental error. It's important that the articles on this acknowledge a predicted coupling (in relativity) between magnetism and gravity. and that credentialed commentary acknowledged that this has been known all along (at least since the time of Einstein.) )

This Tajmar experiment is related to Podkletnov, isn't it?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Stormbringer on 01/07/2017 02:13 pm


This Tajmar experiment is related to Podkletnov, isn't it?

I think it may be. He did try to replicate podkletnov in one of his experiments but i am not sure it was this precise set of experiments. I believe he went on to try something that required a similar experimental set up. I am not sure if this is about his replication experiment or another one. I recall that he later said his results were really due to sublimation gases of his cryocoolant flowing into the set up. But i think Podkletnov complained that even Tajmar could not fully replicate his test article and set up. he made similar claims about NASA and Boeing. Maybe he didn't about Tajmar. i cannot recall for sure.

(parenthetically Podkletnov is still experimenting and claims even more definite proof of his effect. you can find video interviews in the fringe portion of Youtube and places like that.)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: sanman on 01/07/2017 02:43 pm
This idea of Feynman (PT-symmetrical particles) implies the presence of antichron components in the complete extended Poincaré group. Yet, such antichron components are usually withdrawn from conventional physics equations, in both general relativity and quantum mechanics. Yet, when you work with the complete Poincaré group in the dynamic group theory, you see that time inversion from the coadjoint action of the group on its momentum space changes the sign of the mass and energy.

Doesn't this PT-symmetry then amount to a "trivial solution" which can be invoked for all cases?
Isn't that why many physicists would avoid it?


This Tajmar experiment is related to Podkletnov, isn't it?

I thought Podkletnov stuff was the hokier claim of "anti-gravity" using a superconducting wheel, whereas Dr Tajmar's experiment also happened to use a superconductive wheel but was about measuring a gravitomagnetic moment and did not involve any claims about anti-gravity.

Anyway, what happened to a different claim about the laser gyro being affected by the rotation of a superconductive ring nearby? Is that experimental observation still valid, or has it been de-bunked yet?

In the other thread you guys just now once again cited McCulloch's theory of MiHSC quantized inertia, which was also previously cited to explain the laser gyro acceleration thing, to make predictions about the EMdrive.
Can McCulloch's MiHSC/quantized-inertia theory similarly make predictions for Woodward's MEGA-drive?

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Stormbringer on 01/07/2017 02:52 pm


I thought Podkletnov stuff was the hokier claim of "anti-gravity" using a superconducting wheel, whereas Dr Tajmar's experiment also happened to use a superconductive wheel but was about measuring a gravitomagnetic moment and did not involve any claims about anti-gravity.



I believe there were two sets of experiments. You are right about the later Tajmar experiments. but i seem to recall that he was also involved in a replication experiment concerning Podkletnovs claims earlier. If this is true it is best not to conflate both sets of experiments even though the hokiness factor of Podkletnovs stuff remains undecided as far as i am concerned.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: CW on 01/07/2017 06:18 pm
it is generally assumed that such anti physical results of physics math are unreal and thus should be excluded when modeling what is possible in the physical universe. But this is not a universally held notion. At least not when exploring strange phenomenon. At such times theorists sometimes evoke hidden sectors in which at least some if not all of the normally discarded non physical results are real. These hidden sectors preserve real physics in our familiar world while allowing really weird physics to be real so long as they are generally walled off from measurement.

I have mentioned this several times in the past and just the other day in the EM drive thread. The first time i heard of hidden sectors was in reference to mirror neutrons. The last time was about something else all together. I know considering such things makes"serious" physicists buttocks itch but these ideas come from serious physicists as well;  so i suggest getting some analgesic creme for that itch.

The thing is that itching buttocks in and of themselves do not make for great arguments ;) . It at least seems to me as if half of physics is ignored due to phlegma and (as of now) scientific incompetence, and resulting from that, seemingly weird things like EM-drive happen. If we suppose that there were a mirror half space, the humans on the other side would come to exactly the same conclusions as us here. Same arguments, same incompetence in grasping what's going on. OK, I'm silent again. Let the pros do their stuff.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 01/07/2017 07:33 pm
This idea of Feynman (PT-symmetrical particles) implies the presence of antichron components in the complete extended Poincaré group. Yet, such antichron components are usually withdrawn from conventional physics equations, in both general relativity and quantum mechanics. Yet, when you work with the complete Poincaré group in the dynamic group theory, you see that time inversion from the coadjoint action of the group on its momentum space changes the sign of the mass and energy.

Doesn't this PT-symmetry then amount to a "trivial solution" which can be invoked for all cases?
Isn't that why many physicists would avoid it?

Why PT-symmetric particles would be a "trivial solution"?

According to Dirac and Feynman we should account for 4 types of matter:
• our own normal matter
• our antimatter (C-symmetric matter)
• mirror matter (PT-symmetric of our matter)
• mirror antimatter (C-symmetric of the mirror matter, and CPT-symmetric of our matter)

Because of the T-symmetry, mirror matter and mirror antimatter have negative energy and negative mass, and emit negative energy photons, so they can't be seen directly, they could only be detected indirectly through their gravitational effects on the matter in the universe. They are good alternate candidates to explain all effects usually attributed to the mysterious dark matter.

May I add that if our matter dominated the cosmological antimatter because of the CP-violation, the same but opposite CP-violation may have occurred during the baryogenesis of the adjacent sector. This is very speculative but this elegant solution to preserve the symmetry globally has been first proposed by Andrei Sakharov in 1967.

Apparent problem: the mirror antimatter, C-symmetric of the mirror matter and CPT symmetric of our matter, would contradict the CPT theorem, which states the CPT-symmetric of a particle behaves like that particle, that it is the same. This implies that T-symmetry, as classically viewed by the quantum field theory, does not reverse the energy. But this is a postulate originating from an ad hoc arbitrary choice with respect to the time-reversal operator.

Quantum mechanics depends on the structure of operators, and we have P and T operators. In dynamical group theory, these operators are real, so that T-symmetry goes with the inversion of energy. But in quantum mechanics, operators become complex so that they may be:

unitary – antiunitary
linear – antilinear


If the time-inversion T would be unitary and linear, T-inversion would create negative energy states.

Steven Weinberg wrote in the "bible" "The Quantum Theory of Field" (https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Theory-Fields-Foundations/dp/0521670535), pp. 74-76, section "Space inversion and Time-Reversal":
Quote from: Steven Weinberg
There are no states of negative energy. If we supposed that T is linear and unitary then we get the disastrous conclusion that for any state Ψ of energy E there is another state T-1Ψ of energy -E. To avoid it we are forced here to conclude that T is antilinear and antiunitary.

Until the discovery of the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, nothing in physics indicated that negative energy would be present somewhere. But this acceleration implies the action of a negative pressure. A pressure is a density of energy per unit of volume by the way.

So this question must be reconsidered. It's anything but trivial.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 01/10/2017 03:51 am
...

MET:

I've always found it curious that Dr. Woodward so wanted to bash the quantum vacuum (QV) approach to this business, especially the way Dr. White derived his QV conjecture that uses Woodward's Mach-Effect wave equation at the heart of Sonny's conjecture, see attached 05-09-2012 Q-Thruster Operations slide.

Best, Paul M.

Hi Paul,

I for one would really like to read Sonny's response to Dr. Woodward's recent JBIS article. He makes a really good case, in that if the QV were the propellant, it would be easily detectable by its mass. I add to this, that it would also be detectable by an enormous amount of heat.

It could be, as you've told me that, the virtual electron-positron pairs are not fully formed. They do not have the full on-shell mass that real particles would have. Therefore, their annihilation might not produce that much hea. However, if they have enough mass to make a reasonable propellant, then the temperature of annihilation should still be detectable, but just not 1000's of Kelvin.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 01/10/2017 04:03 am
This idea of Feynman (PT-symmetrical particles) implies the presence of antichron components in the complete extended Poincaré group. Yet, such antichron components are usually withdrawn from conventional physics equations, in both general relativity and quantum mechanics. Yet, when you work with the complete Poincaré group in the dynamic group theory, you see that time inversion from the coadjoint action of the group on its momentum space changes the sign of the mass and energy.

Doesn't this PT-symmetry then amount to a "trivial solution" which can be invoked for all cases?
Isn't that why many physicists would avoid it?

Why PT-symmetric particles would be a "trivial solution"?

According to Dirac and Feynman we should account for 4 types of matter:
• our own normal matter
• our antimatter (C-symmetric matter)
• mirror matter (PT-symmetric of our matter)
• mirror antimatter (C-symmetric of the mirror matter, and CPT-symmetric of our matter)

Because of the T-symmetry, mirror matter and mirror antimatter have negative energy and negative mass, and emit negative energy photons, so they can't be seen directly, they could only be detected indirectly through their gravitational effects on the matter in the universe. They are good alternate candidates to explain all effects usually attributed to the mysterious dark matter.

May I add that if our matter dominated the cosmological antimatter because of the CP-violation, the same but opposite CP-violation may have occurred during the baryogenesis of the adjacent sector. This is very speculative but this elegant solution to preserve the symmetry globally has been first proposed by Andrei Sakharov in 1967.

Apparent problem: the mirror antimatter, C-symmetric of the mirror matter and CPT symmetric of our matter, would contradict the CPT theorem, which states the CPT-symmetric of a particle behaves like that particle, that it is the same. This implies that T-symmetry, as classically viewed by the quantum field theory, does not reverse the energy. But this is a postulate originating from an ad hoc arbitrary choice with respect to the time-reversal operator.

Quantum mechanics depends on the structure of operators, and we have P and T operators. In dynamical group theory, these operators are real, so that T-symmetry goes with the inversion of energy. But in quantum mechanics, operators become complex so that they may be:

unitary – antiunitary
linear – antilinear


If the time-inversion T would be unitary and linear, T-inversion would create negative energy states.

Steven Weinberg wrote in the "bible" "The Quantum Theory of Field" (https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Theory-Fields-Foundations/dp/0521670535), pp. 74-76, section "Space inversion and Time-Reversal":
Quote from: Steven Weinberg
There are no states of negative energy. If we supposed that T is linear and unitary then we get the disastrous conclusion that for any state Ψ of energy E there is another state T-1Ψ of energy -E. To avoid it we are forced here to conclude that T is antilinear and antiunitary.

Until the discovery of the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, nothing in physics indicated that negative energy would be present somewhere. But this acceleration implies the action of a negative pressure. A pressure is a density of energy per unit of volume by the way.

So this question must be reconsidered. It's anything but trivial.

I have been suggesting for some time now that I think anti-matter is actually negative-mass and runs backwards in time.  This makes a positron actually a negative energy electron running backwards in time such that its charge is reversed to be positive.  The positron "negative energy" running backwards in time appears to be "positive energy".  When an electron and positron come together in contact the time cancels between them and the positron's properties become negative-mass like, so that when they come together they disappear (matter+negative matter). 

Where do they go?  Their energy is carried away in a blast of light.  What is light?  I suspect light is actually the other electron-position pairs that make up the vacuum.  That's right the vacuum may be a swarm of such pairs.   In fact we already have created such pairs right from the vacuum with very intense light!  With large enough electric fields these pairs pop right out of the vacuum.  So they are like phantom particles just waiting there. 

They can not completely disappear.  There is a minimum osculation amplitude they can decay to.  This would be the minimum temperature of the vacuum which can not reach exactly absolute zero. 

So how is light considered not having mass?  Because the pairs appear to almost have no mass when combined. So how can light change in mass?  It depends on how far you separate the e-p pairs.  The further your separate them the more massive they become till they are fully separated.  In a sense this converts the energy of the electric fields into a form of mass.  Small osculations may have a linear effect where large may become non-linear. 

I have pondered if the antimatter counterpart of light, if it really is a positron, could possibly send a wave back in time, as in Feynman's absorber twist. 

Here is when I first started really thinking about it: 8/22/2016 https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1572016#msg1572016 and it grew from there.  It even makes sense when you consider the current of the pairs inducing E and B fields and why the vacuum can carry such fields.  Matter itself may be in a dance with them as Warp has suggested to me before that matter was in such a dance/equilibrium with something in the vacuum. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 01/10/2017 04:14 am
Yes, "hidden sector" is a trending name nowadays. In the past cosmologists used other terms such as "parallel universe", "multiverse", "bubble universe", "membrane universe", "shadow universe", "mirror matter", "twin fold", "bimetric", bigravity, etc. (not all equivalent)

Left out "Unimatrix 0".
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 01/10/2017 04:41 am
There is an easier way to think of inertia, without using advanced waves.

1. All matter is composed of superimposed wave functions, which are composed of particular combinations of frequencies, phase differences, wavelengths, spin, charge, etc. All according to Quantum Electro Dynamics (QED).
2. The speed of light, c is a constant in a local, inertial reference frame.
3. The speed of light sets the maximum speed of the wave function. In the Dirac equation for example, the equations of motion for a free electron are such that it moves (zitterbewegung) about its location with velocity +/- c, and is spread-out in space on the order of the Compton wavelength. (See Milonni.)
4. When we exert a force on the electron, the wave function is doppler shifted. It is ALWAYS doppler shifted to a higher frequency, shorter wavelength and higher energy.

In effect, when we push on an object, its internal frequency increases in the non-inertial reference frame. It requires "work" to be done to shift to a higher frequency (shorter wavelength) in order to conserve energy. That work being done is what we experience as the reaction force. Inertial mass is the resistance to acceleration.

Now, in the Polarizable Vacuum model, c/K is a variable "coordinate speed of light" in the frame of a distant observer, due to a variable vacuum refractive index, K that represents the gravitational field. The gravitational field potential is derived from matter and energy. Therefore, it is very, (very!) possible, that the maximum speed of light is determined by the sum of all the other matter in the universe, and is only slightly modified (reduced) by the local planet or star, where K > 1.

In this sense, Inertia, being resistance to acceleration caused by a fixed, finite velocity of light, is due to all the other matter and energy in the universe setting the maximum speed limit. Very simple, and I have derived the same equations as Dr. Woodward, using the PV Model.

Todd
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: sanman on 01/17/2017 06:46 pm
Was just reading more about this Aharonov–Bohm effect and wondering if it also relates to Mach-Woodward Effect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharonov%E2%80%93Bohm_effect


Quote
The three issues are:

whether potentials are "physical" or just a convenient tool for calculating force fields;
whether action principles are fundamental;
the principle of locality.

Because of reasons like these, the Aharonov–Bohm effect was chosen by the New Scientist magazine as one of the "seven wonders of the quantum world".[8]

Whatever's going on, it almost seems like this Aharonov–Bohm effect could be a bridge between understanding the Newtonian world and the Quantum world (admittedly, that latter is outside of the Mach-Woodward conjecture phrasing)


Quote
Global action vs. local forces[edit]
Similarly, the Aharonov–Bohm effect illustrates that the Lagrangian approach to dynamics, based on energies, is not just a computational aid to the Newtonian approach, based on forces. Thus the Aharonov–Bohm effect validates the view that forces are an incomplete way to formulate physics, and potential energies must be used instead(Prof Woodward's criticism of EMdrive as "pushing on the car windshield" may likewise be incomplete). In fact Richard Feynman complained[citation needed] that he had been taught electromagnetism from the perspective of electromagnetic fields, and he wished later in life he had been taught to think in terms of the electromagnetic potential instead as this would be more fundamental. In Feynman's path-integral view of dynamics, the potential field directly changes the phase of an electron wave function, and it is these changes in phase that lead to measurable quantities.

Locality of electromagnetic effects[edit]
The Aharonov–Bohm effect shows that the local E and B fields do not contain full information about the electromagnetic field, and the electromagnetic four-potential, (Φ,A), must be used instead. By Stokes' theorem, the magnitude of the Aharonov–Bohm effect can be calculated using the electromagnetic fields alone, or using the four-potential alone. But when using just the electromagnetic fields, the effect depends on the field values in a region from which the test particle is excluded. In contrast, when using just the electromagnetic four-potential, the effect only depends on the potential in the region where the test particle is allowed. Therefore, one must either abandon the principle of locality(this sounds Mach-ian/Woodward-ian!), which most physicists are reluctant to do, or accept that the electromagnetic four-potential offers a more complete description of electromagnetism than the electric and magnetic fields can. On the other hand, the AB effect is crucially quantum mechanical; quantum mechanics is well-known to feature non-local effects (albeit still disallowing superluminal communication), and Vaidman has argued that this is just a non-local quantum effect in a different form.[9]
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star-Drive on 01/17/2017 07:30 pm
...

MET:

I've always found it curious that Dr. Woodward so wanted to bash the quantum vacuum (QV) approach to this business, especially the way Dr. White derived his QV conjecture that uses Woodward's Mach-Effect wave equation at the heart of Sonny's conjecture, see attached 05-09-2012 Q-Thruster Operations slide.

Best, Paul M.

Hi Paul,

I for one would really like to read Sonny's response to Dr. Woodward's recent JBIS article. He makes a really good case, in that if the QV were the propellant, it would be easily detectable by its mass. I add to this, that it would also be detectable by an enormous amount of heat.

It could be, as you've told me that, the virtual electron-positron pairs are not fully formed. They do not have the full on-shell mass that real particles would have. Therefore, their annihilation might not produce that much hea. However, if they have enough mass to make a reasonable propellant, then the temperature of annihilation should still be detectable, but just not 1000's of Kelvin.

Todd:

Just like Woodward's TRANSIENT mass fluctuations, whatever they are composed of, White's e/p pair compression fluctuations are transient in nature with their average lifetimes a measure of their on-brane density in our normal mass universe.  So when Woodward says that these e/p pair mass density fluctuations can't be used for reaction mass because they are not generating the same effects as full time on-brane electrons and positrons would, well duh, of course they don't at the average driven densities of 1x10^-12 kg/m^3 obtained to date in the frustum experiments.  And Jim's M-E "mass-fluctuations" won't either.

Best, 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: HMXHMX on 04/06/2017 11:56 pm
Just an FYI – Space Studies Institute (ssi.org) was selected as a NASA NIAC Phase I grantee:

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-invests-in-22-visionary-exploration-concepts

for our proposal "Mach Effects for In Space Propulsion: Interstellar Mission". Heidi Fearn, Space Studies Institute in Mojave, California and CalState Fullerton will be PI.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: HMXHMX on 04/07/2017 12:14 am
Just an FYI – Space Studies Institute (ssi.org) was selected as a NASA NIAC Phase I grantee:

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-invests-in-22-visionary-exploration-concepts

for our proposal "Mach Effects for In Space Propulsion: Interstellar Mission". Heidi Fearn, Space Studies Institute in Mojave, California and CalState Fullerton will be PI.


Several of our colleagues (José Rodal, Paul March, Bruce Long, Nolan van Rossum and Marshall Eubanks) are Co-PIs or consultants.  Prof. Jim Woodward will also consult on the project. SSI will administratively manage the grant for the team.

The Project Summary from our proposal:

We propose to study the implementation of an innovative thrust producing technology for use in NASA missions involving in space main propulsion. Mach Effect Thruster (MET) propulsion is based on peer-reviewed, technically credible physics. Mach effects are transient variations in the rest masses of objects that simultaneously experience accelerations and internal energy changes. They are predicted by standard physics where Mach’s principle applies – as discussed in peer-reviewed papers spanning 20 years and a recent book, Making Starships and Stargates: the Science of Interstellar Transport and Absurdly Benign Wormholes published by Springer-Verlag. These effects have the revolutionary capability to produce thrust without the irreversible ejection of propellant, eliminating the need to carry propellant as required with most other propulsion systems.

Our initial Phase 1 effort will have three tasks, two experimental and one analytical:

1. Improvement of the current laboratory-scale devices, in order to provide long duration thrust at levels required for practical propulsion applications.

2. Design and development of a power supply and electrical systems to provide feedback and control of the input AC voltage, and resonant frequency, that determine the efficiency of the MET.

3. Improve theoretical thrust predictions and build a reliable model of the device to assist in perfecting the design. Predict maximum thrust achievable by one device and how large an array of thrusters would be required to send a probe, of size 1.5m diameter by 3m, of total mass 1245Kg including a modest 400 Kg of payload, a distance of 8 light years (ly) away.

Ultimately, once proven in flight and after more development, these thrusters could be used for primary mission propulsion, opening up the solar system and making interstellar missions a reality. The MET device is not a rocket, it does not expel fuel mass, and does not suffer from the velocity restriction of rockets. Freedom from the need to expel propellant means very high velocities might be achievable simply by providing electrical power and adequate heat rejection for the drive system. A mission to Planet 9 is possible in the near future using RTG power and thruster arrays. A future goal would be interstellar travel to the nearest exoplanet, within 5-9 Ly distance. A mission of this type might take 20 or more years using the MET thruster. Although the nearest exoplanet is 14 or so ly distance, more Earth-like planets are being discovered daily.

This aerospace concept is an exciting TRL 1 technology, ready to take the next step to providing propellantless propulsion, first in incremental NASA smallsat missions, but later enabling revolutionary new deep space exploratory capabilities beyond anything achievable by conventional chemical, nuclear or electric propulsion systems. This unexplored opportunity has been uniquely developed by our co-Principal Investigators, breaking new ground in both science and engineering. Finally, it is technically credible – if bold and unconventional – and is fully consistent with modern physics, having been demonstrated over ten years of careful laboratory demonstration and investigation.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 04/07/2017 04:40 am
Just an FYI – Space Studies Institute (ssi.org) was selected as a NASA NIAC Phase I grantee:

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-invests-in-22-visionary-exploration-concepts

for our proposal "Mach Effects for In Space Propulsion: Interstellar Mission". Heidi Fearn, Space Studies Institute in Mojave, California and CalState Fullerton will be PI.
This is great news Gary! Very happy for you guys!
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: M.E.T. on 04/07/2017 07:26 am
Just an FYI – Space Studies Institute (ssi.org) was selected as a NASA NIAC Phase I grantee:

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-invests-in-22-visionary-exploration-concepts

for our proposal "Mach Effects for In Space Propulsion: Interstellar Mission". Heidi Fearn, Space Studies Institute in Mojave, California and CalState Fullerton will be PI.


Several of our colleagues (José Rodal, Paul March, Bruce Long, Nolan van Rossum and Marshall Eubanks) are Co-PIs or consultants.  Prof. Jim Woodward will also consult on the project. SSI will administratively manage the grant for the team.

The Project Summary from our proposal:

We propose to study the implementation of an innovative thrust producing technology for use in NASA missions involving in space main propulsion. Mach Effect Thruster (MET) propulsion is based on peer-reviewed, technically credible physics. Mach effects are transient variations in the rest masses of objects that simultaneously experience accelerations and internal energy changes. They are predicted by standard physics where Mach’s principle applies – as discussed in peer-reviewed papers spanning 20 years and a recent book, Making Starships and Stargates: the Science of Interstellar Transport and Absurdly Benign Wormholes published by Springer-Verlag. These effects have the revolutionary capability to produce thrust without the irreversible ejection of propellant, eliminating the need to carry propellant as required with most other propulsion systems.

Our initial Phase 1 effort will have three tasks, two experimental and one analytical:

1. Improvement of the current laboratory-scale devices, in order to provide long duration thrust at levels required for practical propulsion applications.

2. Design and development of a power supply and electrical systems to provide feedback and control of the input AC voltage, and resonant frequency, that determine the efficiency of the MET.

3. Improve theoretical thrust predictions and build a reliable model of the device to assist in perfecting the design. Predict maximum thrust achievable by one device and how large an array of thrusters would be required to send a probe, of size 1.5m diameter by 3m, of total mass 1245Kg including a modest 400 Kg of payload, a distance of 8 light years (ly) away.

Ultimately, once proven in flight and after more development, these thrusters could be used for primary mission propulsion, opening up the solar system and making interstellar missions a reality. The MET device is not a rocket, it does not expel fuel mass, and does not suffer from the velocity restriction of rockets. Freedom from the need to expel propellant means very high velocities might be achievable simply by providing electrical power and adequate heat rejection for the drive system. A mission to Planet 9 is possible in the near future using RTG power and thruster arrays. A future goal would be interstellar travel to the nearest exoplanet, within 5-9 Ly distance. A mission of this type might take 20 or more years using the MET thruster. Although the nearest exoplanet is 14 or so ly distance, more Earth-like planets are being discovered daily.

This aerospace concept is an exciting TRL 1 technology, ready to take the next step to providing propellantless propulsion, first in incremental NASA smallsat missions, but later enabling revolutionary new deep space exploratory capabilities beyond anything achievable by conventional chemical, nuclear or electric propulsion systems. This unexplored opportunity has been uniquely developed by our co-Principal Investigators, breaking new ground in both science and engineering. Finally, it is technically credible – if bold and unconventional – and is fully consistent with modern physics, having been demonstrated over ten years of careful laboratory demonstration and investigation.

Wow. This is fantastic news. I've been waiting for this for years. (Heck, this is why I joined the forum and how I chose my forum name in the first place). 

As I have said before, I remain perplexed that the upstart EMdrive (sorry EMdrive fans) has diverted so much intellectual effort and resources from what in my view is the so much more elegant, theoretically supported, (and frankly simpler to understand for a layman like me), Mach Effect, which seems to have been on the verge of a massive breakthrough for the last two decades.

I simply have not been able to understand why Profs Woodward and Fearn have been tinkering away in a little private lab for decades, while so much money and attention has been thrown at concepts like the EMdrive which no one, even now, seems able to agree on as to why it works, if it works at all.

Hopefully the Mach Effect will finally be proven beyond doubt, and take us to Centauri in our lifetimes. Not to mention open up the solar system for humanity. And probably win Prof Woodward a Nobel Prize, if confirmed.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Flyby on 04/07/2017 08:19 am

.......... 

As I have said before, I remain perplexed that the upstart EMdrive (sorry EMdrive fans) has diverted so much intellectual effort and resources from what in my view is the so much more elegant, theoretically supported, (and frankly simpler to understand for a layman like me), Mach Effect, which seems to have been on the verge of a massive breakthrough for the last two decades.

I simply have not been able to understand why Profs Woodward and Fearn have been tinkering away in a little private lab for decades, while so much money and attention has been thrown at concepts like the EMdrive which no one, even now, seems able to agree on as to why it works, if it works at all.
.........
Really?
Where did the EMdrive divert "resources"?
I think you're confusing sensational news focus with actual financial resources allocated to the EMdrive "research".
According P.March, who worked on the EMdrive at Nasa, the EagleWorks budget for the EMdrive was so ridiculously tiny that they could not afford to search for a better performing resonance, the project was executed by part time employed engineers, while cannibalizing the EW warehouse shelves for anything that might be of use...
You do have a point however that it is a general rule that with limited budgets available, far less effort is going to what most still consider "fringe science"... 

which regrettable, but understandable from a management point of view...
It is hard to decide when something is a potential groundbraking discovery, or just a dead end...
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: M.E.T. on 04/07/2017 08:40 am

.......... 

As I have said before, I remain perplexed that the upstart EMdrive (sorry EMdrive fans) has diverted so much intellectual effort and resources from what in my view is the so much more elegant, theoretically supported, (and frankly simpler to understand for a layman like me), Mach Effect, which seems to have been on the verge of a massive breakthrough for the last two decades.

I simply have not been able to understand why Profs Woodward and Fearn have been tinkering away in a little private lab for decades, while so much money and attention has been thrown at concepts like the EMdrive which no one, even now, seems able to agree on as to why it works, if it works at all.
.........
Really?
Where did the EMdrive divert "resources"?
I think you're confusing sensational news focus with actual financial resources allocated to the EMdrive "research".
According P.March, who worked on the EMdrive at Nasa, the EagleWorks budget for the EMdrive was so ridiculously tiny that they could not afford to search for a better performing resonance, the project was executed by part time employed engineers, while cannibalizing the EW warehouse shelves for anything that might be of use...
You do have a point however that it is a general rule that with limited budgets available, far less effort is going to what most still consider "fringe science"... 

which regrettable, but understandable from a management point of view...
It is hard to decide when something is a potential groundbraking discovery, or just a dead end...

Sure, I take your point. As an outsider, it is easy to get the impression that a lot of noise and attention equates to a lot of resources going into a particular idea. That may well not be the case.

As an example, however, I note the immense amounts of time and input that went just into the continuing EMDrive thread on this very site. Posts that give us just a snapshot of a LOT of time and effort going into the pursuit of the EMDrive behind the scenes, from people who clearly have a lot of knowledge, skill and expertise.

By comparison, very little independent effort seems to have gone into proving Woodward's Mach Effect concepts. I do believe I have seen a slight shift on that front of late (the past year or so), with some respected members of this forum gravitating towards potential common causes behind both phenomena, with some being listed even in the post by HMXHMX above as having peripheral involvement in Mach Effect research.

Anyway, my post was meant to be celebratory rather than a complaint about other ideas getting more support. Let's hope this development is an important step on the way to a fundamental breakthrough in space propulsion.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Ric Capucho on 04/07/2017 10:48 am
I think you'll find that Paul March has made large contributions to experimentation in both Mach Effect and EM drive camps.

One of my experimental scientific heroes, to be honest.

Let's celebrate the great step, and await that moment when a MET (or EM Drive, or both) finally gets chucked out of an ISS airlock.

The proof's in the pudding.

Ric


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tchernik on 04/07/2017 01:40 pm
Just an FYI – Space Studies Institute (ssi.org) was selected as a NASA NIAC Phase I grantee:

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-invests-in-22-visionary-exploration-concepts

for our proposal "Mach Effects for In Space Propulsion: Interstellar Mission". Heidi Fearn, Space Studies Institute in Mojave, California and CalState Fullerton will be PI.

...


These are fantastic news. It was about time MET received due attention and additional funding at the institutional level at NASA. Congrats to Professors Woodward, Fearn and everyone that helped carry this effort through these years.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: bad_astra on 04/07/2017 02:28 pm
This is great news about the grant.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Rodal on 04/07/2017 09:12 pm
They now have a NASA page on the NIAC selection:

https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2017_Phase_I_Phase_II/Mach_Effects_for_In_Space_Propulsion_Interstellar_Mission

(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/side_image/public/thumbnails/image/niac2017_phase_i_heidi_fearn.jpg?itok=uylOdw7T)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Stormbringer on 04/07/2017 09:51 pm
^ Startrek TMP era (Reliant or Miranda class roll bar and nacelles) combined with TNG or Voyager era primary hull kitbash.


I knew it! I knew NASA was making a warp capable starship! ;)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star-Drive on 04/09/2017 02:48 pm
They now have a NASA page on the NIAC award:

https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2017_Phase_I_Phase_II/Mach_Effects_for_In_Space_Propulsion_Interstellar_Mission

(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/side_image/public/thumbnails/image/niac2017_phase_i_heidi_fearn.jpg?itok=uylOdw7T)

Jose' & Crew:

Please note my attached presentation from my STAIF-2006 Mach Lorentz Thruster (MLT) paper.  I have a question about these MLTs and how to build them so they actually work.  Given Woodward and Fearn’s 2012 JPC paper, see attached, with its extra steps in the Mach-Effect derivation, see pages 4 & 5, equations 8 thru 12, when they added the work required to accelerate the dielectric, what would you add to Woodward's Mach-6 MHz MLTs to make them work like my MLT-2004 unit did, see attached STAIF-2006 pdf file. 

When I built the MLT-2004 back in the summer & fall of 2003, I already knew that their piezoelectric response should be import to their MLT functioning.  Therefore I went to the trouble of hand selecting the Vishay/Ceramite Y5R, 1,000 pF at 10 kV ceramic caps used in this MLT-2004, so they all had a measurable piezoelectric response using my rude and crude piezo response rap test using my 100 MHz Tektronix scope and 10X voltage prove as the signal detector, see attached rap data slide.  It turned out that of the ~100, 1,000 pF @ 10kV Ceramite ceramic caps procured and tested, only about 30% had any kind of piezoelectric response, (the energy storage cap Mfg.s do NOT characterize their cap's piezoelectric response, surprise, surprise.), and those are the caps I used to assemble my MLT-2004 MLT that used 8 caps wired in series mounted on a PC board ring that was mounted to the toroidal vxB coil via a bed of RTV silicone rubber.  However I had no clue as to what axis these caps had their maximum piezoelectric response in. 

Considering the vxB thrust magnitude dependency on the vector acceleration directions needed for the MLT function, it would appear that the best way to use this piezoelectric response would be to design a hybrid MLT using one or more energy storage caps mounted at right angles to a piezoelectric driver disc(s), so the main piezoelectric response of the PZT drivers would be in the vxB thruster's Z-axis, with the resulting vxB cap-ring and PZT drivers placed in its toroidal B-field coil mounting system that allowed such Z-axis accelerations as my MLT-2004 cap-ring RTV rubber mounts apparently did.  Your thoughts?

BTW, since Woodward has already validated the V^4 thrust scaling for these MLT's when they are connected in the series R-L-C resonant circuit, small variations in their RF drive voltage will create large changes in their thrust outputs.  For instance, when driven at ~650V-peak at 2.2 MHz using a high impedance (~350 ohms)  open-wire transmission line to feed it, the 8-cap in series MLT-2004 thruster produced 2-to-4 milli-Newton or 2,000 to 4,000 micro-Newton (uN), with 20 watts of RF input power.  When I tried to use a 75 ohm coaxial transmission line to suppress EMI effects, the highest RF voltage obtained with the same 20W of RF was only ~150V-peak across the 8 series connected caps in this thruster.  And I could not detect any thrust signal above my load cell's 0.10 milli-Newton noise platform with this "improved" coax driven system.  I thought at the time I had just proved that my original 2-to-4 milli-Newton signal was just EMI in the load cell amplifier circuit, but if we assume V^4 thrust scaling, we find that the expected thrust for the 2.2 MHz, 150V-peak drive signal would only be ~3,000 uN * (150/650)^4 = 8.50 uN which was well below my load cell's ~100 uN noise platform.

Best, Paul M.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: M.E.T. on 04/09/2017 04:11 pm
This is more of a question for clarification than anything else.

From my assorted readings on the progress with Mach Effect research over the years, I was under the impression that Woodward eventually concluded that the earlier Mach Lorentz Thruster (MLT) research was a dead end, and that the Mach Effect Thruster (MET) theory was the avenue that showed promise.

Now, I may be confused on this. Could someone clarify for me whether my recollection is wrong in this regard?


Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 04/09/2017 05:44 pm
This is more of a question for clarification than anything else.

From my assorted readings on the progress with Mach Effect research over the years, I was under the impression that Woodward eventually concluded that the earlier Mach Lorentz Thruster (MLT) research was a dead end, and that the Mach Effect Thruster (MET) theory was the avenue that showed promise.

Now, I may be confused on this. Could someone clarify for me whether my recollection is wrong in this regard?

You're right! It was Nembo Buldrini's Bulk Acceleration Conjecture, back in 2007-2008. I quote Jim Woodward in his book Making Starships and Stargates, page 135 of 1st edition (just before chapter 5):

Quote from: Woodward
Sooner or later we have to deal with the fact that the results of the various experimental efforts over the years were, to put it circumspectly, variable at best […] The person who put his finger on that more fundamental issue was Nembo Buldrini. What he pointed out was that given the way the transient terms of the Mach effect equation are written – in terms of the time-derivatives of the proper energy density – it is easy to lose sight of the requirement in the derivation that the object in which the mass fluctuations occur must be accelerating at the same time. In some of the experimental cases, no provision for such "bulk" acceleration was made.15 As an example, the capacitors affixed to the tines of the tuning fork in the Cramer and the students' experiments made no provision for such an acceleration. Had the tuning fork been separately exited and an electric field applied to the capacitor(s) been properly phased, an effect might have been seen. But to simply apply a voltage to the capacitors and then look for a response in the tuning fork should not have been expected to produce a compelling result.
Other examples could be cited and discussed. Suffice it to say, though, that after Nembo focused attention in the issue of bulk accelerations in the production of Mach effects, the design and execution of experiments changed. The transition to that work, and recent results of experiments presently in progress, are addressed in the next chapter.

15 By "bulk" acceleration we are referring to the fact that the conditions of the derivation include that the object be both accelerated and experience internal energy changes. The acceleration of ions in the material of a capacitor, for example, does not meet this condition. The capacitor as a whole must be accelerated in bulk while it is being polarized.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: M.E.T. on 04/09/2017 05:52 pm
This is more of a question for clarification than anything else.

From my assorted readings on the progress with Mach Effect research over the years, I was under the impression that Woodward eventually concluded that the earlier Mach Lorentz Thruster (MLT) research was a dead end, and that the Mach Effect Thruster (MET) theory was the avenue that showed promise.

Now, I may be confused on this. Could someone clarify for me whether my recollection is wrong in this regard?

You're right! It was Nembo Buldrini's Bulk Acceleration Conjecture, back in 2007-2008. I quote Jim Woodward in his book Making Starships and Stargates, page 135 of 1st edition (just before chapter 5):

Quote from: Woodward
Sooner or later we have to deal with the fact that the results of the various experimental efforts over the years were, to put it circumspectly, variable at best […] The person who put his finger on that more fundamental issue was Nembo Buldrini. What he pointed out was that given the way the transient terms of the Mach effect equation are written – in terms of the time-derivatives of the proper energy density – it is easy to lose sight of the requirement in the derivation that the object in which the mass fluctuations occur must be accelerating at the same time. In some of the experimental cases, no provision for such "bulk" acceleration was made.15 As an example, the capacitors affixed to the tines of the tuning fork in the Cramer and the students' experiments made no provision for such an acceleration. Had the tuning fork been separately exited and an electric field applied to the capacitor(s) been properly phased, an effect might have been seen. But to simply apply a voltage to the capacitors and then look for a response in the tuning fork should not have been expected to produce a compelling result.
Other examples could be cited and discussed. Suffice it to say, though, that after Nembo focused attention in the issue of bulk accelerations in the production of Mach effects, the design and execution of experiments changed. The transition to that work, and recent results of experiments presently in progress, are addressed in the next chapter.

15 By "bulk" acceleration we are referring to the fact that the conditions of the derivation include that the object be both accelerated and experience internal energy changes. The acceleration of ions in the material of a capacitor, for example, does not meet this condition. The capacitor as a whole must be accelerated in bulk while it is being polarized.

Ah yes. Thank you. That's the reference I was thinking of, although I couldn't remember where it was from.

Much appreciated.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star-Drive on 04/09/2017 07:31 pm
This is more of a question for clarification than anything else.

From my assorted readings on the progress with Mach Effect research over the years, I was under the impression that Woodward eventually concluded that the earlier Mach Lorentz Thruster (MLT) research was a dead end, and that the Mach Effect Thruster (MET) theory was the avenue that showed promise.

Now, I may be confused on this. Could someone clarify for me whether my recollection is wrong in this regard?

You're right! It was Nembo Buldrini's Bulk Acceleration Conjecture, back in 2007-2008. I quote Jim Woodward in his book Making Starships and Stargates, page 135 of 1st edition (just before chapter 5):

Quote from: Woodward
Sooner or later we have to deal with the fact that the results of the various experimental efforts over the years were, to put it circumspectly, variable at best […] The person who put his finger on that more fundamental issue was Nembo Buldrini. What he pointed out was that given the way the transient terms of the Mach effect equation are written – in terms of the time-derivatives of the proper energy density – it is easy to lose sight of the requirement in the derivation that the object in which the mass fluctuations occur must be accelerating at the same time. In some of the experimental cases, no provision for such "bulk" acceleration was made.15 As an example, the capacitors affixed to the tines of the tuning fork in the Cramer and the students' experiments made no provision for such an acceleration. Had the tuning fork been separately exited and an electric field applied to the capacitor(s) been properly phased, an effect might have been seen. But to simply apply a voltage to the capacitors and then look for a response in the tuning fork should not have been expected to produce a compelling result.
Other examples could be cited and discussed. Suffice it to say, though, that after Nembo focused attention in the issue of bulk accelerations in the production of Mach effects, the design and execution of experiments changed. The transition to that work, and recent results of experiments presently in progress, are addressed in the next chapter.

15 By "bulk" acceleration we are referring to the fact that the conditions of the derivation include that the object be both accelerated and experience internal energy changes. The acceleration of ions in the material of a capacitor, for example, does not meet this condition. The capacitor as a whole must be accelerated in bulk while it is being polarized.

Ah yes. Thank you. That's the reference I was thinking of, although I couldn't remember where it was from.

Much appreciated.

M.E.T. and Flux-Cap:

"The person who put his finger on that more fundamental issue was Nembo Buldrini. What he pointed out was that given the way the transient terms of the Mach effect equation are written – in terms of the time-derivatives of the proper energy density – it is easy to lose sight of the requirement in the derivation that the object in which the mass fluctuations occur must be accelerating at the same time."

Thus the need for a dedicated PZT actuator needed to accelerate the energy storing and mass fluctuating cap in the preferred thrust vector direction.  And the fact that my MLT-2004 may have already produced up to 9.0 milli-Newton is why I resurrected the MLT topic.

Best,
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: M.E.T. on 04/09/2017 09:05 pm
This is more of a question for clarification than anything else.

From my assorted readings on the progress with Mach Effect research over the years, I was under the impression that Woodward eventually concluded that the earlier Mach Lorentz Thruster (MLT) research was a dead end, and that the Mach Effect Thruster (MET) theory was the avenue that showed promise.

Now, I may be confused on this. Could someone clarify for me whether my recollection is wrong in this regard?

You're right! It was Nembo Buldrini's Bulk Acceleration Conjecture, back in 2007-2008. I quote Jim Woodward in his book Making Starships and Stargates, page 135 of 1st edition (just before chapter 5):

Quote from: Woodward
Sooner or later we have to deal with the fact that the results of the various experimental efforts over the years were, to put it circumspectly, variable at best […] The person who put his finger on that more fundamental issue was Nembo Buldrini. What he pointed out was that given the way the transient terms of the Mach effect equation are written – in terms of the time-derivatives of the proper energy density – it is easy to lose sight of the requirement in the derivation that the object in which the mass fluctuations occur must be accelerating at the same time. In some of the experimental cases, no provision for such "bulk" acceleration was made.15 As an example, the capacitors affixed to the tines of the tuning fork in the Cramer and the students' experiments made no provision for such an acceleration. Had the tuning fork been separately exited and an electric field applied to the capacitor(s) been properly phased, an effect might have been seen. But to simply apply a voltage to the capacitors and then look for a response in the tuning fork should not have been expected to produce a compelling result.
Other examples could be cited and discussed. Suffice it to say, though, that after Nembo focused attention in the issue of bulk accelerations in the production of Mach effects, the design and execution of experiments changed. The transition to that work, and recent results of experiments presently in progress, are addressed in the next chapter.

15 By "bulk" acceleration we are referring to the fact that the conditions of the derivation include that the object be both accelerated and experience internal energy changes. The acceleration of ions in the material of a capacitor, for example, does not meet this condition. The capacitor as a whole must be accelerated in bulk while it is being polarized.

Ah yes. Thank you. That's the reference I was thinking of, although I couldn't remember where it was from.

Much appreciated.

M.E.T. and Flux-Cap:

"The person who put his finger on that more fundamental issue was Nembo Buldrini. What he pointed out was that given the way the transient terms of the Mach effect equation are written – in terms of the time-derivatives of the proper energy density – it is easy to lose sight of the requirement in the derivation that the object in which the mass fluctuations occur must be accelerating at the same time."

Thus the need for a dedicated PZT actuator needed to accelerate the energy storing and mass fluctuating cap in the preferred thrust vector direction.  And the fact that my MLT-2004 may have already produced up to 9.0 milli-Newton is why I resurrected the MLT topic.

Best,

Thanks Paul.

I just watched the Youtube videos of Dr. Rodal, Dr. Fearn and Prof Woodward's presentations at the Estes Park Breakthrough Propulsion Workshop late last year. It was fascinating to listen to them talk. It really feels as if there is new impetus and a sense of excitement that we may be on the threshold of something groundbreaking.

There were two comments in particular that caught my attention in Jim's presentation, which I would like some clarification on. (Paul, he referred to you a few times and at one point seems to talk to a "Paul" in the audience, so am I correct in concluding that you were in attendance during his chat? If so, maybe you can help me with the two items of interest).

Both deal with his responses during the Q&A on what the future application of the Mach Effect Thruster might look like. The first interesting comment was that he seemed to suggest that both an "EMdrive" or a "Solid State" version of the device might be used in future, although his inclination was towards a solid state drive, for various reasons. This was quite striking to me, as it seemed a radical departure from his previous dismissive comments regarding the EMDrive.

Or am I interpreting it incorrectly? Is his reference to an "EMDrive" type Mach Effect Thruster something different to to the resonant cavity based EMDrive that is currently the focus of so much attention? Because to me there seems to be very litte in common between the theories behind that device and the rather detailed breakdown of how a Mach Effect Thruster operates in Woodward's presentations. What is the commonality he appears to be alluding to here?

And the second striking comment - which I could see he was somewhat hesitant to talk about, but probably thought "what the hell, let me speak my mind" - related to RB-47. When quizzed as to the potential optimal configuration for a "heavy lifting" Mach Effect device, he suggested that the signals detected from the RB-47 case might well have been the readings from the powerplant driving a Mach Effect Device in whatever the object was that the air force was tracking. And that this might well be the ultimate configuration or "end goal" of the Mach Effect journey that is still in its infancy.

Has he ever mentioned this before, in your interactions? It is a tantalizing thought, and something which  he admitted jokingly afterwards  would probably make people take the Mach Effect less seriously after he mentioned it, although he felt it would be a mistake on their part to do so.

Anyway, as I said, fascinating discussion. Leaving one with a lot to ponder on.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 04/09/2017 10:55 pm
Both deal with his responses during the Q&A on what the future application of the Mach Effect Thruster might look like. The first interesting comment was that he seemed to suggest that both an "EMdrive" or a "Solid State" version of the device might be used in future, although his inclination was towards a solid state drive, for various reasons. This was quite striking to me, as it seemed a radical departure from his previous dismissive comments regarding the EMDrive.

Or am I interpreting it incorrectly? Is his reference to an "EMDrive" type Mach Effect Thruster something different to to the resonant cavity based EMDrive that is currently the focus of so much attention? Because to me there seems to be very litte in common between the theories behind that device and the rather detailed breakdown of how a Mach Effect Thruster operates in Woodward's presentations. What is the commonality he appears to be alluding to here?

I'll let Paul answer what you asked, but I can add a valid point about the EmDrive + Mach effet thing during the conference:

According to Woodward, if Shawyer's EmDrive is genuine propellantless propulsion, it works through a Mach effect and nothing else. Sure this device involves RF waves and is very different from an array of vibrating solid-state piezoelectric discs; nevertheless at the same Estes Park conference, a paper entitled "Theory of the EM Drive in TM mode based on Mach-Lorentz theory" has been presented by Dr Jean-Philippe Montillet from the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland. In this paper Montillet details for the first time a possible mechanism explaining the EmDrive thrust in terms of a Mach effect.

Dr Rodal summarized this paper as:
"The RF resonant cavity thruster (EmDrive) would act as a capacitor where:
• surface currents propagate inside the cavity on the conic wall, between the two end plates,
• electromagnetic resonant modes create electric charges on each end plate
• a Mach effect is triggered by Lorentz forces from surface currents on the conic wall
• and a thrust force arise in the RF cavity, due to the variation of the electromagnetic density from evanescent waves inside the skin layer.
When a polymer insert is placed asymmetrically in the cavity, its dielectric properties result in greater asymmetry, while decreasing the cavity Q factor.
The cavity's acceleration is a function of all the above factors, and the model can explain the acceleration of the cavity with and without a dielectric."

Paper attached below.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: M.E.T. on 04/09/2017 11:08 pm
Both deal with his responses during the Q&A on what the future application of the Mach Effect Thruster might look like. The first interesting comment was that he seemed to suggest that both an "EMdrive" or a "Solid State" version of the device might be used in future, although his inclination was towards a solid state drive, for various reasons. This was quite striking to me, as it seemed a radical departure from his previous dismissive comments regarding the EMDrive.

Or am I interpreting it incorrectly? Is his reference to an "EMDrive" type Mach Effect Thruster something different to to the resonant cavity based EMDrive that is currently the focus of so much attention? Because to me there seems to be very litte in common between the theories behind that device and the rather detailed breakdown of how a Mach Effect Thruster operates in Woodward's presentations. What is the commonality he appears to be alluding to here?

I'll let Paul answer what you asked, but I can add a valid point about the EmDrive + Mach effet thing during the conference:

According to Woodward, if Shawyer's EmDrive is genuine propellantless propulsion, it works through a Mach effect and nothing else. Sure this device involves RF waves and is very different from an array of vibrating solid-state piezoelectric discs; nevertheless at the same Estes Park conference, a paper entitled "Theory of the EM Drive in TM mode based on Mach-Lorentz theory" has been presented by Dr Jean-Philippe Montillet from the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland. In this paper Montillet details for the first time a possible mechanism explaining the EmDrive thrust in terms of a Mach effect.

Dr Rodal summarized this paper as:
"The RF resonant cavity thruster (EmDrive) would act as a capacitor where:
• surface currents propagate inside the cavity on the conic wall, between the two end plates,
• electromagnetic resonant modes create electric charges on each end plate
• a Mach effect is triggered by Lorentz forces from surface currents on the conic wall
• and a thrust force arise in the RF cavity, due to the variation of the electromagnetic density from evanescent waves inside the skin layer.
When a polymer insert is placed asymmetrically in the cavity, its dielectric properties result in greater asymmetry, while decreasing the cavity Q factor.
The cavity's acceleration is a function of all the above factors, and the model can explain the acceleration of the cavity with and without a dielectric."

Paper attached below.

Thank you! That explains the potential cross over comment from Prof. Woodward, then. And also ties in with his comment that he believes the "solid state" Mach Effect Thruster would likely work much better, because of "all kinds of other things going on in the EMdrive cavity", to paraphrase him.

This is also entirely consistent with the previous time I heard him talk about the EMdrive, in a radio interview. That time I believe he also said that if there is any real effect in the EMdrive, it is probably due to some type of accidental Mach Effect being generated. Which your reference to the paper above seems to just have put into some kind of solid theory.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star-Drive on 04/09/2017 11:48 pm
Both deal with his responses during the Q&A on what the future application of the Mach Effect Thruster might look like. The first interesting comment was that he seemed to suggest that both an "EMdrive" or a "Solid State" version of the device might be used in future, although his inclination was towards a solid state drive, for various reasons. This was quite striking to me, as it seemed a radical departure from his previous dismissive comments regarding the EMDrive.

Or am I interpreting it incorrectly? Is his reference to an "EMDrive" type Mach Effect Thruster something different to to the resonant cavity based EMDrive that is currently the focus of so much attention? Because to me there seems to be very litte in common between the theories behind that device and the rather detailed breakdown of how a Mach Effect Thruster operates in Woodward's presentations. What is the commonality he appears to be alluding to here?

I'll let Paul answer what you asked, but I can add a valid point about the EmDrive + Mach effet thing during the conference:

According to Woodward, if Shawyer's EmDrive is genuine propellantless propulsion, it works through a Mach effect and nothing else. Sure this device involves RF waves and is very different from an array of vibrating solid-state piezoelectric discs; nevertheless at the same Estes Park conference, a paper entitled "Theory of the EM Drive in TM mode based on Mach-Lorentz theory" has been presented by Dr Jean-Philippe Montillet from the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland. In this paper Montillet details for the first time a possible mechanism explaining the EmDrive thrust in terms of a Mach effect.

Dr Rodal summarized this paper as:
"The RF resonant cavity thruster (EmDrive) would act as a capacitor where:
• surface currents propagate inside the cavity on the conic wall, between the two end plates,
• electromagnetic resonant modes create electric charges on each end plate
• a Mach effect is triggered by Lorentz forces from surface currents on the conic wall
• and a thrust force arise in the RF cavity, due to the variation of the electromagnetic density from evanescent waves inside the skin layer.
When a polymer insert is placed asymmetrically in the cavity, its dielectric properties result in greater asymmetry, while decreasing the cavity Q factor.
The cavity's acceleration is a function of all the above factors, and the model can explain the acceleration of the cavity with and without a dielectric."

Paper attached below.

Thank you! That explains the potential cross over comment from Prof. Woodward, then. And also ties in with his comment that he believes the "solid state" Mach Effect Thruster would likely work much better, because of "all kinds of other things going on in the EMdrive cavity", to paraphrase him.

This is also entirely consistent with the previous time I heard him talk about the EMdrive, in a radio interview. That time I believe he also said that if there is any real effect in the EMdrive, it is probably due to some type of accidental Mach Effect being generated. Which your reference to the paper above seems to just have put into some kind of solid theory.

M.E.T.:

Yes, I attended the Estes Park Advanced Propulsion Workshop and yes, the Paul that Jim referred to was I.  And I also gave a talk on the Eagleworks Lab's Integrated Copper Frustum Test Article (ICFTA) in-vacuum test series reported in the AIAA/Journal of Propulsion and Power.  You can find my video talk a few places below Jim's on the SSI.org YouTube page.

As far as Jim's preference in MEGA drive construction goes, we will end up using the best performing approach be it the current PZT stacks, redesigned Mach Lorentz Thrusters (MLT), or a better understood EMdrive that at its heart is a MEGA drive in hiding.

BTW, Dr. Rodal has an interesting and fundamental observation on the operation of the MEGA drives that he just revealed to the MEGA drive NIAC team that will blow the doors off this business.  And yes, that is a tease...:)

Best, Paul M.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 04/10/2017 12:54 am
Both deal with his responses during the Q&A on what the future application of the Mach Effect Thruster might look like. The first interesting comment was that he seemed to suggest that both an "EMdrive" or a "Solid State" version of the device might be used in future, although his inclination was towards a solid state drive, for various reasons. This was quite striking to me, as it seemed a radical departure from his previous dismissive comments regarding the EMDrive.

Or am I interpreting it incorrectly? Is his reference to an "EMDrive" type Mach Effect Thruster something different to to the resonant cavity based EMDrive that is currently the focus of so much attention? Because to me there seems to be very litte in common between the theories behind that device and the rather detailed breakdown of how a Mach Effect Thruster operates in Woodward's presentations. What is the commonality he appears to be alluding to here?

I'll let Paul answer what you asked, but I can add a valid point about the EmDrive + Mach effet thing during the conference:

According to Woodward, if Shawyer's EmDrive is genuine propellantless propulsion, it works through a Mach effect and nothing else. Sure this device involves RF waves and is very different from an array of vibrating solid-state piezoelectric discs; nevertheless at the same Estes Park conference, a paper entitled "Theory of the EM Drive in TM mode based on Mach-Lorentz theory" has been presented by Dr Jean-Philippe Montillet from the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland. In this paper Montillet details for the first time a possible mechanism explaining the EmDrive thrust in terms of a Mach effect.

Dr Rodal summarized this paper as:
"The RF resonant cavity thruster (EmDrive) would act as a capacitor where:
• surface currents propagate inside the cavity on the conic wall, between the two end plates,
• electromagnetic resonant modes create electric charges on each end plate
• a Mach effect is triggered by Lorentz forces from surface currents on the conic wall
• and a thrust force arise in the RF cavity, due to the variation of the electromagnetic density from evanescent waves inside the skin layer.
When a polymer insert is placed asymmetrically in the cavity, its dielectric properties result in greater asymmetry, while decreasing the cavity Q factor.
The cavity's acceleration is a function of all the above factors, and the model can explain the acceleration of the cavity with and without a dielectric."

Paper attached below.

Thank you! That explains the potential cross over comment from Prof. Woodward, then. And also ties in with his comment that he believes the "solid state" Mach Effect Thruster would likely work much better, because of "all kinds of other things going on in the EMdrive cavity", to paraphrase him.

This is also entirely consistent with the previous time I heard him talk about the EMdrive, in a radio interview. That time I believe he also said that if there is any real effect in the EMdrive, it is probably due to some type of accidental Mach Effect being generated. Which your reference to the paper above seems to just have put into some kind of solid theory.

M.E.T.:

Yes, I attended the Estes Park Advanced Propulsion Workshop and yes, the Paul that Jim referred to was I.  And I also gave a talk on the Eagleworks Lab's Integrated Copper Frustum Test Article (ICFTA) in-vacuum test series reported in the AIAA/Journal of Propulsion and Power.  You can find my video talk a few places below Jim's on the SSI.org YouTube page.

As far as Jim's preference in MEGA drive construction goes, we will end up using the best performing approach be it the current PZT stacks, redesigned Mach Lorentz Thrusters (MLT), or a better understood EMdrive that at its heart is a MEGA drive in hiding.

BTW, Dr. Rodal has an interesting and fundamental observation on the operation of the MEGA drives that he just revealed to the MEGA drive NIAC team that will blow the doors off this business.  And yes, that is a tease...:)

Best, Paul M.

I also suspect if anything it is a type of mach effect.  When you compute the ratio of energy transferred in a collision it depends on the respective mass of the moving object and the object collided with.  One of the reasons the example with 2 steel balls the same mass when colliding transfer 100% energy.  If the masses are different less energy is transferred upon collision.

The only way for trapped light in a cavity to accelerate a cavity is if some how the light inside is effectively changing in its effective mass per wavelength.  if a collision at one end of the cavity accelerates the cavity but the collision at the other end does not allow the light to recover its energy then the light will lose energy through a 2nd order effect that is similar to the Doppler effect but different.  Eventually the light loses energy but through frequency so eventually the light is rejected from the cavity.  The cavity is limited in how much energy it can extract from the light by the narrow bandwidth of light that can exist in the cavity.  There may be some ways around this but that would be a further discussion. 

My limited knowledge on the Mach effect is that something is heavier when you push on it and lighter when you pull on it which gives a net push in one direction.  How to accomplish this in reality is not all that obvious but there are those working on it.

I suspect light may be electron positron pairs in the vacuum that act like they have zero rest mass because they annihilate each other but in reality they never disappear.  When excited in an electric field they osculate and waves travel through them giving local light a set velocity.  Possibly why you can create e-p pairs out of the vacuum with large enough electric fields.  This local velocity of light depends on the object measuring and its local e-p pairs which are attracted to it some how.  (probably in equilibrium with it in a sort of dance as virtual particles)  Transferring energy between local pairs at different velocities may be what give us the Doppler effect.

If e-p pairs are light and e-p pairs can change in mass via separation then we may have a mechanism of light to change in effective mass some how while still having a zero rest mass.  We have what "appears" to be a change in wavelength inside the EM drive cavity which may indicate some mechanism to effectively change the mass of the pairs, or possibly I'm wrong. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: M.E.T. on 04/10/2017 07:20 am
Both deal with his responses during the Q&A on what the future application of the Mach Effect Thruster might look like. The first interesting comment was that he seemed to suggest that both an "EMdrive" or a "Solid State" version of the device might be used in future, although his inclination was towards a solid state drive, for various reasons. This was quite striking to me, as it seemed a radical departure from his previous dismissive comments regarding the EMDrive.

Or am I interpreting it incorrectly? Is his reference to an "EMDrive" type Mach Effect Thruster something different to to the resonant cavity based EMDrive that is currently the focus of so much attention? Because to me there seems to be very litte in common between the theories behind that device and the rather detailed breakdown of how a Mach Effect Thruster operates in Woodward's presentations. What is the commonality he appears to be alluding to here?

I'll let Paul answer what you asked, but I can add a valid point about the EmDrive + Mach effet thing during the conference:

According to Woodward, if Shawyer's EmDrive is genuine propellantless propulsion, it works through a Mach effect and nothing else. Sure this device involves RF waves and is very different from an array of vibrating solid-state piezoelectric discs; nevertheless at the same Estes Park conference, a paper entitled "Theory of the EM Drive in TM mode based on Mach-Lorentz theory" has been presented by Dr Jean-Philippe Montillet from the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland. In this paper Montillet details for the first time a possible mechanism explaining the EmDrive thrust in terms of a Mach effect.

Dr Rodal summarized this paper as:
"The RF resonant cavity thruster (EmDrive) would act as a capacitor where:
• surface currents propagate inside the cavity on the conic wall, between the two end plates,
• electromagnetic resonant modes create electric charges on each end plate
• a Mach effect is triggered by Lorentz forces from surface currents on the conic wall
• and a thrust force arise in the RF cavity, due to the variation of the electromagnetic density from evanescent waves inside the skin layer.
When a polymer insert is placed asymmetrically in the cavity, its dielectric properties result in greater asymmetry, while decreasing the cavity Q factor.
The cavity's acceleration is a function of all the above factors, and the model can explain the acceleration of the cavity with and without a dielectric."

Paper attached below.

Thank you! That explains the potential cross over comment from Prof. Woodward, then. And also ties in with his comment that he believes the "solid state" Mach Effect Thruster would likely work much better, because of "all kinds of other things going on in the EMdrive cavity", to paraphrase him.

This is also entirely consistent with the previous time I heard him talk about the EMdrive, in a radio interview. That time I believe he also said that if there is any real effect in the EMdrive, it is probably due to some type of accidental Mach Effect being generated. Which your reference to the paper above seems to just have put into some kind of solid theory.

M.E.T.:

Yes, I attended the Estes Park Advanced Propulsion Workshop and yes, the Paul that Jim referred to was I.  And I also gave a talk on the Eagleworks Lab's Integrated Copper Frustum Test Article (ICFTA) in-vacuum test series reported in the AIAA/Journal of Propulsion and Power.  You can find my video talk a few places below Jim's on the SSI.org YouTube page.

As far as Jim's preference in MEGA drive construction goes, we will end up using the best performing approach be it the current PZT stacks, redesigned Mach Lorentz Thrusters (MLT), or a better understood EMdrive that at its heart is a MEGA drive in hiding.

BTW, Dr. Rodal has an interesting and fundamental observation on the operation of the MEGA drives that he just revealed to the MEGA drive NIAC team that will blow the doors off this business.  And yes, that is a tease...:)

Best, Paul M.

Paul

That's a hell of a tease you left us with there. Can you share any more, and if not, when will we be able to learn more about it?

On a broader note, over the years of following the Mach Effect research I've formed a bit of an impression in my mind as to its key roleplayers - rightly or wrongly. I got a sense that for much of the period of Dr. Woodward's research, you were one of his key "allies" so to speak, in the face of much derision from the mainstream.

Then, when the EMdrive arrived on the scene, I got the sense that you diverged from Dr. Woodward's point of view somewhat.

Am I correct in sensing that you guys might have moved slightly closer together again after the latest developments, as far as your views on the validity and existence of the Mach Effect are concerned? The current convergence seems to suggest that the EMDrive and Woodward Effect might both have Mach Effects at their heart. Do you share that view now, as opposed to Dr. White's QVF theories?

I'm just very interested to hear the current views of someone like yourself who has been so deeply involved in both of these camps.

And lastly, no comments or thoughts from you on the RB-47 issue? :)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star One on 04/10/2017 07:34 am
A noob question I have a rather shaky understanding of the physics of this but doesn't a theory like MOND better support ideas like this than current conventional theories?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 04/10/2017 11:41 am
I suspect light may be electron positron pairs in the vacuum that act like they have zero rest mass because they annihilate each other but in reality they never disappear.  When excited in an electric field they osculate and waves travel through them giving local light a set velocity.  Possibly why you can create e-p pairs out of the vacuum with large enough electric fields.  This local velocity of light depends on the object measuring and its local e-p pairs which are attracted to it some how.  (probably in equilibrium with it in a sort of dance as virtual particles)  Transferring energy between local pairs at different velocities may be what give us the Doppler effect.

If e-p pairs are light and e-p pairs can change in mass via separation then we may have a mechanism of light to change in effective mass some how while still having a zero rest mass.  We have what "appears" to be a change in wavelength inside the EM drive cavity which may indicate some mechanism to effectively change the mass of the pairs, or possibly I'm wrong.

@dustinthewind, do you think antimatter has a negative rest mass? In order for your model to work, it is my understanding it has to, since you are claiming that a photon is the combination of an electron (of positive mass) and a positron into a single zero-rest mass particle.

Besides this problem, a single photon can't produce an e-p pair alone. Pair production involves other quanta. And put the other way, the annihilation of an electron with a positron does not produce one, but two photons propagating in two opposite directions.

Theoretically, antimatter shouldn't have a negative energy, hence it would not have a negative rest mass. Indeed the standard model indicates that Dirac's antiparticles, i.e. normal particles with charge conjugation (or C-symmetry) like antiprotons, antineutrons, positrons, antineutrinos… have positive energy and mass.

However when one extend the standard model (which basically only takes into account positive energy particles as an axiom, because of Hermann Bondi's Runaway Paradox) using the complete Poincaré group, i.e. including all particles, those running forward in time but also those running backward in time), a new kind of particles appears: Feynman's antimatter (PT-symmetry of normal matter) but that exotic matter has never been observed.

A fundamental trick here is that T-symmetry translates as inversion of energy, and thus the inversion of mass (as -m = -E/c2). Such negative-energy particles cannot be observed because emitting negative energy photons which evolve along their own geodesics in their own conjugated metric, among us but somewhat "parallel" to us, our eyes and our instruments can't see them although they are everywhere in the universe. But we could feel and map that exotic matter through its gravitational interaction on our own: it is incidentally a candidate for dark matter (an antigravitational one).

I don't know how this dual metric scheme, emerging from two conjugated Einstein field equations, would match with Woodward's Mach effect, especially if integrated within the Hoyle–Narlikar theory of gravity (which already includes Mach effects through Feynman's gravitational absorber framework). It would be quite an interesting evolution.

Whatever, back to the topic, a few planned experiments (AEgIS (http://aegis.web.cern.ch/aegis/research.html/), ALPHA (http://alpha.web.cern.ch),  ASACUSA (http://asacusa.web.cern.ch/ASACUSA/asacusaweb/main/main.shtml), ATRAP (https://home.cern/about/experiments/atrap), GBAR (http://irfu.cea.fr/en/Phocea/Vie_des_labos/Ast/alltec.php?id_ast=2095)) will settle the big question:
Does antimatter fall up?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 04/10/2017 12:05 pm
A noob question I have a rather shaky understanding of the physics of this but doesn't a theory like MOND better support ideas like this than current conventional theories?

Conventional theory of gravity (that is, Einstein's general relativity) does not include Mach's principle, although Einstein was convinced that a future theory embracing GRT would necessarily include such relativity of inertia. Woodward citing Einstein:
Quote from: Jim Woodward
So strongly did Einstein believe at that time in the relativity of inertia that in 1918 he stated as being on an equal footing three principles on which a satisfactory theory of gravitation should rest:

1. The principle of relativity as expressed by general covariance.
2. The principle of equivalence.
3. Mach’s principle (the first time this term entered the literature): … that the gµν are completely determined by the mass of bodies, more generally by Tµν.

In 1922, Einstein noted that others were satisfied to proceed without this [third] criterion and added,
“This contentedness will appear incomprehensible to a later generation however.”
… It must be said that, as far as I can see, to this day Mach’s principle has not brought physics decisively farther. It must also be said that the origin of inertia is and remains the most obscure subject in the theory of particles and fields. Mach’s principle may therefore have a future – but not without the quantum theory.
— Abraham Pais, Subtle is the Lord: the Science and the Life of Albert Einstein, pp. 287–288. (Quoted by permission of Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1982)

MOND is a theory sprinkled with ad-hoc parameters which are there only to fit observations deviating from the prediction of standard theory (where standard model seems to fail). You are free to support such theories, but I personally I prefer theories where predictions perfectly fitting observations emerge naturally from their framework.

Like I said in my previous message, the Hoyle-Narlikar theory of gravity can be considered as general relativity + Mach's principle. Indeed, H-N Theory reduces to general relativity in the limit of a smooth fluid model of particle distribution, and the two theories make the same predictions. Except in the Machian approach, a mass changing effect emerges from the general equation of motion, from which Woodward's transient mas equation can be derived.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star One on 04/10/2017 12:46 pm
A noob question I have a rather shaky understanding of the physics of this but doesn't a theory like MOND better support ideas like this than current conventional theories?

Conventional theory of gravity (that is, Einstein's general relativity) does not include Mach's principle, although Einstein was convinced that a future theory embracing GRT would necessarily include such relativity of inertia. Woodward citing Einstein:
Quote from: Jim Woodward
So strongly did Einstein believe at that time in the relativity of inertia that in 1918 he stated as being on an equal footing three principles on which a satisfactory theory of gravitation should rest:

1. The principle of relativity as expressed by general covariance.
2. The principle of equivalence.
3. Mach’s principle (the first time this term entered the literature): … that the gµν are completely determined by the mass of bodies, more generally by Tµν.

In 1922, Einstein noted that others were satisfied to proceed without this [third] criterion and added,
“This contentedness will appear incomprehensible to a later generation however.”
… It must be said that, as far as I can see, to this day Mach’s principle has not brought physics decisively farther. It must also be said that the origin of inertia is and remains the most obscure subject in the theory of particles and fields. Mach’s principle may therefore have a future – but not without the quantum theory.
— Abraham Pais, Subtle is the Lord: the Science and the Life of Albert Einstein, pp. 287–288. (Quoted by permission of Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1982)

MOND is a theory sprinkled with ad-hoc parameters which are there only to fit observations deviating from the prediction of standard theory (where standard model seems to fail). You are free to support such theories, but I personally I prefer theories where predictions perfectly fitting observations emerge naturally from their framework.

Like I said in my previous message, the Hoyle-Narlikar theory of gravity can be considered as general relativity + Mach's principle. Indeed, H-N Theory reduces to general relativity in the limit of a smooth fluid model of particle distribution, and the two theories make the same predictions. Except in the Machian approach, a mass changing effect emerges from the general equation of motion, from which Woodward's transient mas equation can be derived.

This business of arbitrariness was pointed out in a recent New Scientist article about MOND. But it was also pointed out that conventional theory also contains kludges hence the need for Dark Matter.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 04/10/2017 01:29 pm
conventional theory also contains kludges hence the need for Dark Matter.

I rather see it as "conventional theory can't explain some observations hence the kludge of Dark Matter (and Dark Energy)" ;)

Some anomalous observations the standard model can't explain:
- primordial dark matter and CP violation
- primordial dwarf galaxies and the age of the universe
- the missing mass problem and galactic rotation curves
- the accelerating expansion of the universe
- the large-scale structure
- the local, Super and Giant Voids
- the Great Attractor
- the Dipole Repeller
- the Dark flow
- etc.

Alternately:

• MOND explains many of those observations adding free parameters that modifies Newton's law at large scales.

• Emergent gravity explains same observations (but has been falsified, see [1] (https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.04355) and [2] (https://arxiv.org/abs/1108.4161))

• MiHsC naturally explains many of those observations like MOND but without employing ad-hoc fitting parameters. 

• The Janus model naturally explains those observations, the identified negative shadow matter of the second metric having the same consequences as dark matter and dark energy of unknown origin in the standard model. It is worth noting that unlike other alternate theories, this one is plain vanilla GR and does not modify Newton's law.

NB: Some peculiar observations are not left unexplained by the standard model (such as the recent discovery of the dipole repeller) but I cited them because their origin and dynamics are sometimes explained differently by alternate theories.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star-Drive on 04/10/2017 06:19 pm
Both deal with his responses during the Q&A on what the future application of the Mach Effect Thruster might look like. The first interesting comment was that he seemed to suggest that both an "EMdrive" or a "Solid State" version of the device might be used in future, although his inclination was towards a solid state drive, for various reasons. This was quite striking to me, as it seemed a radical departure from his previous dismissive comments regarding the EMDrive.

Or am I interpreting it incorrectly? Is his reference to an "EMDrive" type Mach Effect Thruster something different to to the resonant cavity based EMDrive that is currently the focus of so much attention? Because to me there seems to be very litte in common between the theories behind that device and the rather detailed breakdown of how a Mach Effect Thruster operates in Woodward's presentations. What is the commonality he appears to be alluding to here?

I'll let Paul answer what you asked, but I can add a valid point about the EmDrive + Mach effet thing during the conference:

According to Woodward, if Shawyer's EmDrive is genuine propellantless propulsion, it works through a Mach effect and nothing else. Sure this device involves RF waves and is very different from an array of vibrating solid-state piezoelectric discs; nevertheless at the same Estes Park conference, a paper entitled "Theory of the EM Drive in TM mode based on Mach-Lorentz theory" has been presented by Dr Jean-Philippe Montillet from the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland. In this paper Montillet details for the first time a possible mechanism explaining the EmDrive thrust in terms of a Mach effect.

Dr Rodal summarized this paper as:
"The RF resonant cavity thruster (EmDrive) would act as a capacitor where:
• surface currents propagate inside the cavity on the conic wall, between the two end plates,
• electromagnetic resonant modes create electric charges on each end plate
• a Mach effect is triggered by Lorentz forces from surface currents on the conic wall
• and a thrust force arise in the RF cavity, due to the variation of the electromagnetic density from evanescent waves inside the skin layer.
When a polymer insert is placed asymmetrically in the cavity, its dielectric properties result in greater asymmetry, while decreasing the cavity Q factor.
The cavity's acceleration is a function of all the above factors, and the model can explain the acceleration of the cavity with and without a dielectric."

Paper attached below.

Thank you! That explains the potential cross over comment from Prof. Woodward, then. And also ties in with his comment that he believes the "solid state" Mach Effect Thruster would likely work much better, because of "all kinds of other things going on in the EMdrive cavity", to paraphrase him.

This is also entirely consistent with the previous time I heard him talk about the EMdrive, in a radio interview. That time I believe he also said that if there is any real effect in the EMdrive, it is probably due to some type of accidental Mach Effect being generated. Which your reference to the paper above seems to just have put into some kind of solid theory.

M.E.T.:

Yes, I attended the Estes Park Advanced Propulsion Workshop and yes, the Paul that Jim referred to was I.  And I also gave a talk on the Eagleworks Lab's Integrated Copper Frustum Test Article (ICFTA) in-vacuum test series reported in the AIAA/Journal of Propulsion and Power.  You can find my video talk a few places below Jim's on the SSI.org YouTube page.

As far as Jim's preference in MEGA drive construction goes, we will end up using the best performing approach be it the current PZT stacks, redesigned Mach Lorentz Thrusters (MLT), or a better understood EMdrive that at its heart is a MEGA drive in hiding.

BTW, Dr. Rodal has an interesting and fundamental observation on the operation of the MEGA drives that he just revealed to the MEGA drive NIAC team that will blow the doors off this business.  And yes, that is a tease...:)

Best, Paul M.

Paul

That's a hell of a tease you left us with there. Can you share any more, and if not, when will we be able to learn more about it?

On a broader note, over the years of following the Mach Effect research I've formed a bit of an impression in my mind as to its key roleplayers - rightly or wrongly. I got a sense that for much of the period of Dr. Woodward's research, you were one of his key "allies" so to speak, in the face of much derision from the mainstream.

Then, when the EMdrive arrived on the scene, I got the sense that you diverged from Dr. Woodward's point of view somewhat.

Am I correct in sensing that you guys might have moved slightly closer together again after the latest developments, as far as your views on the validity and existence of the Mach Effect are concerned? The current convergence seems to suggest that the EMDrive and Woodward Effect might both have Mach Effects at their heart. Do you share that view now, as opposed to Dr. White's QVF theories?

I'm just very interested to hear the current views of someone like yourself who has been so deeply involved in both of these camps.

And lastly, no comments or thoughts from you on the RB-47 issue? :)

M.E.T.:

First off on the July 1957 RB-47 UFO encounter, see attached 1971 AIAA report, it is probably the best documented UFO case out in the public domain and its reported RF signals by its three RB-47 flight engineers and radio operators are very suggestive of what a mature Mach-Effect drive would generate, and Jim and I both agree on that observation.

As to what Jim's view of the Quantum Vacuum is, and it's simply that it can't work the way Dr. White has posited it to do.  I on the other hand think that there is more alike between Dr. Woodward's Mach Effect and Dr. White's mutable and degradable quantum vacuum (QV) conjectures than differences, and ultimately they will be merged into a coherent quantum gravity theory that finally marries QM and GRT without any disconnects.  Now it appears there is at least one way to view the EMdrive is as a Mach-Effect drive and it has been put forward by a french gentleman last fall at the Estes Park Advanced Propulsion Workshop, see attached paper, but I'll leave this topic for another time.   

In the mean time, I have to help the Woodward & Fearn team increase the thrust levels for their NIAC award from micro-Newtons (uN) to hundreds of uN over the next six months as a proof that the MEGA drive thrust output can be increased per the M-E derived MEGA drive thrust equations.

Lastly a hint as to what Jose' has come up with and it concerns a major clarification of where ALL the kinetic energy that the MEGA drive imparts to a vehicle comes from...

Best, Paul M.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: M.E.T. on 04/10/2017 06:31 pm
Both deal with his responses during the Q&A on what the future application of the Mach Effect Thruster might look like. The first interesting comment was that he seemed to suggest that both an "EMdrive" or a "Solid State" version of the device might be used in future, although his inclination was towards a solid state drive, for various reasons. This was quite striking to me, as it seemed a radical departure from his previous dismissive comments regarding the EMDrive.

Or am I interpreting it incorrectly? Is his reference to an "EMDrive" type Mach Effect Thruster something different to to the resonant cavity based EMDrive that is currently the focus of so much attention? Because to me there seems to be very litte in common between the theories behind that device and the rather detailed breakdown of how a Mach Effect Thruster operates in Woodward's presentations. What is the commonality he appears to be alluding to here?

I'll let Paul answer what you asked, but I can add a valid point about the EmDrive + Mach effet thing during the conference:

According to Woodward, if Shawyer's EmDrive is genuine propellantless propulsion, it works through a Mach effect and nothing else. Sure this device involves RF waves and is very different from an array of vibrating solid-state piezoelectric discs; nevertheless at the same Estes Park conference, a paper entitled "Theory of the EM Drive in TM mode based on Mach-Lorentz theory" has been presented by Dr Jean-Philippe Montillet from the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland. In this paper Montillet details for the first time a possible mechanism explaining the EmDrive thrust in terms of a Mach effect.

Dr Rodal summarized this paper as:
"The RF resonant cavity thruster (EmDrive) would act as a capacitor where:
• surface currents propagate inside the cavity on the conic wall, between the two end plates,
• electromagnetic resonant modes create electric charges on each end plate
• a Mach effect is triggered by Lorentz forces from surface currents on the conic wall
• and a thrust force arise in the RF cavity, due to the variation of the electromagnetic density from evanescent waves inside the skin layer.
When a polymer insert is placed asymmetrically in the cavity, its dielectric properties result in greater asymmetry, while decreasing the cavity Q factor.
The cavity's acceleration is a function of all the above factors, and the model can explain the acceleration of the cavity with and without a dielectric."

Paper attached below.

Thank you! That explains the potential cross over comment from Prof. Woodward, then. And also ties in with his comment that he believes the "solid state" Mach Effect Thruster would likely work much better, because of "all kinds of other things going on in the EMdrive cavity", to paraphrase him.

This is also entirely consistent with the previous time I heard him talk about the EMdrive, in a radio interview. That time I believe he also said that if there is any real effect in the EMdrive, it is probably due to some type of accidental Mach Effect being generated. Which your reference to the paper above seems to just have put into some kind of solid theory.

M.E.T.:

Yes, I attended the Estes Park Advanced Propulsion Workshop and yes, the Paul that Jim referred to was I.  And I also gave a talk on the Eagleworks Lab's Integrated Copper Frustum Test Article (ICFTA) in-vacuum test series reported in the AIAA/Journal of Propulsion and Power.  You can find my video talk a few places below Jim's on the SSI.org YouTube page.

As far as Jim's preference in MEGA drive construction goes, we will end up using the best performing approach be it the current PZT stacks, redesigned Mach Lorentz Thrusters (MLT), or a better understood EMdrive that at its heart is a MEGA drive in hiding.

BTW, Dr. Rodal has an interesting and fundamental observation on the operation of the MEGA drives that he just revealed to the MEGA drive NIAC team that will blow the doors off this business.  And yes, that is a tease...:)

Best, Paul M.

Paul

That's a hell of a tease you left us with there. Can you share any more, and if not, when will we be able to learn more about it?

On a broader note, over the years of following the Mach Effect research I've formed a bit of an impression in my mind as to its key roleplayers - rightly or wrongly. I got a sense that for much of the period of Dr. Woodward's research, you were one of his key "allies" so to speak, in the face of much derision from the mainstream.

Then, when the EMdrive arrived on the scene, I got the sense that you diverged from Dr. Woodward's point of view somewhat.

Am I correct in sensing that you guys might have moved slightly closer together again after the latest developments, as far as your views on the validity and existence of the Mach Effect are concerned? The current convergence seems to suggest that the EMDrive and Woodward Effect might both have Mach Effects at their heart. Do you share that view now, as opposed to Dr. White's QVF theories?

I'm just very interested to hear the current views of someone like yourself who has been so deeply involved in both of these camps.

And lastly, no comments or thoughts from you on the RB-47 issue? :)

M.E.T.:

First off on the July 1957 RB-47 UFO encounter, see attached 1971 AIAA report, it is probably the best documented UFO case out in the public domain and its reported RF signals by its three RB-47 flight engineers and radio operators are very suggestive of what a mature Mach-Effect drive would generate, and Jim and I both agree on that observation.

As to what Jim's view of the Quantum Vacuum is, and it's simply that it can't work the way Dr. White has posited it to do.  I on the other hand think that there is more alike between Dr. Woodward's Mach Effect and Dr. White's mutable and degradable quantum vacuum (QV) conjectures than differences, and ultimately they will be merged into a coherent quantum gravity theory that finally marries QM and GRT without any disconnects.  Now it appears there is at least one way to view the EMdrive is as a Mach-Effect drive and it has been put forward by a french gentleman last fall at the Estes Park Advanced Propulsion Workshop, see attached paper, but I'll leave this topic for another time.   

In the mean time, I have to help the Woodward & Fearn team increase the thrust levels for their NIAC award from micro-Newtons (uN) to hundreds of uN over the next six months as a proof that the MEGA drive thrust output can be increased per the M-E derived MEGA drive thrust equations.

Lastly a hint as to what Jose' has come up with and it concerns a major clarification of where ALL the kinetic energy that the MEGA drive imparts to a vehicle comes from...

Best, Paul M.

Thank you Paul. Much appreciated. Fascinating insights.

As to the source of the kinetic energy: Wasn't it established that it is being stolen from the Universe at large? From the rest of the mass in the observable Universe? I have even read speculation by some that it might be contributing to the accelerating expansion of the Universe and various other conjectures. Basically, that use of the Mach Effect on a large scale could accelerate the end of the Universe, and so on and so forth.

But in any case, I take it to mean that Dr. Rodal has come up with something more specific. And oh yes, good luck with your efforts for the next 6 months. Will this be as secretive as your Eagleworks work was, or will we be getting regular updates?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 04/11/2017 05:28 am
I suspect light may be electron positron pairs in the vacuum that act like they have zero rest mass because they annihilate each other but in reality they never disappear.  When excited in an electric field they osculate and waves travel through them giving local light a set velocity.  Possibly why you can create e-p pairs out of the vacuum with large enough electric fields.  This local velocity of light depends on the object measuring and its local e-p pairs which are attracted to it some how.  (probably in equilibrium with it in a sort of dance as virtual particles)  Transferring energy between local pairs at different velocities may be what give us the Doppler effect.

If e-p pairs are light and e-p pairs can change in mass via separation then we may have a mechanism of light to change in effective mass some how while still having a zero rest mass.  We have what "appears" to be a change in wavelength inside the EM drive cavity which may indicate some mechanism to effectively change the mass of the pairs, or possibly I'm wrong.

@dustinthewind, do you think antimatter has a negative rest mass? In order for your model to work, it is my understanding it has to, since you are claiming that a photon is the combination of an electron (of positive mass) and a positron into a single zero-rest mass particle.

Besides this problem, a single photon can't produce an e-p pair alone. Pair production involves other quanta. And put the other way, the annihilation of an electron with a positron does not produce one, but two photons propagating in two opposite directions.

Theoretically, antimatter shouldn't have a negative energy, hence it would not have a negative rest mass. Indeed the standard model indicates that Dirac's antiparticles, i.e. normal particles with charge conjugation (or C-symmetry) like antiprotons, antineutrons, positrons, antineutrinos… have positive energy and mass.

However when one extend the standard model (which basically only takes into account positive energy particles as an axiom, because of Hermann Bondi's Runaway Paradox) using the complete Poincaré group, i.e. including all particles, those running forward in time but also those running backward in time), a new kind of particles appears: Feynman's antimatter (PT-symmetry of normal matter) but that exotic matter has never been observed.

A fundamental trick here is that T-symmetry translates as inversion of energy, and thus the inversion of mass (as -m = -E/c2). Such negative-energy particles cannot be observed because emitting negative energy photons which evolve along their own geodesics in their own conjugated metric, among us but somewhat "parallel" to us, our eyes and our instruments can't see them although they are everywhere in the universe. But we could feel and map that exotic matter through its gravitational interaction on our own: it is incidentally a candidate for dark matter (an antigravitational one).

I don't know how this dual metric scheme, emerging from two conjugated Einstein field equations, would match with Woodward's Mach effect, especially if integrated within the Hoyle–Narlikar theory of gravity (which already includes Mach effects through Feynman's gravitational absorber framework). It would be quite an interesting evolution.

Whatever, back to the topic, a few planned experiments (AEgIS (http://aegis.web.cern.ch/aegis/research.html/), ALPHA (http://alpha.web.cern.ch),  ASACUSA (http://asacusa.web.cern.ch/ASACUSA/asacusaweb/main/main.shtml), ATRAP (https://home.cern/about/experiments/atrap), GBAR (http://irfu.cea.fr/en/Phocea/Vie_des_labos/Ast/alltec.php?id_ast=2095)) will settle the big question:
Does antimatter fall up?

My guess is that anti-matter may have a negative rest mass, but running backwards in time, it has a positive rest mass.  That is until it comes in contact with positive matter running forwards in time.  Upon contact the mask of positive mass is removed and both matter-antimatter melt into the vacuum as phantom particles not truly disappearing but losing their energy to the surrounding vacuum via the local dipole electric fields the two pairs induce before merging (polarizing the vacuum or making light). 

I don't look at anti matter matter e-p pairs as requiring only 2 photons to be created but rather look at it in reverse.  Take 2 e-p pairs in a vacuum and release them so they annihilate.  Upon acceleration of the charges a light wave is created perpendicular to the acceleration of both charges.  If we reverse time a wave merging upon a single point could also create such a pair.  I suppose if we reduced it to just 2 photons of high enough energy converging on a single point it could also create such a pair. 

Maybe some how the anti matter can send out a backwards pulse and absorb energy from the rest of the wave to give one quanta or photon of energy absorbed. 

Some speculation on my part is that for some reason anti-matter in the vacuum is attracted to large volumes of mass which polarizes the vacuum and may explain the 1/r^2 behavior of gravity.  This re-distributes some of the planets mass into a field around the planet and may explain polarization of the vacuum and the dielectric constants of the vacuum.  The gradient in the concentration of vacuum negative time (anti-matter) attracted to the large mass slows down time near the planet surface causing the effect of gravity.  Really just speculation but seems interesting. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: qraal on 04/11/2017 07:52 am
There was a preprint on the ArXiv today that said something similar. Weird.


My guess is that anti-matter may have a negative rest mass, but running backwards in time, it has a positive rest mass.  That is until it comes in contact with positive matter running forwards in time. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: qraal on 04/11/2017 07:55 am
Well if Lenny Susskind & Juan Maldacena are right about ER=EPR, then it'd make sense...


M.E.T.:

As to what Jim's view of the Quantum Vacuum is, and it's simply that it can't work the way Dr. White has posited it to do.  I on the other hand think that there is more alike between Dr. Woodward's Mach Effect and Dr. White's mutable and degradable quantum vacuum (QV) conjectures than differences, and ultimately they will be merged into a coherent quantum gravity theory that finally marries QM and GRT without any disconnects. 

Best, Paul M.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 04/11/2017 03:57 pm
My guess is that anti-matter may have a negative rest mass, but running backwards in time, it has a positive rest mass.

Where have you seen in elementary particle theories (standard model or others) that antimatter is T-symmetric (i.e. running backward in time)? Are you referring to Feynman's unconventional idea of antiparticles (PT-symmetric) different than the conventional view (Dirac's) telling us an antiparticle is C-symmetric? Obviously Dirac is right since we have measured the positron has having a positive charge opposite to the negative charge of the electron (hence its name).

Alas the combination of "running backward in time" with "having a negative mass" does not result in a particle of positive mass. On the contrary, having a negative mass is the signification of time reversal.

It is true the CPT theorem is classically interpreted as: "if your reverse both charge, parity and time of a particle, you obtain the exact same particle."
But as it is, this theorem is false when you consider also the energy and mass of the particle, because time reversal implies mass inversion, and I will show the demonstration below.

Obviously nobody has ever observed such exotic particles. It should be pointed out the standard model does not seriously consider negative-energy particles running backward in time as a reality, due to paradoxes coming from both quantum theory and general relativity. But those kind of paradoxes are only apparent and arise because of deficiencies in current accepted theories (by "deficiencies" I don't talk of the theories themselves, but some assumptions they are made upon, which could be chosen differently).

In Quantum Field Theory, the T operator acting on Hilbert spaces is complex, and can be either linear and unitary, or antilinear and antiunitary. Nobel Prize Steven Weinberg wrote, in his book The Quantum Theory of Fields (http://www.fulviofrisone.com/attachments/article/453/Weinberg__The_Quantum_Theory_of_Fields_Volume_I__Foundations.pdf) (Cambridge University Press, 2005), chapter 2.6 "Space Inversion and Time-Reversal" pages 75-76:

Quote from: Steven Weinberg
At this point we have not decided whether P and T are linear and unitary or antilinear and antiunitary.

The decision is an easy one. Setting ρ = 0 in Eq. (2.6.4) gives
P i H P-1 = -i H
where HP° is the energy operator. If P were antiunitary and antilinear then it would anticommute with i, so P H P-1 = -H. But for any state Ψ of energy E > 0, there would be another state P-1 Ψ of energy -E < 0. There are no states of negative energy (energy less than that of the vacuum), so we are forced to choose the other alternative: P is linear and unitary and commutes rather than anticommutes with H.

On the other hand, setting ρ = 0 in Eq. (2.6.6) yields
T i H T-1 = -i H.
If we supposed that T is linear and unitary we could simply cancel the is, and find T H T-1 = -H, with the again disastrous conclusion that for any state of energy E there is another state T-1 Ψ of energy –E. To avoid this, we are forced to conclude that T is antilinear and antiunitary.

So the possibilities of particles running backward in time and having negative energies have been simply ruled out from physics, as an axiom, as an arbitrary choice as shown above in QFT, or in order to avoid various preposterous paradoxes in general relativity (see a previous post of mine (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1627150#msg1627150) about Bondi's runaway motion for example). But why ruling out half of physics and not try to include all particles within an extended framework?

Dynamics of the relativistic material point is described by the Poincaré group. As we have seen, in modern physics only the restricted Poincaré group is used. If we choose to use the complete Poincaré group, interesting things happen, and especially the very important, fundamental conclusion that:

Time reversal = Energy inversion = Mass inversion

Demonstrated below. Excerpt from Structure of Dynamical Systems (JM Souriau*, Birkhäuser 1997 — English translation from original edition published in 1970), Part III. Mechanics, Chapter 14. "A mechanistic description of elementary particles", sections Inversions of space and time; A particle with a nonzero mass and A massless particle, pp. 189-192.

4-page PDF attached at the end of this message below the images.


* Jean-Marie Souriau was a pioneer of symplectic geometry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symplectic_geometry) and inventor of the "coadjoint action of a group on its momentum map" from which all geometric quantities of physics can emerge (like mass, energy, linear momentum, etc) which for example allowed him to give the first geometric interpretation of spin. He brought important contributions to quantum theory, as he also found the various quantum equations (Schrödinger, Klein-Gordon, Dirac, Pauli, Maxwell…) starting from groups: this is known as the "geometric quantification".

(http://ayuba.fr/souriau/screen/souriau_p189.png)
(http://ayuba.fr/souriau/screen/souriau_p190.png)
(http://ayuba.fr/souriau/screen/souriau_p191.png)
(http://ayuba.fr/souriau/screen/souriau_p192.png)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Rodal on 04/12/2017 05:39 pm
Articles on the NIAC awards:

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/nasa-interstellar-space-missions-concepts-niac

http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=37488
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star One on 04/12/2017 09:46 pm
Usual Reddit sniping about the NIAC award.

https://www.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/642qh4/nasa_invests_in_22_visionary_exploration_concepts/
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 04/13/2017 01:32 pm
Something has been bothering me for a bit now, given the comparison to Graitational Assist.  With a Gravity assist you can not only transfer momentum away from the large gravitating body. to pick up momentum. I believe you can do the reverse, you can use it to slow down.

So I wonder if the comparison continues to hold that there is a way to not only transfer momentum to the thruster but also transfer momentum from the thruster.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Ric Capucho on 04/13/2017 07:16 pm
Something has been bothering me for a bit now, given the comparison to Graitational Assist.  With a Gravity assist you can not only transfer momentum away from the large gravitating body. to pick up momentum. I believe you can do the reverse, you can use it to slow down.

So I wonder if the comparison continues to hold that there is a way to not only transfer momentum to the thruster but also transfer momentum from the thruster.

Yup, point it in the opposite direction. It's all relative, innit.

Ric
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 04/13/2017 08:28 pm
Something has been bothering me for a bit now, given the comparison to Graitational Assist.  With a Gravity assist you can not only transfer momentum away from the large gravitating body. to pick up momentum. I believe you can do the reverse, you can use it to slow down.

So I wonder if the comparison continues to hold that there is a way to not only transfer momentum to the thruster but also transfer momentum from the thruster.

Yup, point it in the opposite direction. It's all relative, innit.

Ric

Exactly. which is why I find it very very intriguing to know how valid a comparison this is. if the comparison is very accurate then given all possibilities of a traditional gravity assist. I would imagine that you could use a MET to not only propel a spacecraft. you should be able to use it to slow it down (without flipping the thruster around). You should also be able to use it to change direction (again without changing the orientation of the thruster).
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 04/18/2017 06:37 pm
Something has been bothering me for a bit now, given the comparison to Graitational Assist.  With a Gravity assist you can not only transfer momentum away from the large gravitating body. to pick up momentum. I believe you can do the reverse, you can use it to slow down.

So I wonder if the comparison continues to hold that there is a way to not only transfer momentum to the thruster but also transfer momentum from the thruster.

Yup, point it in the opposite direction. It's all relative, innit.

Ric

Exactly. which is why I find it very very intriguing to know how valid a comparison this is. if the comparison is very accurate then given all possibilities of a traditional gravity assist. I would imagine that you could use a MET to not only propel a spacecraft. you should be able to use it to slow it down (without flipping the thruster around). You should also be able to use it to change direction (again without changing the orientation of the thruster).

You'd reverse the phase relationship of the AC drive power waveforms.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 04/19/2017 01:51 am
My guess is that anti-matter may have a negative rest mass, but running backwards in time, it has a positive rest mass.

Where have you seen in elementary particle theories (standard model or others) that antimatter is T-symmetric (i.e. running backward in time)? Are you referring to Feynman's unconventional idea of antiparticles (PT-symmetric) different than the conventional view (Dirac's) telling us an antiparticle is C-symmetric? Obviously Dirac is right since we have measured the positron has having a positive charge opposite to the negative charge of the electron (hence its name).

...

I think this may be what I am getting at.  I'll attach a few equations that get at what I am thinking.  Below should be the equation for negative energy but this actually requires imaginary mass.  If you manipulate the imaginary values you can arrange it so the mass is imaginary, its space is imaginary, and its time is negative imaginary.  What is interesting is that its momentum appears to be negative so that when they collide momentum cancels instead of them osculating passing back and forth though each other. 

(https://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?iE=\sqrt{-(mc^2)^2-(pc)^2}\rightarrow&space;iE\cdot&space;iE=imc^2\cdot&space;imc^2&plus;\left&space;(im\frac{idx}{-idt}\frac{idx}{-idt}&space;\right&space;)\left&space;(im\frac{idx}{-idt}\frac{idx}{-idt}&space;\right&space;))

To simplify the expression above i*i*i/-i/-i=i  notice how it implies the imaginary time is negative. 

When we add the matter and its anti-matter counter part together so they annihilate we get one countering the others flow in time.  Because of the imaginary moment of the anti-matter to add it to the matter we have to square the energy so the components can add but as a result the anti-matter mass appears to be negative mass. 

I think the equation is somewhat incomplete however.  The energy of a particle should also include its electric field.  We could include that in the equation but that may also reverse the electric field if I am speculating correctly. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 04/21/2017 05:48 pm
Sorry flux_cap I didn't quite finish my thought.  The equation is some what what I was getting at except that the anti-matter mass in the equation should be negative imaginary.  This makes the momentum appear to be positive till the particles come in contact, canceling the flow of time/space for them, maybe anti-matter space is inverted instead.  When this happens the mass of the anti-matter in contact with matter appears to be negative mass in contact with positive mass. 

In a sense we never really see the negative mass/energy side of anti-matter, maybe
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 04/23/2017 03:14 pm
A noob question I have a rather shaky understanding of the physics of this but doesn't a theory like MOND better support ideas like this than current conventional theories?

Conventional theory of gravity (that is, Einstein's general relativity) does not include Mach's principle, although Einstein was convinced that a future theory embracing GRT would necessarily include such relativity of inertia. Woodward citing Einstein:
Quote from: Jim Woodward
So strongly did Einstein believe at that time in the relativity of inertia that in 1918 he stated as being on an equal footing three principles on which a satisfactory theory of gravitation should rest:

1. The principle of relativity as expressed by general covariance.
2. The principle of equivalence.
3. Mach’s principle (the first time this term entered the literature): … that the gµν are completely determined by the mass of bodies, more generally by Tµν.

In 1922, Einstein noted that others were satisfied to proceed without this [third] criterion and added,
“This contentedness will appear incomprehensible to a later generation however.”
… It must be said that, as far as I can see, to this day Mach’s principle has not brought physics decisively farther. It must also be said that the origin of inertia is and remains the most obscure subject in the theory of particles and fields. Mach’s principle may therefore have a future – but not without the quantum theory.
— Abraham Pais, Subtle is the Lord: the Science and the Life of Albert Einstein, pp. 287–288. (Quoted by permission of Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1982)

MOND is a theory sprinkled with ad-hoc parameters which are there only to fit observations deviating from the prediction of standard theory (where standard model seems to fail). You are free to support such theories, but I personally I prefer theories where predictions perfectly fitting observations emerge naturally from their framework.

Like I said in my previous message, the Hoyle-Narlikar theory of gravity can be considered as general relativity + Mach's principle. Indeed, H-N Theory reduces to general relativity in the limit of a smooth fluid model of particle distribution, and the two theories make the same predictions. Except in the Machian approach, a mass changing effect emerges from the general equation of motion, from which Woodward's transient mas equation can be derived.

All please take note, Mach's concept of inertia having to do with interaction to far off mass seems to have entered the literature in 1893.  As Einstein acknowledged at more than one point, it is a foundational axiom of his work.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: HMXHMX on 04/23/2017 05:34 pm
A noob question I have a rather shaky understanding of the physics of this but doesn't a theory like MOND better support ideas like this than current conventional theories?

Conventional theory of gravity (that is, Einstein's general relativity) does not include Mach's principle, although Einstein was convinced that a future theory embracing GRT would necessarily include such relativity of inertia. Woodward citing Einstein:
Quote from: Jim Woodward
So strongly did Einstein believe at that time in the relativity of inertia that in 1918 he stated as being on an equal footing three principles on which a satisfactory theory of gravitation should rest:

1. The principle of relativity as expressed by general covariance.
2. The principle of equivalence.
3. Mach’s principle (the first time this term entered the literature): … that the gµν are completely determined by the mass of bodies, more generally by Tµν.

In 1922, Einstein noted that others were satisfied to proceed without this [third] criterion and added,
“This contentedness will appear incomprehensible to a later generation however.”
… It must be said that, as far as I can see, to this day Mach’s principle has not brought physics decisively farther. It must also be said that the origin of inertia is and remains the most obscure subject in the theory of particles and fields. Mach’s principle may therefore have a future – but not without the quantum theory.
— Abraham Pais, Subtle is the Lord: the Science and the Life of Albert Einstein, pp. 287–288. (Quoted by permission of Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1982)

MOND is a theory sprinkled with ad-hoc parameters which are there only to fit observations deviating from the prediction of standard theory (where standard model seems to fail). You are free to support such theories, but I personally I prefer theories where predictions perfectly fitting observations emerge naturally from their framework.

Like I said in my previous message, the Hoyle-Narlikar theory of gravity can be considered as general relativity + Mach's principle. Indeed, H-N Theory reduces to general relativity in the limit of a smooth fluid model of particle distribution, and the two theories make the same predictions. Except in the Machian approach, a mass changing effect emerges from the general equation of motion, from which Woodward's transient mas equation can be derived.

All please take note, Mach's concept of inertia having to do with interaction to far off mass seems to have entered the literature in 1893.  As Einstein acknowledged at more than one point, it is a foundational axiom of his work.

And I'd like to also point out John Cramer's interesting book (Quantum Handshake) which is also relevant:

https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Handshake-Entanglement-Nonlocality-Transactions/dp/3319246402/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1492968761&sr=8-1&keywords=cramer+quantum+handshake
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: sanman on 04/23/2017 09:27 pm
Is this "Quantum Handshake" something that lets Mach Effect allow inertial changes to manifest themselves in realtime, rather than having to interact with the distant universe under the limits of lightspeed?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 04/24/2017 09:42 am
Is this "Quantum Handshake" something that lets Mach Effect allow inertial changes to manifest themselves in realtime, rather than having to interact with the distant universe under the limits of lightspeed?

The transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics and Machian relativity theory both share the same "action-at-a-distance" concept described by the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory. But there is no recognized quantum gravity theory yet: the absorber theory is the only thing they have in common.

According to general relativity with Mach's principle (= gravitational absorber theory) the interaction between an object "here" and the distant matter in the rest of the universe is indeed limited by the speed of light. However, inertial reaction forces are instantaneous. How could that be?

The waves themselves in absorber theory are not superluminal, but the retarded+advanced solutions give a result that appears as being instantaneous. As said earlier, Jim Woodward gave a didactic image how Wheeler-Feynman advanced waves work when applied to gravity and inertia:

A first image to understand would be filming a sequence where a rock is thrown in the middle of a pond, making concentric ripples on the water propagating towards the shore.
Running the sequence backwards (thinking it as seeing events running backward in time) we then observe concentric waves propagating from the shore towards the center of the pond, where a rock emerges.
The thing to understand is that advanced waves coming back from the future never propagate farther into the past than the rock hitting the water that initiated all of the waves.

So when you push on a heavy object, this generates "retarded" inertial reaction waves that propagate forward in time at a limited velocity, interacting with the distant matter in the universe. But a similar "advanced" back reaction field propagates backward in time and reach the object the very instant you touch it, giving its property known as inertia. The retarded and advanced waves are two faces of the same coin, they are connected and time-symmetric like the propagating concentric ripples in the movie of the water pond.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Mezzenile on 04/24/2017 06:31 pm
The thing to understand is that advanced waves coming back from the future never propagate farther into the past than the rock hitting the water that initiated all of the waves.
This is not exactly true. In fact, as I have understood, advanced waves coming back from the future do propagate farther into the past than the rock hitting ... But then they cancel with the advanced waves produced by the rock hitting event ...

This cancellation is perfect in an overall flat space, but things may be different in a curved space and this is an open question which could challenge the law of causality. We must stay tune to this strange eventuallity !!  ;) ;)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Stormbringer on 04/24/2017 09:40 pm
challenge the law of causality you say?

https://phys.org/news/2017-04-physicists-violate-local-causality.html

the key in the title is the word "new" as in there are old experiments that show older ways to violate causality.

Causality is the last refuge of hidebound science fuddy-duddies and luddites. ;)

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 04/25/2017 10:01 am
The possibility of making time machines depends on the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics. Woodward:

If the Copenhagen or histories/decoherence interpretations of quantum mechanics are right, then time travel, at least to the future, is impossible because the future is in no sense actualized since it is not yet determined.*

If either the deBroglie-Bohm, transactional, or many worlds interpretations of quantum mechanics is correct, then time travel may be in principle possible because reality is deterministic and acausal and the past and future, in some world at least, objectively exist.


* Woodward here evidently poses the problem of a genuine time machine that could "immediately" travel in a far distant future, not the general relativity trick consisting of travelling during a long time at a relativistic velocity in a spaceship then returning to Earth, which would indeed be time travel into the future.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 04/25/2017 12:55 pm
The thing to understand is that advanced waves coming back from the future never propagate farther into the past than the rock hitting the water that initiated all of the waves.
This is not exactly true. In fact, as I have understood, advanced waves coming back from the future do propagate farther into the past than the rock hitting ... But then they cancel with the advanced waves produced by the rock hitting event ...

This cancellation is perfect in an overall flat space, but things may be different in a curved space and this is an open question which could challenge the law of causality. We must stay tune to this strange eventuallity !!  ;) ;)

What is the physical meaning of a wave that is "cancelled out" at some point but still "propagating" beyond this point? Seems to me as the ending spacetime point for this wave.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 04/27/2017 04:40 pm
Is this "Quantum Handshake" something that lets Mach Effect allow inertial changes to manifest themselves in realtime, rather than having to interact with the distant universe under the limits of lightspeed?

The transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics and Machian relativity theory both share the same "action-at-a-distance" concept described by the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory. But there is no recognized quantum gravity theory yet: the absorber theory is the only thing they have in common.

According to general relativity with Mach's principle (= gravitational absorber theory) the interaction between an object "here" and the distant matter in the rest of the universe is indeed limited by the speed of light. However, inertial reaction forces are instantaneous. How could that be?

The waves themselves in absorber theory are not superluminal, but the retarded+advanced solutions give a result that appears as being instantaneous. As said earlier, Jim Woodward gave a didactic image how Wheeler-Feynman advanced waves work when applied to gravity and inertia:

A first image to understand would be filming a sequence where a rock is thrown in the middle of a pond, making concentric ripples on the water propagating towards the shore.
Running the sequence backwards (thinking it as seeing events running backward in time) we then observe concentric waves propagating from the shore towards the center of the pond, where a rock emerges.
The thing to understand is that advanced waves coming back from the future never propagate farther into the past than the rock hitting the water that initiated all of the waves.

So when you push on a heavy object, this generates "retarded" inertial reaction waves that propagate forward in time at a limited velocity, interacting with the distant matter in the universe. But a similar "advanced" back reaction field propagates backward in time and reach the object the very instant you touch it, giving its property known as inertia. The retarded and advanced waves are two faces of the same coin, they are connected and time-symmetric like the propagating concentric ripples in the movie of the water pond.

I think it may be possible that quantum superpositions are multiple probabilities that exist in the time line in which we exist.  The collapse of a quantum probability to an actual event then concludes the path of our future.  In that sense for that to happen it may be necessary for signals to travel back in time to conclude the result of those multiple possibilities. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: M.E.T. on 04/29/2017 02:41 pm
Suppose the Mach Effect proves real and a viable space propulsion mechanism. Let's say it can eventually provide continuous thrust of 1G over the duration of an interstellar voyage - say to Alpha Centauri.

Let's further say that it comes into regular use, and hundreds or even thousands of MET drive ships are in operation by mankind. So, you have ships continously accelerating up to say 95% the speed of light and then beginning a deceleration halfway into the voyage, in order to arrive at their destinations at a dead stop.

Now, what happens when the Thruster breaks down on a particular ship halfway into its return journey to Earth, meaning the ship can no longer decelerate, leaving it travelling to its destination at 95% the speed of light. The idea being that you now have a relativistic missile heading straight for the Earth. If the ship is say several hundred meters across, weighing thousands of tons, well, you get the idea.

My concern being, could the achievement of such a space drive be a kind of answer to the Fermi paradox? Meaning you only need one such ship to malfunction and strike your home planet to create a catastrophic outcome?

And given this danger, are there some standard safety mechanisms that can be adopted if such a technology is in widespread use, to minimize this risk? Like self destruct mechanisms, or perhaps protocols to never head straight to a destination, but instead only change course directly for your destination planet once you have reached the inner solar system, and your velocity is significantly lower?

Else the Mach Effect could prove an existential threat to our species, if proven true.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 04/29/2017 03:02 pm
Suppose the Mach Effect proves real and a viable space propulsion mechanism. Let's say it can eventually provide continuous thrust of 1G over the duration of an interstellar voyage - say to Alpha Centauri.

Let's further say that it comes into regular use, and hundreds or even thousands of MET drive ships are in operation by mankind. So, you have ships continously accelerating up to say 95% the speed of light and then beginning a deceleration halfway into the voyage, in order to arrive at their destinations at a dead stop.

Now, what happens when the Thruster breaks down on a particular ship halfway into its return journey to Earth, meaning the ship can no longer decelerate, leaving it travelling to its destination at 95% the speed of light. The idea being that you now have a relativistic missile heading straight for the Earth. If the ship is say several hundred meters across, weighing thousands of tons, well, you get the idea.

My concern being, could the achievement of such a space drive be a kind of answer to the Fermi paradox? Meaning you only need one such ship to malfunction and strike your home planet to create a catastrophic outcome?

And given this danger, are there some standard safety mechanisms that can be adopted if such a technology is in widespread use, to minimize this risk? Like self destruct mechanisms, or perhaps protocols to never head straight to a destination, but instead only change course directly for your destination planet once you have reached the inner solar system, and your velocity is significantly lower?

Else the Mach Effect could prove an existential threat to our species, if proven true.

Planets orbit their star. If a ship several light-years away travelling at 95% c towards the solar system does not decelerate, there is virtually no chance it would collide with the Sun, the Earth or any other planet. Watch this video giving relative distances between planetary bodies. The ship, travelling almost along a straight line, would be smaller than a sand grain:

https://vimeo.com/139407849

However, I do see your point about an insane dictator trying to obliterate the Earth with an RKKV (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_kill_vehicle).
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: M.E.T. on 04/29/2017 03:13 pm
So you are saying that no voyage would ever plot a direct line course from LEO of its departure planet to LEO of its destination planet in a neighbouring solar system? Instead, they would just aim roughly for the star in question and then refine their course once passing through the Kuiper belt of the destination system, for example?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tchernik on 04/29/2017 03:59 pm

Else the Mach Effect could prove an existential threat to our species, if proven true.

I'm more concerned about someone intentionally aiming a piece of junk with a MET attached without anyone noticing. There is no shortage of disgruntled, unhappy or crazy people around, and any of them can one day decide life is not worth living, deciding to turn the lights off for everyone else too; sending out an improvised kinetic missile or subverting an existing one (like a ship, as some pilots have unfortunately done) and then bring it back to Earth at full steam for a date with history.

METs (and Emdrives, any space drive really) would make very easy to make terrifying kinetic impactors.

If they exist, they would really need to be regulated more than nuclear weapons.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 04/29/2017 11:28 pm
The thing to understand is that advanced waves coming back from the future never propagate farther into the past than the rock hitting the water that initiated all of the waves.
This is not exactly true. In fact, as I have understood, advanced waves coming back from the future do propagate farther into the past than the rock hitting ... But then they cancel with the advanced waves produced by the rock hitting event ...

This cancellation is perfect in an overall flat space, but things may be different in a curved space and this is an open question which could challenge the law of causality. We must stay tune to this strange eventuallity !!  ;) ;)

Yes indeed these are exciting times, through the timeline violation of the superluminal Alcubierre concept we have a posssibility which seems so much more alluring, even if we stick to travelling forwards.
https://phys.org/news/2017-04-math-possibility.html
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 04/29/2017 11:32 pm
Suppose the Mach Effect proves real and a viable space propulsion mechanism. Let's say it can eventually provide continuous thrust of 1G over the duration of an interstellar voyage - say to Alpha Centauri.

Let's further say that it comes into regular use, and hundreds or even thousands of MET drive ships are in operation by mankind. So, you have ships continously accelerating up to say 95% the speed of light and then beginning a deceleration halfway into the voyage, in order to arrive at their destinations at a dead stop.

Now, what happens when the Thruster breaks down on a particular ship halfway into its return journey to Earth, meaning the ship can no longer decelerate, leaving it travelling to its destination at 95% the speed of light. The idea being that you now have a relativistic missile heading straight for the Earth. If the ship is say several hundred meters across, weighing thousands of tons, well, you get the idea.

My concern being, could the achievement of such a space drive be a kind of answer to the Fermi paradox? Meaning you only need one such ship to malfunction and strike your home planet to create a catastrophic outcome?

And given this danger, are there some standard safety mechanisms that can be adopted if such a technology is in widespread use, to minimize this risk? Like self destruct mechanisms, or perhaps protocols to never head straight to a destination, but instead only change course directly for your destination planet once you have reached the inner solar system, and your velocity is significantly lower?

Else the Mach Effect could prove an existential threat to our species, if proven true.
There's no way such orbital precision is possible if delta-v is altered so little. Maneuvers planned in advance always utilize the orbital calculations needed for target lock on and then deorbiting. It will simply overshoot as space is massive and there really aren't too many gravity wells affecting the missile. No protocols needed, just basic astronomy and orbital mechanics.

Edit: Should also clarify that advanced maneuvers and flight command chains exist to decelerate crafts by bouncing on atmospheres or losing inertia to planets and other gravitating objects.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bynaus on 05/01/2017 12:37 pm

Else the Mach Effect could prove an existential threat to our species, if proven true.

I'm more concerned about someone intentionally aiming a piece of junk with a MET attached without anyone noticing. There is no shortage of disgruntled, unhappy or crazy people around, and any of them can one day decide life is not worth living, deciding to turn the lights off for everyone else too; sending out an improvised kinetic missile or subverting an existing one (like a ship, as some pilots have unfortunately done) and then bring it back to Earth at full steam for a date with history.

METs (and Emdrives, any space drive really) would make very easy to make terrifying kinetic impactors.

If they exist, they would really need to be regulated more than nuclear weapons.

This is true and, I think, completely underapprecciated today. If Mach drives exist, everybody having their hands on one will also have the possibility, in principle, of inflicting a nuclear-explosion-level damage (even much more) on any point on the Earth's (or any other planets, moons or asteroids) surface. Nothing would keep, e.g., Kim Jong-Un to hide a few impactors somewhere in the Kuiper belt, ready to accelerate and strike any point in the US whenever needed (they might need a few weeks to reach Earth, but that wouldn't reduce much the damage they could do once unleashed). To mitigate against that type of threat, it might (eventually) become necessary to constantly scan the vicinity of the Earth for relativistic impactors, and have a fleet of ultra-fast accelerating Mach drive missiles ready to intercept (remember that at ~c, a kinetic impactor would cross the Earth-Moon distance in 1 sec... So this would require scanning for sub-meter-sized objects several light-seconds out or even further - difficult, but probably not impossible). Lasers won't help here either because you have to make sure the bulk mass of the impactor doesn't hit the atmosphere - whether it reaches the atmosphere in a solid, molten or vaporized state makes (almost) no difference. Alternatively, you just have to make sure you live in a place where your future position cannot easily be determined. I.e., if we all lived in space colonies attached to randomly firing Mach drives, the threat of such impactors might be mitigated, too. So yes, I see this outcome as a possible solution to the Fermi paradox: Only those civilizations who do not yet know of the terror of relativistic impactors freely share their position with others...
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 05/02/2017 03:05 am

Else the Mach Effect could prove an existential threat to our species, if proven true.

I'm more concerned about someone intentionally aiming a piece of junk with a MET attached without anyone noticing. There is no shortage of disgruntled, unhappy or crazy people around, and any of them can one day decide life is not worth living, deciding to turn the lights off for everyone else too; sending out an improvised kinetic missile or subverting an existing one (like a ship, as some pilots have unfortunately done) and then bring it back to Earth at full steam for a date with history.

METs (and Emdrives, any space drive really) would make very easy to make terrifying kinetic impactors.

If they exist, they would really need to be regulated more than nuclear weapons.

This is true and, I think, completely underapprecciated today. If Mach drives exist, everybody having their hands on one will also have the possibility, in principle, of inflicting a nuclear-explosion-level damage (even much more) on any point on the Earth's (or any other planets, moons or asteroids) surface. Nothing would keep, e.g., Kim Jong-Un to hide a few impactors somewhere in the Kuiper belt, ready to accelerate and strike any point in the US whenever needed (they might need a few weeks to reach Earth, but that wouldn't reduce much the damage they could do once unleashed). To mitigate against that type of threat, it might (eventually) become necessary to constantly scan the vicinity of the Earth for relativistic impactors, and have a fleet of ultra-fast accelerating Mach drive missiles ready to intercept (remember that at ~c, a kinetic impactor would cross the Earth-Moon distance in 1 sec... So this would require scanning for sub-meter-sized objects several light-seconds out or even further - difficult, but probably not impossible). Lasers won't help here either because you have to make sure the bulk mass of the impactor doesn't hit the atmosphere - whether it reaches the atmosphere in a solid, molten or vaporized state makes (almost) no difference. Alternatively, you just have to make sure you live in a place where your future position cannot easily be determined. I.e., if we all lived in space colonies attached to randomly firing Mach drives, the threat of such impactors might be mitigated, too. So yes, I see this outcome as a possible solution to the Fermi paradox: Only those civilizations who do not yet know of the terror of relativistic impactors freely share their position with others...

Really... first off I dont disagree with the opinion that relitavistic weaponery would become a thing. But how does humanity gain access to a MET capable of heavy lift (constant 1g+) and remain prisoner to the idiots around us. I mean really. If MET's can be scalled to constant 1g+ thrust. Then  cleaning up LEO and GEO becomes cheap. I can only imagine the amount of money that could be made by simply recycling dead sats in those orbits. Take that money and build a fleet of high resolution space telescopes that can survey the entire sky in a number of spectrums. That fleet would pay for itself; why? because it would put all if not most terrestrial telescopes out of business. Especially if it is paired with high bandwidth laser/maser communications. Two steps and you have protected earth from relativistic weapons.

But why stop there if you have 1g+ thrust. Then why cant we dispose of fission waste in the sun or take it repurpose it as a heat generator on the moon or mars. That business would print money...

If you have 1g+ thrust. Then space tourism becomes a thing. granted we would need to throw some money at artificial gravity for space stations and much better space suits. But we no longer have to completely bootstrap industry off the planet. You can build everything on the planet and lift it off the planet. The cost reduction would be startling.

if you have 1g+ thrust terraforming mars or providing an atmosphere for stations becomes trivial (suck it out of venus' atmosphere and separate it)

I left out space mining... but that's only because I feel that is obvious. My point is the upside of 1g+ MET means you don't have to restrict the technology. just simply throw money at developing its other uses. 

Oh yeah, most of the damage you guys are talking about can be had by simply putting kinetic impactors in orbit.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tchernik on 05/02/2017 05:22 am

This is true and, I think, completely underapprecciated today. If Mach drives exist, everybody having their hands on one will also have the possibility, in principle, of inflicting a nuclear-explosion-level damage (even much more) on any point on the Earth's (or any other planets, moons or asteroids) surface. Nothing would keep, e.g., Kim Jong-Un to hide a few impactors somewhere in the Kuiper belt, ready to accelerate and strike any point in the US whenever needed (they might need a few weeks to reach Earth, but that wouldn't reduce much the damage they could do once unleashed). To mitigate against that type of threat, it might (eventually) become necessary to constantly scan the vicinity of the Earth for relativistic impactors, and have a fleet of ultra-fast accelerating Mach drive missiles ready to intercept (remember that at ~c, a kinetic impactor would cross the Earth-Moon distance in 1 sec... So this would require scanning for sub-meter-sized objects several light-seconds out or even further - difficult, but probably not impossible). Lasers won't help here either because you have to make sure the bulk mass of the impactor doesn't hit the atmosphere - whether it reaches the atmosphere in a solid, molten or vaporized state makes (almost) no difference. Alternatively, you just have to make sure you live in a place where your future position cannot easily be determined. I.e., if we all lived in space colonies attached to randomly firing Mach drives, the threat of such impactors might be mitigated, too. So yes, I see this outcome as a possible solution to the Fermi paradox: Only those civilizations who do not yet know of the terror of relativistic impactors freely share their position with others...

The only long term solution for this that occurs to me, is to plan a deliberate diaspora of humans into space settlements and asteroids as soon as the technology and science of METs is confirmed, and launch ships and habitats as soon as it is possible, for developing what's needed to take those settlements as far as they can from the risky planets, deep into the Kuiper belt and beyond, with the explicit purpose of eventually getting off the radar.

If position and visibility become a risk, the solution is to hide, make backups and expand.

Of course, it is doubtful Earth could never be fully evacuated in any meaningful time frame, therefore a parallel state machinery of surveillance and tight regulation of the METs would emerge (the same as with nuclear power), where every single private MET thruster is accounted for, tracked and could be remotely disabled. And probably within some radius of Earth, no object would be allowed to move above certain speeds or follow an accelerating trajectory of more than certain fractions of G.

It is in fact very likely, that the attempts to safeguard Earth vs the abuses would collide with the plans of leaving it, given both rely on controlling a tech that would be at the root of these future problems. But no government control is airtight, and there are more than one government on Earth, giving the diaspora a chance to actually happen.

Also, my apologies if this discussion seems to be eccentric and premature, but the enthusiasm of these potential scientific discoveries being true, should also be tempered by the unavoidable reality that any knowledge, specially one so powerful in energies as this, can be used for ill as much as for good.

We are in very peculiar times, when these things have ceased to be complete speculations and start knocking at the door of possibility, however remote that may be.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bynaus on 05/02/2017 06:30 am
First this:

Quote from: birchoff
Oh yeah, most of the damage you guys are talking about can be had by simply putting kinetic impactors in orbit.

Nope. In orbit, kinetic energy is 60 Megajoules per kg. A relativistic kinetic impactor can easily get 60 Megatons per kg...

Quote
But how does humanity gain access to a MET capable of heavy lift (constant 1g+) and remain prisoner to the idiots around us.

Well, how did humanity get access to fusion bombs and remain prisoner to the same idiots? Humans will always be humans, regardless of technology.

All the technological developments you mention would probably happen, but wouldn't defuse the threat of relativistic weaponry. Just having telescopes looking out for relativistic kinetic impactors (RKIs) will not protect the Earth alone - as mentioned, you need some kind of interceptor which can build up in very short time the kinetic energy needed to divert the RKI from its collision path (or at least deviate it such that it doesn't hit a city and impacts over the ocean instead - if that is enough...). To do that, you need to find the approaching RKI, calculate its trajectory, notify a battery of interceptors, launch them and have them reach the RKI in time, all in the matter of a few seconds...

One limitation to the RKI threat is probably that the acceleration to relativistic speeds is energy-limited, and therefore you would also need a very powerful energy source to build an RKI (also, as a consequence the RKI would probably glow brightly - at least in infrared - on approach, which makes it easier to identify - unless you accelerate it from very far away so it has time to cool down again). But in a future where both Mach drives and compact nuclear fusion are commonplace, at least state actors should have no problem setting up a fleet of RKIs in the Kuiper belt or beyond.

Quote from: tchernik
If position and visibility become a risk, the solution is to hide, make backups and expand.

Exactly.

Quote
Of course, it is doubtful Earth could never be fully evacuated in any meaningful time frame, therefore a parallel state machinery of surveillance and tight regulation of the METs would emerge (the same as with nuclear power), where every single private MET thruster is accounted for, tracked and could be remotely disabled. And probably within some radius of Earth, no object would be allowed to move above certain speeds or follow an accelerating trajectory of more than certain fractions of G.

That radius would have to be very big (probably encompass the solar system or so) to make sure any rogue Mach drives could be intercepted in time. But then, how would you track those who do not want to be tracked? As long as you have different states with different interests, surveillance / regulation will always serve the needs of these interests.

So I agree - the diaspora would be likely to happen. On these ships going into hiding/riding, you can even have a comfy 1 Ge - just accelerate constantly with your Mach drive (but not in a fully deterministic fashion). Go see the universe. All you need is something to feed your fusion reactor with, but that, you can get from everywhere. And hey, at 1 Ge acceleration, the next star system is only a few years of travel away. That's certainly doable, right? And while we're at it: the galactic center is only 30 years away, 60 if you want to stop...
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 05/02/2017 02:11 pm
First this:

Quote from: birchoff
Oh yeah, most of the damage you guys are talking about can be had by simply putting kinetic impactors in orbit.

Nope. In orbit, kinetic energy is 60 Megajoules per kg. A relativistic kinetic impactor can easily get 60 Megatons per kg...

Quote
But how does humanity gain access to a MET capable of heavy lift (constant 1g+) and remain prisoner to the idiots around us.

Well, how did humanity get access to fusion bombs and remain prisoner to the same idiots? Humans will always be humans, regardless of technology.

All the technological developments you mention would probably happen, but wouldn't defuse the threat of relativistic weaponry. Just having telescopes looking out for relativistic kinetic impactors (RKIs) will not protect the Earth alone - as mentioned, you need some kind of interceptor which can build up in very short time the kinetic energy needed to divert the RKI from its collision path (or at least deviate it such that it doesn't hit a city and impacts over the ocean instead - if that is enough...). To do that, you need to find the approaching RKI, calculate its trajectory, notify a battery of interceptors, launch them and have them reach the RKI in time, all in the matter of a few seconds...

One limitation to the RKI threat is probably that the acceleration to relativistic speeds is energy-limited, and therefore you would also need a very powerful energy source to build an RKI (also, as a consequence the RKI would probably glow brightly - at least in infrared - on approach, which makes it easier to identify - unless you accelerate it from very far away so it has time to cool down again). But in a future where both Mach drives and compact nuclear fusion are commonplace, at least state actors should have no problem setting up a fleet of RKIs in the Kuiper belt or beyond.

Quote from: tchernik
If position and visibility become a risk, the solution is to hide, make backups and expand.

Exactly.

Quote
Of course, it is doubtful Earth could never be fully evacuated in any meaningful time frame, therefore a parallel state machinery of surveillance and tight regulation of the METs would emerge (the same as with nuclear power), where every single private MET thruster is accounted for, tracked and could be remotely disabled. And probably within some radius of Earth, no object would be allowed to move above certain speeds or follow an accelerating trajectory of more than certain fractions of G.

That radius would have to be very big (probably encompass the solar system or so) to make sure any rogue Mach drives could be intercepted in time. But then, how would you track those who do not want to be tracked? As long as you have different states with different interests, surveillance / regulation will always serve the needs of these interests.

So I agree - the diaspora would be likely to happen. On these ships going into hiding/riding, you can even have a comfy 1 Ge - just accelerate constantly with your Mach drive (but not in a fully deterministic fashion). Go see the universe. All you need is something to feed your fusion reactor with, but that, you can get from everywhere. And hey, at 1 Ge acceleration, the next star system is only a few years of travel away. That's certainly doable, right? And while we're at it: the galactic center is only 30 years away, 60 if you want to stop...

your missing my point. The reason we have to restrict access to fusion/fission bombs is because WE HAVE BUT ONE  PLANET. and that weaponry can destroy the one planet we have. Heavy Lift MET's basically remove the biggest barrier to humanity only having a single planet it can live on. Heavy Lift MET's  will basically lead us to moving off planet. There are other technologies we need. but it is my position that those technologies do not see alot of investment because the market doesnt believe there is a need. heavy lift MET's would automatically generate a market need while providing the buyers with a variety of business opportunities to fund development/procurement of that need. That means at most their would be a short term threat. but long term humanity would be sufficiently spread out across the inner and possibly outer solar system than relativistic impactors just become a nice way to piss off people. instead of being the end of humanity scenario it is today.

One other thing I forgot to mention. heavy lift met's also provide you with a protection system. if you have complete coverage of the sky to detect them. then you just need a drone pulling  many many G's of constant acceleration to pull up along side and alter its course. Or take the SPS system and use it to power a GW Laser. again relativistic impactors are not a great concern here
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bynaus on 05/02/2017 02:49 pm
First this:

Quote from: birchoff
Oh yeah, most of the damage you guys are talking about can be had by simply putting kinetic impactors in orbit.

Nope. In orbit, kinetic energy is 60 Megajoules per kg. A relativistic kinetic impactor can easily get 60 Megatons per kg...

Quote
But how does humanity gain access to a MET capable of heavy lift (constant 1g+) and remain prisoner to the idiots around us.

Well, how did humanity get access to fusion bombs and remain prisoner to the same idiots? Humans will always be humans, regardless of technology.

All the technological developments you mention would probably happen, but wouldn't defuse the threat of relativistic weaponry. Just having telescopes looking out for relativistic kinetic impactors (RKIs) will not protect the Earth alone - as mentioned, you need some kind of interceptor which can build up in very short time the kinetic energy needed to divert the RKI from its collision path (or at least deviate it such that it doesn't hit a city and impacts over the ocean instead - if that is enough...). To do that, you need to find the approaching RKI, calculate its trajectory, notify a battery of interceptors, launch them and have them reach the RKI in time, all in the matter of a few seconds...

One limitation to the RKI threat is probably that the acceleration to relativistic speeds is energy-limited, and therefore you would also need a very powerful energy source to build an RKI (also, as a consequence the RKI would probably glow brightly - at least in infrared - on approach, which makes it easier to identify - unless you accelerate it from very far away so it has time to cool down again). But in a future where both Mach drives and compact nuclear fusion are commonplace, at least state actors should have no problem setting up a fleet of RKIs in the Kuiper belt or beyond.

Quote from: tchernik
If position and visibility become a risk, the solution is to hide, make backups and expand.

Exactly.

Quote
Of course, it is doubtful Earth could never be fully evacuated in any meaningful time frame, therefore a parallel state machinery of surveillance and tight regulation of the METs would emerge (the same as with nuclear power), where every single private MET thruster is accounted for, tracked and could be remotely disabled. And probably within some radius of Earth, no object would be allowed to move above certain speeds or follow an accelerating trajectory of more than certain fractions of G.

That radius would have to be very big (probably encompass the solar system or so) to make sure any rogue Mach drives could be intercepted in time. But then, how would you track those who do not want to be tracked? As long as you have different states with different interests, surveillance / regulation will always serve the needs of these interests.

So I agree - the diaspora would be likely to happen. On these ships going into hiding/riding, you can even have a comfy 1 Ge - just accelerate constantly with your Mach drive (but not in a fully deterministic fashion). Go see the universe. All you need is something to feed your fusion reactor with, but that, you can get from everywhere. And hey, at 1 Ge acceleration, the next star system is only a few years of travel away. That's certainly doable, right? And while we're at it: the galactic center is only 30 years away, 60 if you want to stop...

your missing my point. The reason we have to restrict access to fusion/fission bombs is because WE HAVE BUT ONE  PLANET. and that weaponry can destroy the one planet we have. Heavy Lift MET's basically remove the biggest barrier to humanity only having a single planet it can live on. Heavy Lift MET's  will basically lead us to moving off planet. There are other technologies we need. but it is my position that those technologies do not see alot of investment because the market doesnt believe there is a need. heavy lift MET's would automatically generate a market need while providing the buyers with a variety of business opportunities to fund development/procurement of that need. That means at most their would be a short term threat. but long term humanity would be sufficiently spread out across the inner and possibly outer solar system than relativistic impactors just become a nice way to piss off people. instead of being the end of humanity scenario it is today.

One other thing I forgot to mention. heavy lift met's also provide you with a protection system. if you have complete coverage of the sky to detect them. then you just need a drone pulling  many many G's of constant acceleration to pull up along side and alter its course. Or take the SPS system and use it to power a GW Laser. again relativistic impactors are not a great concern here

Well, there will certainly be a dangerous transition period where RKIs are an existential risk for all of humanity (when we can build them already, but haven't moved into space habitats in large numbers yet). If we survive that period, then, yes, humanity as a whole will survive, but still, the need to protect large portions of the population from multi-Megaton-range sneak attacks from interplanetary space will remain. After one RKI wipes out a city, as a politician would you really tell your electorate that you are not doing anything about it because other people moved to other places and thus, humanity will survive?

The surface of any other planet, asteroid, or moon isn't safer than Earth by the way - these are all places where you can deterministically predict where the population centers will be, within a few meters, for thousands of years into the future. The only safe place, in the long run, is on ships equiped with their own Mach drive (certainly at war time, but then, for some organizations on this planet, its always war time...).

To alter the course of an RKI (even more so, pull up along side! much more efficient to just collide with it), you need time. To get time, you have to find them very far out. This is not easy to begin with - we can scan the whole sky today (we do), but we are not only limited by magnitude (the limit of how much light the object we are looking for reflects, or in this case, emits), but also by processing power to find the actual object amongst the billions of background stars and asteroids and cosmic-ray hits. Especially if an RKI is on a direct approach course, it will have very limited tangential velocity, so it will be difficult to spot as it looks like a very hot but tiny background star... Then, RKIs are moving at relativistic speeds, so most of that safety distance will actually be needed just to get their photons into the telescope (e.g., at 90% of c, finding them out at 10 Earth-Moon distances only gives you one second to react from the moment their light reaches the telescope - then they impact). Today, it would be completely hopeless to find objects of a few kg even in cislunar space... (and, btw, there is also a physical/optical limit to how good a telescope you can build to find these things).

Lasers are also of no good use here, because even if you vaporize the RKI with a laser, the ion velocities in the resulting plasma will still be very small compared to the relativistic forward velocity, and thus this will not make much of a difference (as builder of the RKI, you could even help this by using very heavy building materials which are difficult to accelerate, like tungsten). It doesn't really matter if the Earth is hit by a lob or tungsten or a cloud of tungsten atoms of the same mass, if it is at relativistic velocities. Also, it is by no means given that the approaching RKI would agree to be a passive target on a deterministic course. In the last section of its flight, it might accelerate and slightly change course at random, which - given the dimensions involved - would probably make it impossible to hit with a laser.

To protect surface populations against them, you would probably need a system-wide optical/infrared surveillance system (so you could triangulate and cut down on processing power), and then some kind of super-fast interceptor system which has a realistic chance of delivering a punch strong enough so the RKI misses its target.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: M.E.T. on 05/02/2017 03:41 pm
I'm not so sure about easily stopping RKV threats.

How far out could you detect a 1m diameter ball of iron traveling at 95% the speed of light? How about a 10cm diameter ball of iron. And at that speed, your response time would likely be in minutes only, maybe hours at most.

And furthermore, it seems that even Mach Thrusters would take months to get such a device up to 95% the speed of light. To achieve the same speed from rest in a few hours seems unlikely. Yet that would be required to have any hope of intercepting the incoming projectile.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: RonM on 05/02/2017 04:08 pm
I'm not so sure about easily stopping RKV threats.

How far out could you detect a 1m diameter ball of iron traveling at 95% the speed of light? How about a 10cm diameter ball of iron. And at that speed, your response time would likely be in minutes only, maybe hours at most.

And furthermore, it seems that even Mach Thrusters would take months to get such a device up to 95% the speed of light. To achieve the same speed from rest in a few hours seems unlikely. Yet that would be required to have any hope of intercepting the incoming projectile.

Yes, stopping a RKV would be extremely difficult if not impossible.

Let's assume detecting the RKV is not a problem (it would be, but let's say it's not for sake of the following example).

Say we detect a RKV traveling .95c at about 50 AU (outer edge of the Kuiper Belt, say 400 light-minutes away). The RKV is moving almost as fast as the signal preceding it, so by the time we see it at 400 light-minutes away, it's traveled 380 light-minutes. Now it's only 21 minutes from impact.

Not a lot of time left, but our automated defense lasers fire and vapourize it in the nick of time.

Lasers are also of no good use here, because even if you vaporize the RKI with a laser, the ion velocities in the resulting plasma will still be very small compared to the relativistic forward velocity, and thus this will not make much of a difference (as builder of the RKI, you could even help this by using very heavy building materials which are difficult to accelerate, like tungsten). It doesn't really matter if the Earth is hit by a lob or tungsten or a cloud of tungsten atoms of the same mass, if it is at relativistic velocities. Also, it is by no means given that the approaching RKI would agree to be a passive target on a deterministic course. In the last section of its flight, it might accelerate and slightly change course at random, which - given the dimensions involved - would probably make it impossible to hit with a laser.

Oops.

So, even if we detect an incoming RKV at the edge of the Solar System, we can't stop it from doing massive damage to Earth.

This all assumes a threat launched from beyond the Solar System arriving at near lightspeed. Terrorists using vehicles within the Solar System wouldn't have enough room to accelerate to these incredible speeds.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Stormbringer on 05/02/2017 04:51 pm
But a laser wouldn't just melt it. in fact it probably wouldn't entirely melt it; but when you pit something with a laser you create a maneuvering thruster. just a little bit of deflection applied soon enough might result in a clean miss. if the laser effect was enough to cause the object to disintegrate explosively it might also result in a miss the same way a shotgun blast often misses if fired outside its effective range. if the laser plasmified it we get hit by near light speed heavy nuclei all the time. usually they are stopped before reaching ground level and if they did get to ground level all you might notice is phosphenes in your visual field.

furthermore acceleration even with a mach drive would likely take at least several months maybe even a year. while the thing is building up speed going away it will generate infrared light and coming back it will generate gamma rays or x rays. that is assuming you take it up to very near light speed and it will likely have to travel well beyond the limits of the solar system to obtain that speed.

something accelerating at 1 G takes months to hit relativistic speed. i think i have seen slides on METs and the like or similar things like Whites QT accelerate slowly.

Furthermore assuming the faction that launches a RKV is on earth even partially successful intercepts under your branch of speculation which assumes part of the RKV or all of it hits the earth Thier day where they are at gets ruined too. and even if it didn't directly get ruined...

I have seen boom calculators that say that the impact makes a crater throwing up megatons of molten rocks which are orbital and suborbital that rain all over the earth and set everything on fire or would if it werent already fried by the hypersonic super-heated winds. Supersonic superheated winds, shockwaves and pyroclastic flows race around around the world 8 times before slowing to subsonic speed also incinerating everything while pulverising multi-celled creatures into mist that would be pink if it had not been burned down to carbon. Off the scale beyond 9. -whatever earthquakes take place all over the world. Every existing or former volcano plus more that didn't even exist before also simultaneously erupt all over the world. the combined particulates from each of these effects covers everything and blots out the sun for at least three years. also as much as a quarter of the atmosphere would blow into space and the ozone layer would go bu-bye.

More than likely due to not wanting to be incinerated themselves they would restrict the homicidal speed down to manageable levels. say 1.3 percent light speed which turns a 20 KG inert slug into the equivalent of several hiroshima bombs. As portrayed in this video from the game mass effect:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hugWzmMbUss



Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Ithirahad on 05/02/2017 05:39 pm
This looks like a discussion for a new topic entirely: "Large-scale Implications of a Functional Reactionless Space Drive (EmDrive, Woodward thruster, etc.)"
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 05/02/2017 05:43 pm
....
Well, there will certainly be a dangerous transition period where RKIs are an existential risk for all of humanity (when we can build them already, but haven't moved into space habitats in large numbers yet). If we survive that period, then, yes, humanity as a whole will survive, but still, the need to protect large portions of the population from multi-Megaton-range sneak attacks from interplanetary space will remain. After one RKI wipes out a city, as a politician would you really tell your electorate that you are not doing anything about it because other people moved to other places and thus, humanity will survive?

The surface of any other planet, asteroid, or moon isn't safer than Earth by the way - these are all places where you can deterministically predict where the population centers will be, within a few meters, for thousands of years into the future. The only safe place, in the long run, is on ships equiped with their own Mach drive (certainly at war time, but then, for some organizations on this planet, its always war time...).

To alter the course of an RKI (even more so, pull up along side! much more efficient to just collide with it), you need time. To get time, you have to find them very far out. This is not easy to begin with - we can scan the whole sky today (we do), but we are not only limited by magnitude (the limit of how much light the object we are looking for reflects, or in this case, emits), but also by processing power to find the actual object amongst the billions of background stars and asteroids and cosmic-ray hits. Especially if an RKI is on a direct approach course, it will have very limited tangential velocity, so it will be difficult to spot as it looks like a very hot but tiny background star... Then, RKIs are moving at relativistic speeds, so most of that safety distance will actually be needed just to get their photons into the telescope (e.g., at 90% of c, finding them out at 10 Earth-Moon distances only gives you one second to react from the moment their light reaches the telescope - then they impact). Today, it would be completely hopeless to find objects of a few kg even in cislunar space... (and, btw, there is also a physical/optical limit to how good a telescope you can build to find these things).

Lasers are also of no good use here, because even if you vaporize the RKI with a laser, the ion velocities in the resulting plasma will still be very small compared to the relativistic forward velocity, and thus this will not make much of a difference (as builder of the RKI, you could even help this by using very heavy building materials which are difficult to accelerate, like tungsten). It doesn't really matter if the Earth is hit by a lob or tungsten or a cloud of tungsten atoms of the same mass, if it is at relativistic velocities. Also, it is by no means given that the approaching RKI would agree to be a passive target on a deterministic course. In the last section of its flight, it might accelerate and slightly change course at random, which - given the dimensions involved - would probably make it impossible to hit with a laser.

To protect surface populations against them, you would probably need a system-wide optical/infrared surveillance system (so you could triangulate and cut down on processing power), and then some kind of super-fast interceptor system which has a realistic chance of delivering a punch strong enough so the RKI misses its target.

Actually what a politician attempts to do about this threat will be determined by their philosophy/patrons. once humanity moves out into space. Unless we have FTL Comms. We will cease to be a cohesive whole. so banning MET's will only affect the system issuing the ban. Not everyone else.

As for inability to see. Since we would have the sun at our full disposal. We would have the ability to not only passively observe. We would also be able to actively listen by pinging in different EM Frequencies. As for the surveilance system I have in mind. I suspect if it was built it would be overlapping. We have a very flat picture of the universe around us. So as our usage of space ticks up it's going to be in our own best interest to be able to observe the behavior of anything within the Kuiper via multiple sensors. So I would expect we would be able to measure movement in all dimensions for any object entering the surveilance field; for lack of a better term. as for lack of computing power. I have a hard time believing no one would think it worth while to throw the neccessary hardware at the problem. With MET's capable of heavy lift you will need the space equivalent of air traffic control. Given the distances and velocities in volved it will need to be 100% automated with humans only around to override in case something wierd happens.

Ionizing your RKI slug is a good thing, because now you have the ability to steer using magnetic fields.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Stormbringer on 05/02/2017 05:56 pm
Well i know there are some individuals who wouldn't care that they were killing themselves and destroying the planet but most rational actors would not want this to happen. Remember that the energy releases depends on both mass and velocity. so a less massive weapon traveling at faster speed would be the equivalent of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU1QPtOZQZU


and what's scary is that it could even be worse than this. enough mass and velocity and you might turn the earth to dust and fling it out of the galaxy. Not that we would be able to appreciate the difference.

Project Rho's boom table:  http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/usefultables.php


Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Chris Bergin on 05/02/2017 08:59 pm
Ok guys, per report to mods, this thread needs to get back on track from this point onwards. Thanks!
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star One on 05/03/2017 08:21 pm
Quote
Jason Wright @Astro_Wright

Huh. Abstract claims that propulsion-less drives have "been demonstrated over 10 years" which is…debatable, shall we say.

Full discussion on thread.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Astro_Wright/status/859768592795152385
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star-Drive on 05/08/2017 02:39 pm
Quote
Jason Wright @Astro_Wright

Huh. Abstract claims that propulsion-less drives have "been demonstrated over 10 years" which is…debatable, shall we say.

Full discussion on thread.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Astro_Wright/status/859768592795152385

All:

In this context "demonstrated" indicates published experimental results over the mentioned time period.  Of course the author of these comments would have to had performed "due-diligence" in finding the papers or articles where this data was published.  Then he or she would have to perform an evaluation of the five known to me labs results that have replicated Woodward's Mach-Effect-Gravity-Assist (MEGA) drive thruster test results to make their own call about the veracity of each test.  However,  I know that most folks threshold of pain when it comes to believing that paradigm breaking space-drives are real is to perform a deep-space (beyond LEO) propulsion test with a MEGA drive to validate that it can in deed accelerate and decelerate the attached vehicle.  Sadly it takes a lot of development $$$ to accomplish this kind of deep space demonstration, and it can only be pursued when the net thrust for these MEGA drives generate a hundred milli-Newton or more.

Next, Dr. Rodal's analytical revelation that I was talking about earlier was that ALL the kinetic energy generated by a MEGA drive has to come from the cosmological gravitational / inertial (G/I) field AKA spacetime in General Relativity Theory (GRT), while the local vehicle input power to the MEGA drive is used just to setup the conditions needed to extract energy from the G/I field.  In other words the local vehicle input power to the MEGA drive does NOT accelerate the vehicle, but is used just as the catalytic input energy needed to extract kinetic energy from the cosmological G/I field.

Lastly find below a picture of my now finished workshop and lab building that I had built in my backyard to continue the propulsion work I was pursuing at the NASA/JSC Eagleworks Lab.  I'm currently in the middle of transferring my home lab to this new lab facility and hope to be pursuing EMdrive & MEGA drive experiments by the end of this year.

Best, Paul M.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 05/08/2017 10:48 pm
...
Next, Dr. Rodal's analytical revelation that I was talking about earlier was that ALL the kinetic energy generated by a MEGA drive has to come from the cosmological gravitational / inertial (G/I) field AKA spacetime in General Relativity Theory (GRT), while the local vehicle input power to the MEGA drive is used just to setup the conditions needed to extract energy from the G/I field.  In other words the local vehicle input power to the MEGA drive does NOT accelerate the vehicle, but is used just as the catalytic input energy needed to extract kinetic energy from the cosmological G/I field.
...

This forces me to reask a question I know pops up on this thread every so often with no answer I have found to be definitive.

doesn't that mean we should be able to build generators with this technology? If not it would sound like there is some detail about how kinetic energy is transferred to the drive that would prevent coupling it to a generator.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star-Drive on 05/09/2017 04:49 am
...
Next, Dr. Rodal's analytical revelation that I was talking about earlier was that ALL the kinetic energy generated by a MEGA drive has to come from the cosmological gravitational / inertial (G/I) field AKA spacetime in General Relativity Theory (GRT), while the local vehicle input power to the MEGA drive is used just to setup the conditions needed to extract energy from the G/I field.  In other words the local vehicle input power to the MEGA drive does NOT accelerate the vehicle, but is used just as the catalytic input energy needed to extract kinetic energy from the cosmological G/I field.
...

This forces me to reask a question I know pops up on this thread every so often with no answer I have found to be definitive.

doesn't that mean we should be able to build generators with this technology? If not it would sound like there is some detail about how kinetic energy is transferred to the drive that would prevent coupling it to a generator.

birchoff:

In principle local power generation from the G/I field should be possible, but the trick is to find the correct thermodynamic cycle that allows continuous or at least pulsed energy extraction from the G/I field that exceeds the required catalytic input energy needed to extract it.  This may just require a functioning MEGA drive mounted on the perimeter of a flywheel, unless the radial centrifugal forces of such a revolving system disrupts the Mach-Effect function.  Then again if we drive the MEGA drive into negative inertial mass wormhole territory all sorts of rotational approaches to thrust production and power generation come to the fore.  And Woodward may have already demonstrated that feat back in 2001 as described in his IIT paper, see attached.

Best, Paul M.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: RotoSequence on 05/11/2017 01:46 pm
birchoff:

In principle local power generation from the G/I field should be possible, but the trick is to find the correct thermodynamic cycle that allows continuous or at least pulsed energy extraction from the G/I field that exceeds the required catalytic input energy needed to extract it.  This may just require a functioning MEGA drive mounted on the perimeter of a flywheel, unless the radial centrifugal forces of such a revolving system disrupts the Mach-Effect function.  Then again if we drive the MEGA drive into negative inertial mass wormhole territory all sorts of rotational approaches to thrust production and power generation come to the fore.  And Woodward may have already demonstrated that feat back in 2001 as described in his IIT paper, see attached.

Best, Paul M.

It remains safe to assume that someone is paying for that energy lunch, or the effect itself isn't real.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Antigraviticsystems1 on 05/11/2017 03:34 pm
Hello !! ... the first of all is to apologize to everyone for the hard of the Spanish-English translation through google.

I would like to thank GI-Truster and Star Drive for all the information that was sent to the forum which has helped me to understand.

I wish I could reproduce some of these technologies on a small scale, greetings.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hola!!... lo primero de todo es disculparme ante todos por lo duro de la traducción español-ingles mediante google.

Deseo darle las gracias sobre todo a "GI-Truster" y a "Star drive" por toda la información vertida en el foro la cual me ha ayudado a comprender.

Me gustaría poder reproducir alguna de estas tecnologias a pequeña escala, saludos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqwW9c1jisA
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 05/11/2017 06:19 pm
birchoff:

In principle local power generation from the G/I field should be possible, but the trick is to find the correct thermodynamic cycle that allows continuous or at least pulsed energy extraction from the G/I field that exceeds the required catalytic input energy needed to extract it.  This may just require a functioning MEGA drive mounted on the perimeter of a flywheel, unless the radial centrifugal forces of such a revolving system disrupts the Mach-Effect function.  Then again if we drive the MEGA drive into negative inertial mass wormhole territory all sorts of rotational approaches to thrust production and power generation come to the fore.  And Woodward may have already demonstrated that feat back in 2001 as described in his IIT paper, see attached.

Best, Paul M.

It remains safe to assume that someone is paying for that energy lunch, or the effect itself isn't real.

Yeah thats the other question I have. but I don't get the impression that anyone who frequents NSF and is a proponent of ME, understands it enough to explain not so much who is paying for what looks like a free lunch; but instead what effect should we see in the universe as we begin to make heavy use of the universal GI field.

Personally, my mind wants to believe there should be no effect. Mainly because the actual effect taking place in a MET is periodic mass fluctuation which is generated by the on board ship power plant. The part that actually generates thrust, occurs because we have the ability to push when heavy and pull when lighter. That pushing and pulling are purely local as I understand it. Only the mass fluctuation is occurring because of interactions with the mass shell of the universe. So if my understanding is sound, the ability to generate thrust should be unlimited. If it isn't then either this doesn't work or there is some very interesting subtlety that is lost on my at the moment.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Rodal on 05/11/2017 09:04 pm
...
Next, Dr. Rodal's analytical revelation that I was talking about earlier was that ALL the kinetic energy generated by a MEGA drive has to come from the cosmological gravitational / inertial (G/I) field AKA spacetime in General Relativity Theory (GRT), while the local vehicle input power to the MEGA drive is used just to setup the conditions needed to extract energy from the G/I field.  In other words the local vehicle input power to the MEGA drive does NOT accelerate the vehicle, but is used just as the catalytic input energy needed to extract kinetic energy from the cosmological G/I field.
...

This forces me to reask a question I know pops up on this thread every so often with no answer I have found to be definitive.

doesn't that mean we should be able to build generators with this technology? ..
No, you should not be able to continuously gain energy from that in a closed cycle, purely using gravitation without using other energy sources, just like you can use gravity assist to gain momentum and energy in one direction when going through the Jovian system, but you cannot use gravity assist to continuously gain energy in a closed cycle by circling between the Earth and the Jovian System.

As another example, a hydroelectric powerplant is only able to generate electricity continuously using gravity because the weather cycle (ultimately powered by the Sun) replenishes the water in the upper reservoir from which the energy is extracted by gravity. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 05/12/2017 01:09 am
...
Next, Dr. Rodal's analytical revelation that I was talking about earlier was that ALL the kinetic energy generated by a MEGA drive has to come from the cosmological gravitational / inertial (G/I) field AKA spacetime in General Relativity Theory (GRT), while the local vehicle input power to the MEGA drive is used just to setup the conditions needed to extract energy from the G/I field.  In other words the local vehicle input power to the MEGA drive does NOT accelerate the vehicle, but is used just as the catalytic input energy needed to extract kinetic energy from the cosmological G/I field.
...

This forces me to reask a question I know pops up on this thread every so often with no answer I have found to be definitive.

doesn't that mean we should be able to build generators with this technology? ..
No, you should not be able to continuously gain energy from that in a closed cycle, purely using gravitation without using other energy sources, just like you can use gravity assist to gain momentum and energy in one direction when going through the Jovian system, but you cannot use gravity assist to continuously gain energy in a closed cycle by circling between the Earth and the Jovian System.

As another example, a hydroelectric powerplant is only able to generate electricity continuously using gravity because the weather cycle (ultimately powered by the Sun) replenishes the water in the upper reservoir from which the energy is extracted by gravity.

I recall you saying this on the EmDrive thread. But the question I had at that time and failed to ask. What would prevent that from happening in the ME case? If bolting a MET to a flywheel results in a closed system. What is it about bolting it to a ship keeps it an open system during operation?

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Rodal on 05/12/2017 01:43 am
...
Next, Dr. Rodal's analytical revelation that I was talking about earlier was that ALL the kinetic energy generated by a MEGA drive has to come from the cosmological gravitational / inertial (G/I) field AKA spacetime in General Relativity Theory (GRT), while the local vehicle input power to the MEGA drive is used just to setup the conditions needed to extract energy from the G/I field.  In other words the local vehicle input power to the MEGA drive does NOT accelerate the vehicle, but is used just as the catalytic input energy needed to extract kinetic energy from the cosmological G/I field.
...

This forces me to reask a question I know pops up on this thread every so often with no answer I have found to be definitive.

doesn't that mean we should be able to build generators with this technology? ..
No, you should not be able to continuously gain energy from that in a closed cycle, purely using gravitation without using other energy sources, just like you can use gravity assist to gain momentum and energy in one direction when going through the Jovian system, but you cannot use gravity assist to continuously gain energy in a closed cycle by circling between the Earth and the Jovian System.

As another example, a hydroelectric powerplant is only able to generate electricity continuously using gravity because the weather cycle (ultimately powered by the Sun) replenishes the water in the upper reservoir from which the energy is extracted by gravity.

I recall you saying this on the EmDrive thread. But the question I had at that time and failed to ask. What would prevent that from happening in the ME case? If bolting a MET to a flywheel results in a closed system. What is it about bolting it to a ship keeps it an open system during operation?
One word: entropy. 
The same reason why a perpetual motion machine cannot work.   There will be frictional losses in the bearing, there will be damping losses in the flywheel and there are damping losses in the MET (which has a low Q, very far away from infinity).    The rotating motion would also be a problem: the inertial forces: Euler and centrifugal, when you work it all out one realizes that more energy is spent that you will be able to get out, when using real materials (and not ignoring the properties of real materials, including fatigue, which in the case for the MET involve piezoelectricity and electrostriction).

Any study of the MET that fails to take into account entropy and the properties of real materials leads to absurd conclusions, the same way that a study about vibrations (remember that the MET works at resonance) would predict vibration amplitude growing to infinity if damping is ignored, and if a flywheel without friction would exist you could have mechanical clocks that could run forever and perpetual motion machines would be a reality ;). 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 05/12/2017 02:39 am
...
One word: entropy. 
The same reason why a perpetual motion machine cannot work.   There will be frictional losses in the bearing, there will be damping losses in the flywheel and there are damping losses in the MET (which has a low Q, very far away from infinity).    The rotating motion would also be a problem: the inertial forces: Euler and centrifugal, when you work it all out one realizes that more energy is spent that you will be able to get out, when using real materials (and not ignoring the properties of real materials, including fatigue, which in the case for the MET involve piezoelectricity and electrostriction).

Any study of the MET that fails to take into account entropy and the properties of real materials leads to absurd conclusions, the same way that a study about vibrations (remember that the MET works at resonance) would predict vibration amplitude growing to infinity if damping is ignored, and if a flywheel without friction would exist you could have mechanical clocks that could run forever and perpetual motion machines would be a reality ;).

Wouldn't that mean we would have to expect an optimized MET in a ship would only be capable of short bursts of thrust not continuous? If not. I could just take two MET's place one on either end of a piston and toggle when they are on; I am assuming MET's capable of N's of thrust.

My appologies for sticking on this.  I have a very hard time seeing how the losses your referring to would swamp a MET capable of Heavy Lift.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Rodal on 05/12/2017 02:56 am
...
One word: entropy. 
The same reason why a perpetual motion machine cannot work.   There will be frictional losses in the bearing, there will be damping losses in the flywheel and there are damping losses in the MET (which has a low Q, very far away from infinity).    The rotating motion would also be a problem: the inertial forces: Euler and centrifugal, when you work it all out one realizes that more energy is spent that you will be able to get out, when using real materials (and not ignoring the properties of real materials, including fatigue, which in the case for the MET involve piezoelectricity and electrostriction).

Any study of the MET that fails to take into account entropy and the properties of real materials leads to absurd conclusions, the same way that a study about vibrations (remember that the MET works at resonance) would predict vibration amplitude growing to infinity if damping is ignored, and if a flywheel without friction would exist you could have mechanical clocks that could run forever and perpetual motion machines would be a reality ;).

Wouldn't that mean we would have to expect an optimized MET in a ship would only be capable of short bursts of thrust not continuous? If not. I could just take two MET's place one on either end of a piston and toggle when they are on; I am assuming MET's capable of N's of thrust.

My appologies for sticking on this.  I have a very hard time seeing how the losses your referring to would swamp a MET capable of Heavy Lift.
<<apologies for sticking on this.  I have a very hard time seeing how the losses your referring to would swamp a MET  >> That's probably because you read about the MET with formulations that did not take into account resonance and damping.  When one sees solutions that do not take into account resonance and damping, then it is understandable to have a hard time seeing how can this be so.  If one would know about any gizmo only from simplified formulas that ignore damping (entropy) losses, then one would naturally believe that the gizmo can have perpetual motion.  Without entropy losses, free energy would be a reality!

Let's cut to the chase then: you know about the MET.  Please tell me what solutions to the MET you know that take into account resonance and take into account damping (entropy)?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: M.E.T. on 05/12/2017 03:19 am
A simpler question for me would be this:

If an MET can generate sufficient thrust to lift a weight - call it 1kg - 10m into the air, will it use more local input energy to do so than the weight has gained in potential energy due to its 10m higher altitude?

If not, then the weight can be used in similar fashion to water in a hydro electric power plant to generate electricity.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: bad_astra on 05/12/2017 04:44 am
A simpler question for me would be this:

If an MET can generate sufficient thrust to lift a weight - call it 1kg - 10m into the air, will it use more local input energy to do so than the weight has gained in potential energy due to its 10m higher altitude?

If not, then the weight can be used in similar fashion to water in a hydro electric power plant to generate electricity.

less energy would be derived from that than the total amount inputed, including that derived from the Mach-affect assist.
I understand the gravity assist anology except for the fact that seems as if Woodward's device would be using the universe so its location in terms of affect would essentially not matter? With a gravity assisted probe it takes energy to get to the gravity well , therefore it is easy to see that conservation is not being broken. But I cant wrap my poor head around how this works without being a perpetual motion machine, except in the sense of, for instance, eventually it will run out but so far in the future it is not violating physical laws for for practical purposes is endless. I suppose I have that wrong. Must study more.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 05/12/2017 10:11 pm
...
Next, Dr. Rodal's analytical revelation that I was talking about earlier was that ALL the kinetic energy generated by a MEGA drive has to come from the cosmological gravitational / inertial (G/I) field AKA spacetime in General Relativity Theory (GRT), while the local vehicle input power to the MEGA drive is used just to setup the conditions needed to extract energy from the G/I field.  In other words the local vehicle input power to the MEGA drive does NOT accelerate the vehicle, but is used just as the catalytic input energy needed to extract kinetic energy from the cosmological G/I field.
...

This forces me to reask a question I know pops up on this thread every so often with no answer I have found to be definitive.

doesn't that mean we should be able to build generators with this technology? ..
No, you should not be able to continuously gain energy from that in a closed cycle, purely using gravitation without using other energy sources, just like you can use gravity assist to gain momentum and energy in one direction when going through the Jovian system, but you cannot use gravity assist to continuously gain energy in a closed cycle by circling between the Earth and the Jovian System.

As another example, a hydroelectric powerplant is only able to generate electricity continuously using gravity because the weather cycle (ultimately powered by the Sun) replenishes the water in the upper reservoir from which the energy is extracted by gravity.

I recall you saying this on the EmDrive thread. But the question I had at that time and failed to ask. What would prevent that from happening in the ME case? If bolting a MET to a flywheel results in a closed system. What is it about bolting it to a ship keeps it an open system during operation?
One word: entropy. 
The same reason why a perpetual motion machine cannot work.   There will be frictional losses in the bearing, there will be damping losses in the flywheel and there are damping losses in the MET (which has a low Q, very far away from infinity).    The rotating motion would also be a problem: the inertial forces: Euler and centrifugal, when you work it all out one realizes that more energy is spent that you will be able to get out, when using real materials (and not ignoring the properties of real materials, including fatigue, which in the case for the MET involve piezoelectricity and electrostriction).

Any study of the MET that fails to take into account entropy and the properties of real materials leads to absurd conclusions, the same way that a study about vibrations (remember that the MET works at resonance) would predict vibration amplitude growing to infinity if damping is ignored, and if a flywheel without friction would exist you could have mechanical clocks that could run forever and perpetual motion machines would be a reality ;).

I cannot make heads or tails of this as entropy seems to be entirely irrelevant.

Tie a rope between two ships. Have them accelerate in opposite directions so that they spin around. How much energy is stored and where are the entropy losses. Do the math.

You want to see entropy losses? Accelerate the ship up to a few percent of the speed of light. Now crash it into a planet. Extract energy from the molten rock. Massive entropy losses. But with a high enough velocity you will still be able to recover far more energy than you put in. 

Energy goes with the square of velocity. If you get constant acceleration with constant input power then by definition that is a violation of conservation of energy. Entropy isn't relevant.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Rodal on 05/12/2017 11:25 pm
I cannot make heads or tails of this ...
...You need to understand what is supposed to accelerate the center of mass

... entropy seems to be entirely irrelevant.... Entropy isn't relevant.
::)  Damping (entropy) isn't relevant to a phenomenon that only takes place at resonance ?  Damping isn't relevant to the amplitude at resonance ?  ;D
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7b/Forced_Vibration_Response.png)
Do the math ...

...

Energy goes with the square of velocity. If you get constant acceleration with constant input power then by definition that is a violation of conservation of energy. Entropy isn't relevant.

 ::) None. Zero. Nada of the input power can go into the kinetic power of the spacecraft. Only an external field can accelerate the center of mass No amount of internally generated power can ever accelerate the center of mass (unless you expel some mass).  Do the right math !  ::)


Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 05/13/2017 01:55 am
...
One word: entropy. 
The same reason why a perpetual motion machine cannot work.   There will be frictional losses in the bearing, there will be damping losses in the flywheel and there are damping losses in the MET (which has a low Q, very far away from infinity).    The rotating motion would also be a problem: the inertial forces: Euler and centrifugal, when you work it all out one realizes that more energy is spent that you will be able to get out, when using real materials (and not ignoring the properties of real materials, including fatigue, which in the case for the MET involve piezoelectricity and electrostriction).

Any study of the MET that fails to take into account entropy and the properties of real materials leads to absurd conclusions, the same way that a study about vibrations (remember that the MET works at resonance) would predict vibration amplitude growing to infinity if damping is ignored, and if a flywheel without friction would exist you could have mechanical clocks that could run forever and perpetual motion machines would be a reality ;).

Wouldn't that mean we would have to expect an optimized MET in a ship would only be capable of short bursts of thrust not continuous? If not. I could just take two MET's place one on either end of a piston and toggle when they are on; I am assuming MET's capable of N's of thrust.

My appologies for sticking on this.  I have a very hard time seeing how the losses your referring to would swamp a MET capable of Heavy Lift.
<<apologies for sticking on this.  I have a very hard time seeing how the losses your referring to would swamp a MET  >> That's probably because you read about the MET with formulations that did not take into account resonance and damping.  When one sees solutions that do not take into account resonance and damping, then it is understandable to have a hard time seeing how can this be so.  If one would know about any gizmo only from simplified formulas that ignore damping (entropy) losses, then one would naturally believe that the gizmo can have perpetual motion.  Without entropy losses, free energy would be a reality!

Let's cut to the chase then: you know about the MET.  Please tell me what solutions to the MET you know that take into account resonance and take into account damping (entropy)?

I agree with you that until your derivations that the Woodward derivations did not take damping into account, I am not questioning that.

I guess what I am really searching for is an updated explanation of how thrust is generated. Because the push when heavy pull when lighter example does not seem capable of communicating the effect damping would have, at least from my perspective.

For example, am I correct in saying that this damping effect would set an upper limit on the amount of energy being transferred from the GI Field? If that is true, then I would imagine given your justification for why you couldnt build a generator from a MET. Damping would have to get worse as you tried to do the following with materials we know of today.

Increase energy being transffered from the GI to the MET
Runtime of MET
External forces currently acting on the MET

Am I in the right ball park with my crude attempt ?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 05/13/2017 06:09 am


 ::) None. Zero. Nada of the input power can go into the kinetic power of the spacecraft. Only an external field can accelerate the center of mass No amount of internally generated power can ever accelerate the center of mass (unless you expel some mass).  Do the right math !  ::)

Yes I understand that. But that does not answer the question that was asked.

I understand that you think there is a mechanism to tap into the energy of the universe to accelerate a local space ship. Lets assume you are correct. The question is can that mechanism be used to generate local electrical power.

Turn on your drive and accelerate up to the speed of sound. Then turn off your drive. You are still going the speed of sound. Now there are many different methods to extract that kinetic energy as electrical energy.

Once you extract the energy of the universe it exists locally and we can use it any way we wish. Free energy for all. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: M.E.T. on 05/13/2017 06:17 am
The last two posts state the question quite nicely.

We have understood for a long time - those who have been debating and following the Mach Effect - that it is not the electrical power going into the device that generates the thrust, but instead it is energy extracted from the rest of the Universe that does the work.

And therefore, if the theory works as we believe, then the amount of energy extracted from the distant Universe should eventually far exceed the amount of electrical energy that is powering the device itself.

If that is the case, then the device should equally be able to produce what is effectively unlimited energy locally, while still not being a free energy machine, as that energy is not created out of nothing, but is simply transferred from the distant Universe to the local area.

However, do I understand you correctly that once one takes damping into account, that the extraced energy from the distant Universe will never exceed the electrical energy that was input into the device?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star-Drive on 05/13/2017 02:20 pm
The last two posts state the question quite nicely.

We have understood for a long time - those who have been debating and following the Mach Effect - that it is not the electrical power going into the device that generates the thrust, but instead it is energy extracted from the rest of the Universe that does the work.

And therefore, if the theory works as we believe, then the amount of energy extracted from the distant Universe should eventually far exceed the amount of electrical energy that is powering the device itself.

If that is the case, then the device should equally be able to produce what is effectively unlimited energy locally, while still not being a free energy machine, as that energy is not created out of nothing, but is simply transferred from the distant Universe to the local area.

However, do I understand you correctly that once one takes damping into account, that the extraced energy from the distant Universe will never exceed the electrical energy that was input into the device?


M.E.T.:

IMO the NET harvested energy in the local frame of reference of the MEGA drive in the form* of the increase in the attached vehicle kinetic energy that comes from the cosmological gravitational / inertial (G/I) field will turn out to be the MEGA drive's local input power times its operational loaded Q-factor, which includes ALL of Dr. Rodal's dissipative parasitic losses in the MEGA drive system's resonant circuits and any i^2 * R losses in it's local dc to RF power supply.

* Added for clarity.

Best, Paul M.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Rodal on 05/13/2017 02:26 pm
... it is not the electrical power going into the device that generates the thrust, but instead it is energy extracted from the rest of the Universe that does the work...

Gravity is not energy, not even a force, but the effect arising from the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of  mass-energy. 

As I stated previously, gravity is not the source of energy in a hydroelectric powerplant: the Sun is the source of this energy.

I don't think that continuous free energy and perpetual motion are possible, because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics: entropy, but things can be  engineered over the short-term to mimic it.

...if the theory works as we believe, then the amount of energy extracted from the distant Universe  should eventually far exceed the amount of electrical energy that is powering the device itself...

We disagree: I think you have not calculated this for real materials, taking into account the entropy involved in converting into energy the spaceship motion produced by gravity, and the entropy  involved in vibrating a Langevin stack.   You are also assuming a constant thrust without taking into account the disturbance to the system by rotating into space, and the fact that the system is vibrating with piezoelectric excitation at a relatively slow 35 kHz.  Presently the materials used have a low Q~60.

When you state "if the theory works as we believe" you are apparently using a theory that completely neglects
the issues associated with resonance and damping, and not taking into account the limitations of real materials.

--------------------------------------------------

When a definite statement is made, as the one made by ppnl like this one:

...Energy goes with the square of velocity. If you get constant acceleration with constant input power then by definition that is a violation of conservation of energy. Entropy isn't relevant.

One can then show ppnl's error: as ppnl incorrectly assumed (in his conservation of energy equation) that the input power was converted into acceleration of the spaceship, which is impossible. None (zero) of the input power can go into the kinetic power of the spacecraft. Only an external field can accelerate the center of mass of the spaceship.  No amount of internally generated power can ever accelerate the center of mass (unless you expel some mass).

However, when someone makes a general statement like this one, without taking into account real material properties:

...if the theory works as we believe, then the amount of energy extracted from the distant Universe
should eventually far exceed the amount of electrical energy that is powering the device itself...

one cannot negate it with a specific answer, because the statement does not say what theory is being considered (is the theory taking into account entropy losses?) and most importantly, no real material is being considered. 

Sure, if you consider ideal materials that have no dissipation, that can have unlimited properties, then many theoretical things would be possible that are not possible in our real Universe.

For example a general statement can also be made that  "...if the theory works as we believe...then a building tall enough to work as a space elevator should be possible" but when one takes into account the tensile-strength/mass-density of any real material one realizes that this is impossible.

Similarly when one considers that all materials have internal defects that are responsible for damage that results in entropy (damping,plasticity, viscoelasticity, fatigue, etc.), and takes into account the dissipation involved in converting into energy  the possible thrust produced, then it does not appear possible to continuously produce extra energy with this device.  But to arrive at that conclusion one has to consider real material properties.  And for the idea of rotating the device, one has to consider the disturbance to the system produced by the rotation, as well as the fact that any such rotational device will involve materials having real material properties.  And continuous operation of the device at dozens or hundreds kHz quickly runs into the limitation that all piezoelectric real solid materials have a fatigue endurance limit.


So what is interesting about this concept is using Gravitation to achieve a space drive that does not need to exhaust a propellant mass, rather than as an energy source.  There are much more interesting energy sources than this one.  One such theoretical energy source are fusion powerplants, which is always 20 years into the future, at any point in time for the last 60 years, according to theoretical calculations (that assume rosy material properties)...
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 05/13/2017 02:42 pm


Again I cannot make heads or tails of what Rodal is even saying.

Either the thing can accelerate at a constant average rate while using constant power or it cannot. Which is it? 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: RotoSequence on 05/13/2017 02:53 pm


Again I cannot make heads or tails of what Rodal is even saying.

Either the thing can accelerate at a constant average rate while using constant power or it cannot. Which is it?

I believe it's a third option; it can accelerate at a potentially constant rate while using constant power, as long as there's some sort of external references and relative motion to extract momentum from. In theory, the working mechanism should be some sort of orbital momentum parasitic action that would slow down the rotational velocity or orbital velocity of the Earth, Moon, or other orbital systems. Either that or I'm confusing this with EM-Drive specific theories, in which case, I don't know.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 05/13/2017 03:07 pm
Tie a rope between two ships. Have them accelerate in opposite directions so that they spin around. How much energy is stored and where are the entropy losses. Do the math.

I'm not the class mathematician, but come on.  There's friction in the water, there's energy needed for acceleration.  This is not a good analogy for your point.

"Turn on your drive and accelerate up to the speed of sound. Then turn off your drive. You are still going the speed of sound. Now there are many different methods to extract that kinetic energy as electrical energy.

Discuss the extension cord required to transmit that kinetically produced electric energy in a useful fashion.  Discuss the gravitational attraction of nearby bodies, taking the "speed of sound" as a speed, having little to do with sound in space, otherwise discuss the friction of the medium you're travelling through and how your spacecraft maintains the speed of sound.

As Rodal mentioned:

Sure, if you consider ideal materials that have no dissipation, that can have unlimited properties, then many theoretical things would be possible that are not possible in our real Universe.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 05/13/2017 03:54 pm


Again I cannot make heads or tails of what Rodal is even saying.

Either the thing can accelerate at a constant average rate while using constant power or it cannot. Which is it?

I believe it's a third option; it can accelerate at a potentially constant rate while using constant power, as long as there's some sort of external references and relative motion to extract momentum from. In theory, the working mechanism should be some sort of orbital momentum parasitic action that would slow down the rotational velocity or orbital velocity of the Earth, Moon, or other orbital systems. Either that or I'm confusing this with EM-Drive specific theories, in which case, I don't know.

But that would be a clear and unavoidable violation of conservation of energy.

A car accelerates by pushing against the Earth and so changes the Earths motion by a small amount. But a car needs four times the energy to accelerate from zero to sixty as it needs to accelerate from zero to thirty. Energy goes with the square of velocity.

Their drive is supposed to work by reacting against the cosmologically distant universe. This is somehow supposed to avoid the problem. Don't ask me.   

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 05/13/2017 03:57 pm
Tie a rope between two ships. Have them accelerate in opposite directions so that they spin around. How much energy is stored and where are the entropy losses. Do the math.

I'm not the class mathematician, but come on.  There's friction in the water, there's energy needed for acceleration.  This is not a good analogy for your point.

"Turn on your drive and accelerate up to the speed of sound. Then turn off your drive. You are still going the speed of sound. Now there are many different methods to extract that kinetic energy as electrical energy.

Discuss the extension cord required to transmit that kinetically produced electric energy in a useful fashion.  Discuss the gravitational attraction of nearby bodies, taking the "speed of sound" as a speed, having little to do with sound in space, otherwise discuss the friction of the medium you're travelling through and how your spacecraft maintains the speed of sound.

As Rodal mentioned:

Sure, if you consider ideal materials that have no dissipation, that can have unlimited properties, then many theoretical things would be possible that are not possible in our real Universe.

By ship I mean space ship. No friction so would be close to 100% effecient.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: RotoSequence on 05/13/2017 04:31 pm


Again I cannot make heads or tails of what Rodal is even saying.

Either the thing can accelerate at a constant average rate while using constant power or it cannot. Which is it?

I believe it's a third option; it can accelerate at a potentially constant rate while using constant power, as long as there's some sort of external references and relative motion to extract momentum from. In theory, the working mechanism should be some sort of orbital momentum parasitic action that would slow down the rotational velocity or orbital velocity of the Earth, Moon, or other orbital systems. Either that or I'm confusing this with EM-Drive specific theories, in which case, I don't know.

But that would be a clear and unavoidable violation of conservation of energy.

A car accelerates by pushing against the Earth and so changes the Earths motion by a small amount. But a car needs four times the energy to accelerate from zero to sixty as it needs to accelerate from zero to thirty. Energy goes with the square of velocity.

Their drive is supposed to work by reacting against the cosmologically distant universe. This is somehow supposed to avoid the problem. Don't ask me.

The proof's gonna be in the pudding; if it works, it works. How it works and how it scales and implementing any sort of scaling functionality are problems that will be worked from different disciplines (assuming this exploration amounts to something). If it's gravitationally relative, we should see diminishing power and velocity efficiency as it gets further away from a gravity well, but we have absolutely no data that's capable of suggesting one way or another. If we wanted to see a difference based on the strength of local gravity, you'd have to get pretty far away from Earth to keep today's experiments out of the noise floor.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 05/13/2017 11:25 pm
The last two posts state the question quite nicely.

We have understood for a long time - those who have been debating and following the Mach Effect - that it is not the electrical power going into the device that generates the thrust, but instead it is energy extracted from the rest of the Universe that does the work.

And therefore, if the theory works as we believe, then the amount of energy extracted from the distant Universe should eventually far exceed the amount of electrical energy that is powering the device itself.

If that is the case, then the device should equally be able to produce what is effectively unlimited energy locally, while still not being a free energy machine, as that energy is not created out of nothing, but is simply transferred from the distant Universe to the local area.

However, do I understand you correctly that once one takes damping into account, that the extraced energy from the distant Universe will never exceed the electrical energy that was input into the device?


M.E.T.:

IMO the NET harvested energy in the local frame of reference of the MEGA drive in the form* of the increase in the attached vehicle kinetic energy that comes from the cosmological gravitational / inertial (G/I) field will turn out to be the MEGA drive's local input power times its operational loaded Q-factor, which includes ALL of Dr. Rodal's dissipative parasitic losses in the MEGA drive system's resonant circuits and any i^2 * R losses in it's local dc to RF power supply.

* Added for clarity.

Best, Paul M.

Paul should I interpret what you said as this
Quote
...
the increase in the attached vehicle's kinetic energy that comes from the cosmological gravitational / inertial (G/I) field will turn out to be EQUAL TO THE VALUE OF the MEGA drive's local input power times its operational loaded Q-factor
...
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 05/14/2017 12:54 pm
By ship I mean space ship. No friction so would be close to 100% effecient.

Fine, then:

ppnl: "Tie a rope between two space ships. Have them accelerate in opposite directions so that they spin around. How much energy is stored and where are the entropy losses. Do the math."

The math there is known as angular momentum.  May we assume a cable between them, or is this a gravitational attraction?  Is is too much to ask if energy is being extracted from this spinning system?  Do the spacecraft accelerate and then just rotate?

It's not at all clear what point you're making about entropy in this simple system.

ppnl: "Turn on your drive and accelerate up to the speed of sound. Then turn off your drive. You are still going the speed of sound. Now there are many different methods to extract that kinetic energy as electrical energy."

In this example, it's not at all clear how you propose extracting kinetic energy for a useful purpose, unless crashing into a planet is the sole  purpose of the thought experiment.

Caryy on without me.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star-Drive on 05/14/2017 01:02 pm
The last two posts state the question quite nicely.

We have understood for a long time - those who have been debating and following the Mach Effect - that it is not the electrical power going into the device that generates the thrust, but instead it is energy extracted from the rest of the Universe that does the work.

And therefore, if the theory works as we believe, then the amount of energy extracted from the distant Universe should eventually far exceed the amount of electrical energy that is powering the device itself.

If that is the case, then the device should equally be able to produce what is effectively unlimited energy locally, while still not being a free energy machine, as that energy is not created out of nothing, but is simply transferred from the distant Universe to the local area.

However, do I understand you correctly that once one takes damping into account, that the extraced energy from the distant Universe will never exceed the electrical energy that was input into the device?


M.E.T.:

IMO the NET harvested energy in the local frame of reference of the MEGA drive in the form* of the increase in the attached vehicle kinetic energy that comes from the cosmological gravitational / inertial (G/I) field will turn out to be the MEGA drive's local input power times its operational loaded Q-factor, which includes ALL of Dr. Rodal's dissipative parasitic losses in the MEGA drive system's resonant circuits and any i^2 * R losses in it's local dc to RF power supply.

* Added for clarity.

Best, Paul M.

Paul should I interpret what you said as this
Quote
...
the increase in the attached vehicle's kinetic energy that comes from the cosmological gravitational / inertial (G/I) field will turn out to be EQUAL TO THE VALUE OF the MEGA drive's local input power times its operational loaded Q-factor
...


Birchoff: Yes.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 05/14/2017 05:15 pm
...
Next, Dr. Rodal's analytical revelation that I was talking about earlier was that ALL the kinetic energy generated by a MEGA drive has to come from the cosmological gravitational / inertial (G/I) field AKA spacetime in General Relativity Theory (GRT), while the local vehicle input power to the MEGA drive is used just to setup the conditions needed to extract energy from the G/I field.  In other words the local vehicle input power to the MEGA drive does NOT accelerate the vehicle, but is used just as the catalytic input energy needed to extract kinetic energy from the cosmological G/I field.
...

This forces me to reask a question I know pops up on this thread every so often with no answer I have found to be definitive.

doesn't that mean we should be able to build generators with this technology? If not it would sound like there is some detail about how kinetic energy is transferred to the drive that would prevent coupling it to a generator.

Absolutely.  The net energy output comes from the Machian interactions (whether they are advanced waves or not, 'though I think they must be) the device has with the locally observable universe.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 05/14/2017 06:17 pm
By ship I mean space ship. No friction so would be close to 100% effecient.

Fine, then:

ppnl: "Tie a rope between two space ships. Have them accelerate in opposite directions so that they spin around. How much energy is stored and where are the entropy losses. Do the math."

The math there is known as angular momentum.  May we assume a cable between them, or is this a gravitational attraction?  Is is too much to ask if energy is being extracted from this spinning system?  Do the spacecraft accelerate and then just rotate?

It's not at all clear what point you're making about entropy in this simple system.

ppnl: "Turn on your drive and accelerate up to the speed of sound. Then turn off your drive. You are still going the speed of sound. Now there are many different methods to extract that kinetic energy as electrical energy."

In this example, it's not at all clear how you propose extracting kinetic energy for a useful purpose, unless crashing into a planet is the sole  purpose of the thought experiment.

Caryy on without me.

It goes not matter if it is a cable, gravity, magnetic field or anything else. The point is that you can store massive amounts of kinetic energy and extract it by a variety of ways. It is spinning so you can put a magnet on it and make a generator out of it for example. There is vast energy there. It can be extracted in a useful form. I really really can't see what is so complicated about this.

I have no point about entropy except that it is irrelevant. I can't understand why it was even mentioned.

Crashing into a planet would be a highly inefficient way to extract energy. My point was that even crashing into a planet and extracting geothermal energy from the molten rock would give more energy out than was put in for a high enough velocity. There are many better ways.

There is a vast amount of kinetic energy available here. I idea that you can never use it is just strange.   

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 05/14/2017 07:01 pm


Absolutely.  The net energy output comes from the Machian interactions (whether they are advanced waves or not, 'though I think they must be) the device has with the locally observable universe.

This is unclear to me for several reasons.

First, if the energy output is a simple multiple of the energy input then you cannot have constant acceleration with constant input power. Can we agree on this?

Second, what do you mean by "locally observable universe"? Do you mean local planets or cosmologically distant objects?

And finally how is the performance of the engine affected by its relative motion with respect to the part of the universe it is interacting with? For example a car interacts with the Earth by pushing against it. But it needs far more energy to go from 30mph to 60mph than it needed to go from 0mpg to 30mph. Relative motion makes it need more energy.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 05/15/2017 12:31 pm
I have no point about entropy except that it is irrelevant. I can't understand why it was even mentioned.

Well, at least you're consistent.  I'm afraid that entropy exists as a feature of the universe regardless of your understanding thereof.

Anyhow...

Quote from: ppnl
The point is that you can store massive amounts of kinetic energy and extract it by a variety of ways. It is spinning so you can put a magnet on it and make a generator out of it for example. There is vast energy there. It can be extracted in a useful form.

This is generally true.  To be more completely accurate, one never gets one hundred percent of the energy stored back, much less more than one hundred percent.  Why?  Because entropy.

It's not clear to me what is the larger point that you may be making.

You can check out the oracle on Flywheel Energy Storage for a bit of additional info on how different forms of energy are transformed one from another, stored, and transmitted.

The oracle also offers a pretty good intro to entropy.  I always skip the math above calculus, but hey:

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

Bottom line:

You can't unscramble an egg.  And you can't get something for nothing.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 05/15/2017 01:42 pm
I have no point about entropy except that it is irrelevant. I can't understand why it was even mentioned.

Well, at least you're consistent.  I'm afraid that entropy exists as a feature of the universe regardless of your understanding thereof.

Anyhow...

Quote from: ppnl
The point is that you can store massive amounts of kinetic energy and extract it by a variety of ways. It is spinning so you can put a magnet on it and make a generator out of it for example. There is vast energy there. It can be extracted in a useful form.

This is generally true.  To be more completely accurate, one never gets one hundred percent of the energy stored back, much less more than one hundred percent.  Why?  Because entropy.

It's not clear to me what is the larger point that you may be making.

You can check out the oracle on Flywheel Energy Storage for a bit of additional info on how different forms of energy are transformed one from another, stored, and transmitted.

The oracle also offers a pretty good intro to entropy.  I always skip the math above calculus, but hey:

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

Bottom line:

You can't unscramble an egg.  And you can't get something for nothing.

It doesnt matter if you dont get 100% of the energy (Kinetic energy) back.

Mainly because we are not arguing that a MET can create a Free Energy machine. Where Free Energy means the output of the generator was created from nothing. Instead what we are arguing is that when the lab scale experiments are scaled up. and we start  higher levels of thrust. it should be possible to convert the kinetic energy that a MET imparts to the container it is fastened to, into other forms of energy; mainly electrical.

Now, from all the theoretical work and the work shop discussions it is also obvious that the main source of energy for a MET is not the power provided by the ships power system. Star-Drive's confirmation of my interpretation here


...

M.E.T.:

IMO the NET harvested energy in the local frame of reference of the MEGA drive in the form* of the increase in the attached vehicle kinetic energy that comes from the cosmological gravitational / inertial (G/I) field will turn out to be the MEGA drive's local input power times its operational loaded Q-factor, which includes ALL of Dr. Rodal's dissipative parasitic losses in the MEGA drive system's resonant circuits and any i^2 * R losses in it's local dc to RF power supply.

* Added for clarity.

Best, Paul M.

Paul should I interpret what you said as this
Quote
...
the increase in the attached vehicle's kinetic energy that comes from the cosmological gravitational / inertial (G/I) field will turn out to be EQUAL TO THE VALUE OF the MEGA drive's local input power times its operational loaded Q-factor
...


Birchoff: Yes.

makes it clear that the only thing the local powersource is good for is defining one of the variables used to control how much energy is extracted from the proposed Grav/Inertial field; thats the external field rodal refers to as being the true source of the kinetic energy.

What matters is that the kinetic energy is greater than the energy being fed to the MET to create the interaction. That means if a MET is capable of imparting kinetic energy equal in value to or greater than the electrical energy supplied to it. Then it is plausible that with some engineering you should be able to turn a MET into a generator, which generates energy (most likely electrical) by converting the kinetic energy imparted by the external field.

The only way rodal's points about damping and entropy could be valid points against a MET being used as a generator at some point in time in the future. Is if damping and entropy will always limit the kinetic energy extracted from the field to be less than or equal to the electrical energy put into the MET. Then a MET could only be useful as a propulsion device.


Finally this does not mean a MET is a free energy device urgo it cannot work. That line of reasoning only makes sense if you provide proof that this external field that is being drawn on doesnt exist. Also, My math and physics are not strong enough to explain the specific properties of this field . So Questions about motion relative to the field will have to be tabled. As I understand the information that is available so far, the theory and experiments show that it works. A Complete detailed explaination about why is still pending.



Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 05/15/2017 02:59 pm
It doesn't matter if you don't get 100% of the energy (Kinetic energy) back.

Mainly because we are not arguing that a MET can create a Free Energy machine.

I understand.  Ppnl was discussing the irrelevance of entropy however, and giving as examples, systems that are well understood.

The MET device would convert electrical energy to forward momentum, in the simplest telling.  You are saying that you all are also extracting energy from the G-I field.

Quote from: Birchoff
Now, from all the theoretical work and the work shop discussions it is also obvious that the main source of energy for a MET is not the power provided by the ships power system. Star-Drive's confirmation of my interpretation here...

If if turns out to be the case that, "the increase in the attached vehicle's kinetic energy that comes from the cosmological gravitational / inertial (G/I) field will turn out to be EQUAL TO THE VALUE OF the MEGA drive's local input power times its operational loaded Q-factor...", then that is something that you all will have proven.

In a way, it would be like discovering an oil well gusher.  All of a sudden, if the process works, you will have discovered a lot of "free" energy, as compared to the energy you put into "drilling the well".  There will be entropic losses in that system, even if they have not yet been discovered.

Until then, it will be something that I only read about, however.

Y'all carry on.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tchernik on 05/15/2017 03:37 pm
I think this can be synthesized as:

- Does a MET provide thrust allowing a ship to accelerate above what a perfectly collimated photon rocket can do or not?

Thrust can change in function of speed (which would be amazing in itself), but if its thrust keeps above 1N per ~300 Mw of power spent, then it would be more efficient than an ideal photon rocket.

Ergo, there is some speed less than c where its kinetic energy is above the energy spent.

If it can't go overunity, why not? who keeps the accounting?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: M.E.T. on 05/15/2017 04:08 pm
I think this can be synthesized as:

- Does a MET provide thrust allowing a ship to accelerate above what a perfectly collimated photon rocket can do or not?

Thrust can change in function of speed (which would be amazing in itself), but if its thrust keeps above 1N per ~300 Mw of power spent, then it would be more efficient than an ideal photon rocket.

Ergo, there is some speed less than c where its kinetic energy is above the energy spent.

If it can't go overunity, why not? who keeps the accounting?

Is its speed really changing though? If its relative motion is being measured against the entirety of the mass in the observable universe, is it not going faster relative to some bodies and slower relative to others, but remaining at rest relative to the total mass of the Universe?

Maybe I can't quite envisage this fully, but how do you go faster or slower relative to the combined mass of the entire Universe, spread out in all directions to the end of the observable light cone, billions of light years away? Or perhaps even further. What you gain in one direction, you lose in another, so if you push against all of that mass again, you won't need  more energy to speed up by one more km/h than you did for the previous km/h.

So there is no need for anyone to "keep account".

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 05/15/2017 04:45 pm
We are not arguing about the entropy state at the universe scale, but the local measurement of a device here on Earth.

As already written by Ron Stahl (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/mach-effect-physics-conservation-concerns-3-important-ron-stahl?trk=prof-post) and explained in wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect#Conservation_of_momentum), a Mach effect thruster relies on Mach's principle, hence it is not an electrical to kinetic transducer, i.e. it does not convert electric energy to kinetic energy. Rather, a Mach Effect Thruster is a gravinertial transistor that controls the flow of gravinertial flux, in and out of the active mass of the thruster. The primary power into the thruster is contained in the flux of the gravitational field, not the electricity that powers the device. Failing to account for this flux, is much the same as failing to account for the wind on a sail.

So let's take the idea of a MEGA drive mounted on a flywheel:
1) A compact electrical nuclear generator produces a certain amount of energy E1 during some time t1, representing a certain amount of power P1.
2) During that time, a MEGA-drive uses this amount of energy to convert the whole gravinertial potential energy of the universe into a local force, accelerating the thruster and rotating the flywheel it is clamped upon to high speed.
3) After some time t1, the power supply is switched off. The MEGA drive has reached a certain amount of velocity.
4) A dynamo uses the potential energy of the rotating flywheel to convert its movement into electrical energy, slowing down the flywheel down to zero, during a time t2.

Question: Is the amount of retrieved energy E2 less or more than the input energy E1?

If the retrieved energy is always less, why? If no more energy E2 can be extracted from the kinetic energy of the flywheel than the amount of energy E1 the onboard electrical generator has consumed, then there is an unkown mechanism that prevents a MEGA drive to accelerate at a constant rate using a constant amount of electrical input energy. But this would also limit interstellar spaceship range in decent time.

I don't get the point of saying that the retrieved energy of such a device is necessary lower than the energy consumed by the electrical generator, especially since the real energy used to accelerate the device is drawn from the gravinertial flux of the universe and not from the onboard electrical power source. If a very efficient MEGA-drive can reach the stars in a few years or months at a relativistic velocity, this kinetic energy vastly exceeds the total energy of the nuclear fuel stored onboard.

Resorting to entropy, or the energy at the universe scale, or relativity with calculations having to be made based on multiple frames of references is just handwaving in a smoke screen to avoid this very simple thought experiment IMHO.

But the other way, I don't get the point of saying E2 > E1 is so critical. Do we call water and wind turbines as well as sails "over-unity devices"?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 05/15/2017 04:57 pm
I have no point about entropy except that it is irrelevant. I can't understand why it was even mentioned.

Well, at least you're consistent.  I'm afraid that entropy exists as a feature of the universe regardless of your understanding thereof.

Anyhow...

Quote from: ppnl
The point is that you can store massive amounts of kinetic energy and extract it by a variety of ways. It is spinning so you can put a magnet on it and make a generator out of it for example. There is vast energy there. It can be extracted in a useful form.

This is generally true.  To be more completely accurate, one never gets one hundred percent of the energy stored back, much less more than one hundred percent.  Why?  Because entropy.

It's not clear to me what is the larger point that you may be making.

You can check out the oracle on Flywheel Energy Storage for a bit of additional info on how different forms of energy are transformed one from another, stored, and transmitted.

The oracle also offers a pretty good intro to entropy.  I always skip the math above calculus, but hey:

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

Bottom line:

You can't unscramble an egg.  And you can't get something for nothing.

Yes entropy exists. But you don't need to discuss entropy when discussing an electrical motor because the entropy losses can be made as low as you want. Same for an electrical generator/flywheel combo. For an internal combustion engine entropy places an upper limit on efficiency but there is still no doubt that an internal combustion engine can convert useful amounts of chemical energy into kinetic energy and then on to electrical energy.



The same is true of kinetic energy in general. There is no entropic argument that prevents you from converting it to electrical energy with good efficiency. Consider an asteroid in orbit around the Earth. Now put a long conducting tether on it that interacts with the Earth's magnetic field. This is just like a huge flywheel with an attached generator. This can be used to convert orbital velocity to electrical energy at pretty high efficiency. Now put a your engine on the asteroid. This drains cosmic energy into the asteroid.

Now where are the entropy losses? It cannot be in the tether generator since it is pretty efficient. Is it in the engine? How? If it gives constant acceleration for constant power then no matter how inefficient it is I can choose a velocity high enough that the energy gain blows away the losses. This follows from the fact that your power use is constant while your power output goes with the square of velocity. The higher your speed the more power your device produces while losses are constant. With a magic energy source like this entropy truly is irrelevant.

You don't need to unscramble the egg because the egg was never scrambled. Simple kinetic energy is a low entropy source of energy and can generally be converted into other forms at high efficiency. Thus entropy is irrelevant. There is no upper limit on how efficient this conversion can be done in principle.

 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: RotoSequence on 05/15/2017 05:04 pm
Resorting to entropy, or the energy at the universe scale, or relativity with calculations having to be made based on multiple frames of references is just handwaving in a smoke screen to avoid this very simple thought experiment IMHO.

???

Either there's a mechanism to account for the seeming ease with which you can violate CoE, or the Mach Effect probably cannot be used to perform work. You're asking a valid question, but as far as I know, there isn't a good answer to it yet. Personally, I don't know where to begin to answer the question.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 05/15/2017 05:10 pm
Resorting to entropy, or the energy at the universe scale, or relativity with calculations having to be made based on multiple frames of references is just handwaving in a smoke screen to avoid this very simple thought experiment IMHO.

???

Either there's a mechanism to account for the seeming ease with which you can violate CoE, or the Mach Effect probably cannot be used to perform work. You're asking a valid question, but as far as I know, there isn't a good answer to it yet. Personally, I don't know where to begin to answer the question.

Then to answer the question, the flywheel thought experiment has to be transformed into an experiment. But currently any MEGA drive can not even move a paper flywheel, so this is a problem.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: M.E.T. on 05/15/2017 05:29 pm
I have no point about entropy except that it is irrelevant. I can't understand why it was even mentioned.

Well, at least you're consistent.  I'm afraid that entropy exists as a feature of the universe regardless of your understanding thereof.

Anyhow...

Quote from: ppnl
The point is that you can store massive amounts of kinetic energy and extract it by a variety of ways. It is spinning so you can put a magnet on it and make a generator out of it for example. There is vast energy there. It can be extracted in a useful form.

This is generally true.  To be more completely accurate, one never gets one hundred percent of the energy stored back, much less more than one hundred percent.  Why?  Because entropy.

It's not clear to me what is the larger point that you may be making.

You can check out the oracle on Flywheel Energy Storage for a bit of additional info on how different forms of energy are transformed one from another, stored, and transmitted.

The oracle also offers a pretty good intro to entropy.  I always skip the math above calculus, but hey:

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

Bottom line:

You can't unscramble an egg.  And you can't get something for nothing.

Yes entropy exists. But you don't need to discuss entropy when discussing an electrical motor because the entropy losses can be made as low as you want. Same for an electrical generator/flywheel combo. For an internal combustion engine entropy places an upper limit on efficiency but there is still no doubt that an internal combustion engine can convert useful amounts of chemical energy into kinetic energy and then on to electrical energy.



The same is true of kinetic energy in general. There is no entropic argument that prevents you from converting it to electrical energy with good efficiency. Consider an asteroid in orbit around the Earth. Now put a long conducting tether on it that interacts with the Earth's magnetic field. This is just like a huge flywheel with an attached generator. This can be used to convert orbital velocity to electrical energy at pretty high efficiency. Now put a your engine on the asteroid. This drains cosmic energy into the asteroid.

Now where are the entropy losses? It cannot be in the tether generator since it is pretty efficient. Is it in the engine? How? If it gives constant acceleration for constant power then no matter how inefficient it is I can choose a velocity high enough that the energy gain blows away the losses. This follows from the fact that your power use is constant while your power output goes with the square of velocity. The higher your speed the more power your device produces while losses are constant. With a magic energy source like this entropy truly is irrelevant.

You don't need to unscramble the egg because the egg was never scrambled. Simple kinetic energy is a low entropy source of energy and can generally be converted into other forms at high efficiency. Thus entropy is irrelevant. There is no upper limit on how efficient this conversion can be done in principle.

The higher your speed relative to what, though? If you build the device on an asteroid that is already traveling at 100,000km/h relative to say the sun, and switch it on, is its first 1km/h of acceleration producing more or less energy than a similar device on a spaceship that was accelerated by the MET device to match the speed of the asteroid, switched off, and then switched on again to accelerate the ship by 1 extra km/h?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 05/15/2017 05:33 pm
I think this can be synthesized as:

- Does a MET provide thrust allowing a ship to accelerate above what a perfectly collimated photon rocket can do or not?

Thrust can change in function of speed (which would be amazing in itself), but if its thrust keeps above 1N per ~300 Mw of power spent, then it would be more efficient than an ideal photon rocket.

Ergo, there is some speed less than c where its kinetic energy is above the energy spent.

If it can't go overunity, why not? who keeps the accounting?

Is its speed really changing though? If its relative motion is being measured against the entirety of the mass in the observable universe, is it not going faster relative to some bodies and slower relative to others, but remaining at rest relative to the total mass of the Universe?

Maybe I can't quite envisage this fully, but how do you go faster or slower relative to the combined mass of the entire Universe, spread out in all directions to the end of the observable light cone, billions of light years away? Or perhaps even further. What you gain in one direction, you lose in another, so if you push against all of that mass again, you won't need  more energy to speed up by one more km/h than you did for the previous km/h.

So there is no need for anyone to "keep account".

Velocity does not exist as an absolute. It is frame dependent. As a result of that kinetic energy does not exist as an absolute. It is frame dependent. Electrical energy OTOH is an absolute. All frames of reference will see it as the same. This creates a problem with conserving energy as see by different frames of reference.

Classical mechanics solves this by requiring that you conserve both energy and momentum. If you conserve these then you can transform between frames of reference without violating the rules. While things may look different to different people they are in a deeper sense the same.

If you violate conservation of energy or momentum - even if it is just local - you open an ugly can of worms. Now maybe you can find some way past this can of worms. But you will not do so without understanding that there is an ugly can of worms there.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: M.E.T. on 05/15/2017 05:34 pm
I think this can be synthesized as:

- Does a MET provide thrust allowing a ship to accelerate above what a perfectly collimated photon rocket can do or not?

Thrust can change in function of speed (which would be amazing in itself), but if its thrust keeps above 1N per ~300 Mw of power spent, then it would be more efficient than an ideal photon rocket.

Ergo, there is some speed less than c where its kinetic energy is above the energy spent.

If it can't go overunity, why not? who keeps the accounting?

Is its speed really changing though? If its relative motion is being measured against the entirety of the mass in the observable universe, is it not going faster relative to some bodies and slower relative to others, but remaining at rest relative to the total mass of the Universe?

Maybe I can't quite envisage this fully, but how do you go faster or slower relative to the combined mass of the entire Universe, spread out in all directions to the end of the observable light cone, billions of light years away? Or perhaps even further. What you gain in one direction, you lose in another, so if you push against all of that mass again, you won't need  more energy to speed up by one more km/h than you did for the previous km/h.

So there is no need for anyone to "keep account".

Velocity does not exist as an absolute. It is frame dependent. As a result of that kinetic energy does not exist as an absolute. It is frame dependent. Electrical energy OTOH is an absolute. All frames of reference will see it as the same. This creates a problem with conserving energy as see by different frames of reference.

Classical mechanics solves this by requiring that you conserve both energy and momentum. If you conserve these then you can transform between frames of reference without violating the rules. While things may look different to different people they are in a deeper sense the same.

If you violate conservation of energy or momentum - even if it is just local - you open an ugly can of worms. Now maybe you can find some way past this can of worms. But you will not do so without understanding that there is an ugly can of worms there.

But is the entire Universe not the local frame of reference for the MET device, seeing as it reacts instantaneously with all the matter in the Universe?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 05/15/2017 06:13 pm
The higher your speed relative to what, though? If you build the device on an asteroid that is already traveling at 100,000km/h relative to say the sun, and switch it on, is its first 1km/h of acceleration producing more or less energy than a similar device on a spaceship that was accelerated by the MET device to match the speed of the asteroid, switched off, and then switched on again to accelerate the ship by 1 extra km/h?

The local inertial frame of reference is the departure point where the thruster was at rest at the beginning. It's the Earth if the experiment is there. It's the moving asteroid if the probe has landed on the asteroid.

This is the same as the inertial frame of reference in Langevin's twin paradox: the aging twin is the one staying in the initial inertial reference frame (the Earth) and the younger twin is the one who accelerated wrt this initial inertial reference frame, up to a relativistic velocity. To reach a certain velocity, you have to accelerate with respect to a point of spacetime, which is the inertial reference frame. Speed is always relative to something, this is the essence of special relativity [and a very Machian idea by the way: as if there is no matter in the universe at all except one particle, you could not measure its velocity relative to anything. And if this particle could not have a velocity, it could not have a measurable mass neither, as mass varies with velocity. Hence… no inertia. Thus the inertia of an object ensues from the presence of the matter in the universe — Enrst Mach 1913.]

Same thing for a MEGA drive landed on an asteroid, whatever its speed wrt Earth. The asteroid can move 100,000km/h wrt Earth, when the probe takes off the asteroid, its initial speed is zero wrt to the asteroid (the inertial frame of reference).
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Stormbringer on 05/15/2017 06:16 pm
Not sure if this is topical but it might be.

https://phys.org/news/2017-05-nature-great-puzzles-expansion-universe.html

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 05/15/2017 06:22 pm
I have no point about entropy except that it is irrelevant. I can't understand why it was even mentioned.

Well, at least you're consistent.  I'm afraid that entropy exists as a feature of the universe regardless of your understanding thereof.

Anyhow...

Quote from: ppnl
The point is that you can store massive amounts of kinetic energy and extract it by a variety of ways. It is spinning so you can put a magnet on it and make a generator out of it for example. There is vast energy there. It can be extracted in a useful form.

This is generally true.  To be more completely accurate, one never gets one hundred percent of the energy stored back, much less more than one hundred percent.  Why?  Because entropy.

It's not clear to me what is the larger point that you may be making.

You can check out the oracle on Flywheel Energy Storage for a bit of additional info on how different forms of energy are transformed one from another, stored, and transmitted.

The oracle also offers a pretty good intro to entropy.  I always skip the math above calculus, but hey:

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

Bottom line:

You can't unscramble an egg.  And you can't get something for nothing.

Yes entropy exists. But you don't need to discuss entropy when discussing an electrical motor because the entropy losses can be made as low as you want. Same for an electrical generator/flywheel combo. For an internal combustion engine entropy places an upper limit on efficiency but there is still no doubt that an internal combustion engine can convert useful amounts of chemical energy into kinetic energy and then on to electrical energy.



The same is true of kinetic energy in general. There is no entropic argument that prevents you from converting it to electrical energy with good efficiency. Consider an asteroid in orbit around the Earth. Now put a long conducting tether on it that interacts with the Earth's magnetic field. This is just like a huge flywheel with an attached generator. This can be used to convert orbital velocity to electrical energy at pretty high efficiency. Now put a your engine on the asteroid. This drains cosmic energy into the asteroid.

Now where are the entropy losses? It cannot be in the tether generator since it is pretty efficient. Is it in the engine? How? If it gives constant acceleration for constant power then no matter how inefficient it is I can choose a velocity high enough that the energy gain blows away the losses. This follows from the fact that your power use is constant while your power output goes with the square of velocity. The higher your speed the more power your device produces while losses are constant. With a magic energy source like this entropy truly is irrelevant.

You don't need to unscramble the egg because the egg was never scrambled. Simple kinetic energy is a low entropy source of energy and can generally be converted into other forms at high efficiency. Thus entropy is irrelevant. There is no upper limit on how efficient this conversion can be done in principle.

The higher your speed relative to what, though? If you build the device on an asteroid that is already traveling at 100,000km/h relative to say the sun, and switch it on, is its first 1km/h of acceleration producing more or less energy than a similar device on a spaceship that was accelerated by the MET device to match the speed of the asteroid, switched off, and then switched on again to accelerate the ship by 1 extra km/h?

It does not matter. As I was explaining to someone else velocity is not an absolute. It is relative to a frame of reference. If the asteroid is reacting with the Earth then it is the velocity relative to the Earth that matters. You are pushing against the Earth. If you are pushing on the sun then it is the velocity with respect to the sun that matters.

I find that I have to explain Galilean relativity over and over again.

If you conserve both momentum and energy then you can transform between frames of reference consistently. If you violate conservation of momentum - even if just locally - that will look like a local violation of energy. There is no argument that prevents you from converting that energy into electrical energy.

So if the drive produces constant acceleration with with constant power then you effectively have an infinite energy device. THE HORROR... the horror...

I don't know why so many dislike the energy argument. Maybe it is a lack of understanding of Galilean relativity. Maybe they don't want to be associated with perpetual motion devices. I do know that even Roger Shawyer, inventor of emdrive, showed no understanding of Galilean relativity. I got some nasty messages from people for how I described his work. I felt I was being gentle.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 05/15/2017 06:38 pm
I think this can be synthesized as:

- Does a MET provide thrust allowing a ship to accelerate above what a perfectly collimated photon rocket can do or not?

Thrust can change in function of speed (which would be amazing in itself), but if its thrust keeps above 1N per ~300 Mw of power spent, then it would be more efficient than an ideal photon rocket.

Ergo, there is some speed less than c where its kinetic energy is above the energy spent.

If it can't go overunity, why not? who keeps the accounting?

Is its speed really changing though? If its relative motion is being measured against the entirety of the mass in the observable universe, is it not going faster relative to some bodies and slower relative to others, but remaining at rest relative to the total mass of the Universe?

Maybe I can't quite envisage this fully, but how do you go faster or slower relative to the combined mass of the entire Universe, spread out in all directions to the end of the observable light cone, billions of light years away? Or perhaps even further. What you gain in one direction, you lose in another, so if you push against all of that mass again, you won't need  more energy to speed up by one more km/h than you did for the previous km/h.

So there is no need for anyone to "keep account".

Velocity does not exist as an absolute. It is frame dependent. As a result of that kinetic energy does not exist as an absolute. It is frame dependent. Electrical energy OTOH is an absolute. All frames of reference will see it as the same. This creates a problem with conserving energy as see by different frames of reference.

Classical mechanics solves this by requiring that you conserve both energy and momentum. If you conserve these then you can transform between frames of reference without violating the rules. While things may look different to different people they are in a deeper sense the same.

If you violate conservation of energy or momentum - even if it is just local - you open an ugly can of worms. Now maybe you can find some way past this can of worms. But you will not do so without understanding that there is an ugly can of worms there.

But is the entire Universe not the local frame of reference for the MET device, seeing as it reacts instantaneously with all the matter in the Universe?

Well you can choose anything as your frame of reference. But you have to choose rules such that you can transform between frames of reference consistently. No frame of reference can be any more "true" than any other. If you violate that then you have done massive damage to the entire field of physics. Maybe that damage can be repaired. But you will have to understand the damage in order to repair it.

You need to understand Galilean relativity before you even think about special or general relativity.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: M.E.T. on 05/15/2017 06:57 pm
I think this can be synthesized as:

- Does a MET provide thrust allowing a ship to accelerate above what a perfectly collimated photon rocket can do or not?

Thrust can change in function of speed (which would be amazing in itself), but if its thrust keeps above 1N per ~300 Mw of power spent, then it would be more efficient than an ideal photon rocket.

Ergo, there is some speed less than c where its kinetic energy is above the energy spent.

If it can't go overunity, why not? who keeps the accounting?

Is its speed really changing though? If its relative motion is being measured against the entirety of the mass in the observable universe, is it not going faster relative to some bodies and slower relative to others, but remaining at rest relative to the total mass of the Universe?

Maybe I can't quite envisage this fully, but how do you go faster or slower relative to the combined mass of the entire Universe, spread out in all directions to the end of the observable light cone, billions of light years away? Or perhaps even further. What you gain in one direction, you lose in another, so if you push against all of that mass again, you won't need  more energy to speed up by one more km/h than you did for the previous km/h.

So there is no need for anyone to "keep account".

Velocity does not exist as an absolute. It is frame dependent. As a result of that kinetic energy does not exist as an absolute. It is frame dependent. Electrical energy OTOH is an absolute. All frames of reference will see it as the same. This creates a problem with conserving energy as see by different frames of reference.

Classical mechanics solves this by requiring that you conserve both energy and momentum. If you conserve these then you can transform between frames of reference without violating the rules. While things may look different to different people they are in a deeper sense the same.

If you violate conservation of energy or momentum - even if it is just local - you open an ugly can of worms. Now maybe you can find some way past this can of worms. But you will not do so without understanding that there is an ugly can of worms there.

But is the entire Universe not the local frame of reference for the MET device, seeing as it reacts instantaneously with all the matter in the Universe?

Well you can choose anything as your frame of reference. But you have to choose rules such that you can transform between frames of reference consistently. No frame of reference can be any more "true" than any other. If you violate that then you have done massive damage to the entire field of physics. Maybe that damage can be repaired. But you will have to understand the damage in order to repair it.

You need to understand Galilean relativity before you even think about special or general relativity.

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.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 05/15/2017 07:12 pm
Not sure if this is topical but it might be.

https://phys.org/news/2017-05-nature-great-puzzles-expansion-universe.html

"Their calculations provide a completely different physical picture of the universe. In this new picture, the space we live in is fluctuating wildly. At each point, it oscillates between expansion and contraction. As it swings back and forth, the two almost cancel each other but a very small net effect drives the universe to expand slowly at an accelerating rate."

This is complete nonsense to me. You can't say "everything cancels out perfectly, if we except that tiny effect that shows some negative energy remains." This breaks the first part of the sentence. What is important is what remains. 10-11 is exactly the same as 100,000-100,001.

"When physicists apply the theory of quantum mechanics to vacuum energy, it predicts that there would be an incredibly large density of vacuum energy, far more than the total energy of all the particles in the universe."

The vacuum state of the Zero-point energy must have 1) the lowest possible ground state and 2) can not have negative values: in Quantum Field Theory, the T operator acting on Hilbert spaces is complex, and can be either linear and unitary, or antilinear and antiunitary; but is arbitrarily chosen antilinear and antiunitary in order to prevent inversion of energy. But when this was stated as a foundation of the theory, the accelerating expansion of the universe, which implies a negative pressure, was not known yet. But pressure is a volumetric energy density, so what drives the acceleration of the expansion of the universe is some "dark" energy which is negative in nature.

QFT states this negative state cannot exist, which shows at least that the theory is incomplete or mislead from its ground.

One can explain dark energy and the acceleration of the expansion of the universe if it allows negative energy in the theory first.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 05/15/2017 07:22 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.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: M.E.T. on 05/15/2017 07:27 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.

But you don't need to get to a decent fraction of the speed of light for the kinetic energy of the MET ship to exceed the electrical energy that powered the device.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 05/15/2017 07:31 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.

But you don't need to get to a decent fraction of the speed of light for the kinetic energy of the MET ship to exceed the electrical energy that powered the device.

Agree on this. I was just addressing "the ship does not remember its velocity after switching off" sentence.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: M.E.T. on 05/15/2017 07:32 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.

But you don't need to get to a decent fraction of the speed of light for the kinetic energy of the MET ship to exceed the electrical energy that powered the device.

Agree on this. I was just addressing "the ship does not remember its velocity after switching off" sentence.

Ok, I understand.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl 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.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tchernik 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.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl 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.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: M.E.T. 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.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl 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.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind 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.

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift
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. 

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging
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. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl 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.

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift
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. 

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging
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.   
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Antigraviticsystems1 on 05/16/2017 11:30 am
(https://i58.servimg.com/u/f58/17/91/23/29/woodwa10.jpg) (https://servimg.com/view/17912329/1719)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Rodal on 05/17/2017 09:43 pm
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/Three-Points-Welcome.jpg)

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.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: M.E.T. on 05/17/2017 10:01 pm
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/Three-Points-Welcome.jpg)

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?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Rodal 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
(https://www.brainyquote.com/photos_tr/en/a/alberteinstein/121993/alberteinstein1.jpg)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 05/18/2017 02:50 am
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/Three-Points-Welcome.jpg)

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.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 05/18/2017 04:52 am
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/Three-Points-Welcome.jpg)

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.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl 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
(https://www.brainyquote.com/photos_tr/en/a/alberteinstein/121993/alberteinstein1.jpg)

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.

 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl 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.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Ric Capucho 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
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: M.E.T. 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.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: RonM 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.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: M.E.T. 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?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: RonM 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.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 05/18/2017 03:12 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?

Well if you are accelerating then your speed relative to everything not accelerating with you is changing. So unless the entire universe is accelerating with you...

Most of the universe is moving at a really high velocity with respect to you. For example our movement through the CMB is pretty high. About 370 k/s. That means you would need gigawatts to get nanogravities. Either that or you could pick a direction that would deliver gigawatts of free energy.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: 93143 on 05/18/2017 07:56 pm
According to my calculations, the Doppler effect applied to gravinertial radiation in an expanding universe makes the effective, or interaction-weighted, mean velocity of the matter within the cosmic horizon linear with the velocity of a Mach effect device, at least at low peculiar velocities (and my math is Newtonian and thus probably wrong at relativistic velocities, even if there's any validity to it in the first place).

Obviously, if this effective mean velocity were always equal to the velocity of the device, you'd have conservation of energy without the Lorentz-invariant Mach effect equation having to be wrong.

Unfortunately, due to other factors I lack the time required to delve into the physics and actually establish what would happen in a fully relativistic framework using Hoyle-Narlikar theory (or at least GR) and accounting for any cosmic weirdness an engineer wouldn't automatically think of.  I was hoping Dr. Rodal had done that.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 05/19/2017 12:34 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.

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift
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. 

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging
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.

My last sentence sums it up.  The rest is elaboration about various points that support that last statement. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 05/19/2017 09:41 am


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.

" 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. "

The theory behind the MET follows directly from the same observations by Mach which prompted Einstein to develop SR and GR.

The experimental evidence is significant to 6 sigma.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 05/20/2017 08:07 am


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.

" 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. "

The theory behind the MET follows directly from the same observations by Mach which prompted Einstein to develop SR and GR.

The experimental evidence is significant to 6 sigma.

Meh, you should be careful idolizing Mach. He seems to have been as much a philosopher as a scientist. That may be why Mach's principle was never a quantitative testable idea. It was not driven by experimental science so much as the demands of his philosophy. The same philosophy caused him to deny the existence of atoms. So...

It's kinda ironic that Einstein's work on Brownian motion pretty much sealed the deal for the existence of atoms. And Mach apparently totally rejected Einstein's theory of relativity.

As for the six sigma thing - it kinda misses the point. Nobody is claiming that they got positive results due to a confluence of random errors. Rather it is the small size of the results with the noisy environment that make it difficult to eliminate systemic errors. Statistical significance calculations cannot account for unknown systemic errors.

Pons and Fleischmann initially reported excess heat 20% higher than could be accounted for by any chemical reaction. Eventually they claimed to be able to generate one kilowatt per cubic centimeter of palladium for 50 days straight. What is the statistical significance of that? 2000 sigma? That was almost 30 years ago.

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard Feynman

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 06/05/2017 03:10 pm
Marc G. Millis has just published an article on "inertial frames and breakthrough propulsion physics" in Acta Astronautica.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 06/08/2017 07:19 pm
Marc G. Millis has just published an article on "inertial frames and breakthrough propulsion physics" in Acta Astronautica.

This is an excellent piece of work, with a wealth of reference material at the end. His conjecture that there are "different" inertial frames of reference is not that hypothetical. In QED, the vacuum is described by a spectral energy density, Rho(w). "..any spectral energy density proportional to w3..." will result in the EM vacuum field, unable to exert any force on an atom in the vacuum. There are an infinite number of Rho(w) densities that fulfill this requirement and leave the vacuum Lorentz invariant.

What is not well understood is that Lorentz transformations are inapplicable, when the two inertial reference frames are not identical, because they have different values of Rho(w). It is commonly believed (and taught) that Lorentz transformations apply to "any two inertial reference frames moving at relative velocity to one another", but if their vacuum spectral energy density is not identical, then they do not transform according to a Lorentz transformation. A generalized transformation, such as is used in a gravitational potential must be used.

Ref. P. W. Milonni, "The Quantum Vacuum..", Ch. 2.9, & Appendix B.


Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/22/2017 06:05 pm
I'm interested in better understanding Woodward's mass change formula, specifically the derivative of power with respect to time that constitutes the required energy change in the accelerating mass. Woodward currently uses a PZT stack and electrical power input. What other phenomenon might constitute the required energy change? Thanks.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/25/2017 04:37 pm
Dr. Rodal,

I read with interest your paper from last September's Estes Park Workshop. One thing I'm not very clear on is where the almost three hundred terms come from for the MEGA thrust equation? Woodward's mass fluctuation equation is quite simple. What causes the increase in terms? Thanks.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 07/27/2017 05:54 am
Dr. Rodal,

I read with interest your paper from last September's Estes Park Workshop. One thing I'm not very clear on is where the almost three hundred terms come from for the MEGA thrust equation? Woodward's mass fluctuation equation is quite simple. What causes the increase in terms? Thanks.

I want to say, and this is just my speculation, that the increased mass is probably due to a more effective coupling to the vacuum.  This is assuming the vacuum is tied to transmitting the momentum to the rest of the universe.  Hence, the idea when its heavier you pull it, when its lighter you push it (Woodward effect).  You would be pulling your self forwards when pulling the heavier mass, but if the vacuum is coupled then the vacuum gets pulled in the other direction (conservation of momentum).  When you uncouple from the vacuum and push it forwards you push less on the vacuum and don't push your self back as much.  Rinse repeat. 

If you want me to take it further I would say this is probably related to the index of the vacuum.  An object moving near c has time slow and appears to become more heavy.  If this is a coupling to the vacuum then a negative coupling to the vacuum would appear to give a reduction to the index of the vacuum.  Time would speed up and the object becomes lighter. 

Again just my speculation.  The vacuum would then take up the momentum and carry it to the rest of the universe.  Whether that momentum transferred to the vacuum moves faster than light I do not know but if I had to guess it moves at c and maybe could be detected as gravitational waves. 

Maybe its similar to black holes spinning around each other.  When they move away or towards us their coupling/gamma appears to increase with their radial velocity towards/away from us.  When their velocity is perpendicular to us we reside in their present so the time distortion towards us is null (time distortion is in the direction of velocity by relativity).  i.e. rapid acceleration towards and away from us.  Then again I'm not certain this is the reason, but I suspect it. 

i.e. in a gravity well we may be better coupled with the vacuum because of increased virtual particle density?  Are gravity weaves fluctuations in virtual particle density?  Are virtual particles also the key to the inherent time travel in relativity? 

Hope this helps. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/27/2017 04:53 pm
Dr. Rodal,

I read with interest your paper from last September's Estes Park Workshop. One thing I'm not very clear on is where the almost three hundred terms come from for the MEGA thrust equation? Woodward's mass fluctuation equation is quite simple. What causes the increase in terms? Thanks.

I want to say, and this is just my speculation, that the increased mass is probably due to a more effective coupling to the vacuum.  This is assuming the vacuum is tied to transmitting the momentum to the rest of the universe.  Hence, the idea when its heavier you pull it, when its lighter you push it (Woodward effect).  You would be pulling your self forwards when pulling the heavier mass, but if the vacuum is coupled then the vacuum gets pulled in the other direction (conservation of momentum).  When you uncouple from the vacuum and push it forwards you push less on the vacuum and don't push your self back as much.  Rinse repeat. 

If you want me to take it further I would say this is probably related to the index of the vacuum.  An object moving near c has time slow and appears to become more heavy.  If this is a coupling to the vacuum then a negative coupling to the vacuum would appear to give a reduction to the index of the vacuum.  Time would speed up and the object becomes lighter. 

Again just my speculation.  The vacuum would then take up the momentum and carry it to the rest of the universe.  Whether that momentum transferred to the vacuum moves faster than light I do not know but if I had to guess it moves at c and maybe could be detected as gravitational waves. 

Maybe its similar to black holes spinning around each other.  When they move away or towards us their coupling/gamma appears to increase with their radial velocity towards/away from us.  When their velocity is perpendicular to us we reside in their present so the time distortion towards us is null (time distortion is in the direction of velocity by relativity).  i.e. rapid acceleration towards and away from us.  Then again I'm not certain this is the reason, but I suspect it. 

i.e. in a gravity well we may be better coupled with the vacuum because of increased virtual particle density?  Are gravity weaves fluctuations in virtual particle density?  Are virtual particles also the key to the inherent time travel in relativity? 

Hope this helps.

Thanks but I suspect it has to do with more mundane aspects of the material properties of the PZT stack and supporting materials.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/27/2017 06:54 pm
Anyone know where I can get the full set of slides for the NASA proposal? Thanks.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: HMXHMX on 07/28/2017 09:59 pm
Anyone know where I can get the full set of slides for the NASA proposal? Thanks.

These are the public slides Prof. Fearn spoke to at the Foundations of Interstellar Studies Workshop at City Tech, CUNY June 13-15, 2017, which is the most current presentation we have. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/29/2017 01:33 am
Anyone know where I can get the full set of slides for the NASA proposal? Thanks.

These are the public slides Prof. Fearn spoke to at the Foundations of Interstellar Studies Workshop at City Tech, CUNY June 13-15, 2017, which is the most current presentation we have.

Thank you very much!
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/29/2017 04:53 pm
I'm interested in better understanding Woodward's mass change formula, specifically the derivative of power with respect to time that constitutes the required energy change in the accelerating mass. Woodward currently uses a PZT stack and electrical power input. What other phenomenon might constitute the required energy change? Thanks.

My thinking are such things as fluctuations of kinetic energy and potential energy such as a system with a damped spring. Or sinusoidal fluctuations of the angular acceleration of a rotating mass concurrently undergoing translational accelerations? Things easy to experiment with that might yield big effects. I'm hoping there are much better systems than PZT stacks.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/31/2017 05:34 pm
I found this slide but it's not that clear a picture. Even so, the part under energy and momentum is very interesting. It's the clearest and boldest statement I've seen yet on the energy conservation debate.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star-Drive on 08/08/2017 04:56 am
I found this slide but it's not that clear a picture. Even so, the part under energy and momentum is very interesting. It's the clearest and boldest statement I've seen yet on the energy conservation debate.

Bob:

It was a long time coming, but with the help of Dr. Rodal's NIAC analysis work and Carver Mead's previous observation that any non-rocket thruster with greater than 100% efficient photon rocket performance has to be harvesting energy from an outside source,  Dr. Woodward has finally accepted the fact that his Mach-Effect Gravity Assist (MEGA) drives have to develop ALL of their kinetic energy from the cosmological gravity/inertial (G/I) field that gives rise to inertia, but NOT from the local MEGA drive power supply.  So the vehicle's local power generators just supply the engine's internal losses required to set up and maintain the MEGA-drive's G/I energy conduit needed to propel the vehicle while in use. 

With the foregoing in mind, we can now view the MEGA-drive as a power transistor like device with a given potential G/I energy to kinetic energy GAIN set by its design and operating point of the MEGA-drive engine in question.  That is why the equivalent Isp for these G/I field drives can be so astoundingly large.  (My STAIF-2006, Mach-Lorentz Thruster (MLT)-2004 had an equivalent Isp of ~1x10^12 seconds when producing ~3.0 milli-Newton with only 18 watts of local 2.2 MHz RF input power.)

Best, Paul M.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/08/2017 05:08 pm
I found this slide but it's not that clear a picture. Even so, the part under energy and momentum is very interesting. It's the clearest and boldest statement I've seen yet on the energy conservation debate.

Bob:

It was a long time coming, but with the help of Dr. Rodal's NIAC analysis work and Carver Mead's previous observation that any non-rocket thruster with greater than 100% efficient photon rocket performance has to be harvesting energy from an outside source,  Dr. Woodward has finally accepted the fact that his Mach-Effect Gravity Assist (MEGA) drives have to develop ALL of their kinetic energy from the cosmological gravity/inertial (G/I) field that gives rise to inertia, but NOT from the local MEGA drive power supply.  So the vehicle's local power generators just supply the engine's internal losses required to set up and maintain the MEGA-drive's G/I energy conduit needed to propel the vehicle while in use. 

With the foregoing in mind, we can now view the MEGA-drive as a power transistor like device with a given potential G/I energy to kinetic energy GAIN set by its design and operating point of the MEGA-drive engine in question.  That is why the equivalent Isp for these G/I field drives can be so astoundingly large.  (My STAIF-2006, Mach-Lorentz Thruster (MLT)-2004 had an equivalent Isp of ~1x10^12 seconds when producing ~3.0 milli-Newton with only 18 watts of local 2.2 MHz RF input power.)

Best, Paul M.

Thanks Paul! That is very interesting indeed. That seems to imply that such a device actually could be used as an energy generator as I have frequently heard from critics of propellentless propulsion. They suggested a rotational device could in principle be used to harvest more energy than is put in to create the conditions to run the device.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 08/08/2017 07:01 pm
It was a long time coming, but with the help of Dr. Rodal's NIAC analysis work and Carver Mead's previous observation that any non-rocket thruster with greater than 100% efficient photon rocket performance has to be harvesting energy from an outside source,  Dr. Woodward has finally accepted the fact that his Mach-Effect Gravity Assist (MEGA) drives have to develop ALL of their kinetic energy from the cosmological gravity/inertial (G/I) field that gives rise to inertia, but NOT from the local MEGA drive power supply.  So the vehicle's local power generators just supply the engine's internal losses required to set up and maintain the MEGA-drive's G/I energy conduit needed to propel the vehicle while in use.

Yes. Ron Stahl (aka GI-Thruster) says so for years. It is even written in Wikipedia in the Woodward effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect#Conservation_of_momentum) page, with a link to one of his articles:

Quote from: Wikipedia
Considering those conservation issues, a Mach effect thruster relies on Mach's principle, hence it is not an electrical to kinetic transducer, i.e. it does not convert electric energy to kinetic energy. Rather, a Mach Effect Thruster is a gravinertial transistor that controls the flow of gravinertial flux, in and out of the active mass of the thruster. The primary power into the thruster is contained in the flux of the gravitational field, not the electricity that powers the device. Failing to account for this flux, is much the same as failing to account for the wind on a sail.*
* Stahl, Ron (21 February 2015). "Mach-Effect physics conservation concerns: 3 important observations" (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/mach-effect-physics-conservation-concerns-3-important-ron-stahl?trk=prof-post).
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tchernik on 08/09/2017 01:49 am
With the foregoing in mind, we can now view the MEGA-drive as a power transistor like device with a given potential G/I energy to kinetic energy GAIN set by its design and operating point of the MEGA-drive engine in question.  That is why the equivalent Isp for these G/I field drives can be so astoundingly large.  (My STAIF-2006, Mach-Lorentz Thruster (MLT)-2004 had an equivalent Isp of ~1x10^12 seconds when producing ~3.0 milli-Newton with only 18 watts of local 2.2 MHz RF input power.)

Best, Paul M.

That's a remarkable level of thrust, Paul, already in the usable range for space applications. Given there are more replications now, I think we need a page with the reported thrust per watt of the different MEGA drive experiments as well, for comparing between them and with other existing experiments, like those of the Emdrive.

This overall field of anomalous thrust has gone from mere speculations and ultimately falsified devices, into actual experiments with recipes that produce consistent positive results. With the MEGA drive at 6-sigma level of confidence, we can say these are exciting times indeed.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ThinkerX on 08/09/2017 07:08 am
Quote
With the foregoing in mind, we can now view the MEGA-drive as a power transistor like device with a given potential G/I energy to kinetic energy GAIN set by its design and operating point of the MEGA-drive engine in question.  That is why the equivalent Isp for these G/I field drives can be so astoundingly large.  (My STAIF-2006, Mach-Lorentz Thruster (MLT)-2004 had an equivalent Isp of ~1x10^12 seconds when producing ~3.0 milli-Newton with only 18 watts of local 2.2 MHz RF input power.)

Was that a vacuum chamber test?

Also, isn't that roughly 'EM Drive' levels of 'thrust?'  Perhaps 'movement' is a better term than 'thrust.'
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 08/09/2017 04:18 pm
I found this slide but it's not that clear a picture. Even so, the part under energy and momentum is very interesting. It's the clearest and boldest statement I've seen yet on the energy conservation debate.

Bob:

It was a long time coming, but with the help of Dr. Rodal's NIAC analysis work and Carver Mead's previous observation that any non-rocket thruster with greater than 100% efficient photon rocket performance has to be harvesting energy from an outside source,  Dr. Woodward has finally accepted the fact that his Mach-Effect Gravity Assist (MEGA) drives have to develop ALL of their kinetic energy from the cosmological gravity/inertial (G/I) field that gives rise to inertia, but NOT from the local MEGA drive power supply.  So the vehicle's local power generators just supply the engine's internal losses required to set up and maintain the MEGA-drive's G/I energy conduit needed to propel the vehicle while in use. 

With the foregoing in mind, we can now view the MEGA-drive as a power transistor like device with a given potential G/I energy to kinetic energy GAIN set by its design and operating point of the MEGA-drive engine in question.  That is why the equivalent Isp for these G/I field drives can be so astoundingly large.  (My STAIF-2006, Mach-Lorentz Thruster (MLT)-2004 had an equivalent Isp of ~1x10^12 seconds when producing ~3.0 milli-Newton with only 18 watts of local 2.2 MHz RF input power.)

Best, Paul M.

Couple of questions.

Is there still a plan to update the book?

Also, while I believe successful completion of the NIAC work should be the highest priority. Is anyone working on characterizing what the possible limitations of this technology are? For example, would there be any real limitations on converting the imparted kinetic energy to electrical energy
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 08/10/2017 03:09 am
I'm interested in better understanding Woodward's mass change formula, specifically the derivative of power with respect to time that constitutes the required energy change in the accelerating mass. Woodward currently uses a PZT stack and electrical power input. What other phenomenon might constitute the required energy change? Thanks.

My thinking are such things as fluctuations of kinetic energy and potential energy such as a system with a damped spring. Or sinusoidal fluctuations of the angular acceleration of a rotating mass concurrently undergoing translational accelerations? Things easy to experiment with that might yield big effects. I'm hoping there are much better systems than PZT stacks.

I was considering light as changing in effective mass inside a waveguide that changes diameter.  (I'm not convince of the mechanism that would change the lights effective mass in a narrowing waveguide yet, but the impulse of light does seem to change when light enters a high index material as measured by scientists). 

If the effective mass of light could change then I suspect it may be possible to use it for a Woodward effect.  Light could transition back and forth between regions that seem to effectively change mass which parallels to changing the effective mass of the PZT stack.  After changing its effective mass next is acceleration.  For light the acceleration happens upon reflection. 

If light gives more energy upon reflecting on one wall as opposed to another wall (by changing in mass) the light will lose energy or maybe it could be considered a change in frame (accelerating/decelerating light) and the back reaction would be to accelerate a cavity in the other direction.  Is this really possible?  No guarantees. 

I suspect this loss of energy from light is very similar to what happens in a photonic thruster (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photonic_laser_thruster) where the energy lost from the photons is not through the Doppler effect but a 2nd order effect which also causes a change in frequency.
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHCb-ty3EBU

Much energy is lost when using photons as thrust.  Its very inefficient because of the photons ridiculously low effective mass.  The photonic laser thruster would be more efficient because of its ability to not lose so much energy to the photons.  Basically a photonic laser thruster more effectively sucks the energy from the photons by lowering their frequency via multiple reflections. 

The same would be true if you could change the mass of light inside a cavity and induce what I think might be similar to a Woodward effect.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect

I would suspect the change in effective mass would have some parallel to a coupling with the vacuum.  Possibly by relativity and the effective change in mass of a high velocity object. 

I could probably say more but not sure I want to.  I think there are other ways of possibly accomplishing the same thing. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/10/2017 06:17 pm
I'm interested in better understanding Woodward's mass change formula, specifically the derivative of power with respect to time that constitutes the required energy change in the accelerating mass. Woodward currently uses a PZT stack and electrical power input. What other phenomenon might constitute the required energy change? Thanks.

My thinking are such things as fluctuations of kinetic energy and potential energy such as a system with a damped spring. Or sinusoidal fluctuations of the angular acceleration of a rotating mass concurrently undergoing translational accelerations? Things easy to experiment with that might yield big effects. I'm hoping there are much better systems than PZT stacks.

I was considering light as changing in effective mass inside a waveguide that changes diameter.  (I'm not convince of the mechanism that would change the lights effective mass in a narrowing waveguide yet, but the impulse of light does seem to change when light enters a high index material as measured by scientists). 

If the effective mass of light could change then I suspect it may be possible to use it for a Woodward effect.  Light could transition back and forth between regions that seem to effectively change mass which parallels to changing the effective mass of the PZT stack.  After changing its effective mass next is acceleration.  For light the acceleration happens upon reflection. 

If light gives more energy upon reflecting on one wall as opposed to another wall (by changing in mass) the light will lose energy or maybe it could be considered a change in frame (accelerating/decelerating light) and the back reaction would be to accelerate a cavity in the other direction.  Is this really possible?  No guarantees. 

I suspect this loss of energy from light is very similar to what happens in a photonic thruster (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photonic_laser_thruster) where the energy lost from the photons is not through the Doppler effect but a 2nd order effect which also causes a change in frequency.

Much energy is lost when using photons as thrust.  Its very inefficient because of the photons ridiculously low effective mass.  The photonic laser thruster would be more efficient because of its ability to not lose so much energy to the photons.  Basically a photonic laser thruster more effectively sucks the energy from the photons by lowering their frequency via multiple reflections. 

The same would be true if you could change the mass of light inside a cavity and induce what I think might be similar to a Woodward effect.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect

I would suspect the change in effective mass would have some parallel to a coupling with the vacuum.  Possibly by relativity and the effective change in mass of a high velocity object. 

I could probably say more but not sure I want to.  I think there are other ways of possibly accomplishing the same thing.

I like it! It could be just the rapid change in energy in the cavity as it builds up and is released that might trigger the Woodward effect as the cavity and it's medium is appropriately accelerated and each has the appropriate frequency (as I understand the mass fluctuation term).
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ThinkerX on 08/11/2017 01:17 am
Quote
I like it! It could be just the rapid change in energy in the cavity as it builds up and is released that might trigger the Woodward effect as the cavity and it's medium is appropriately accelerated and each has the appropriate frequency (as I understand the mass fluctuation term).

My recollection is hazy, but mention was made of a paper being presented at the Estes Conference describing something similar to this. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 08/11/2017 06:58 am

I like it! It could be just the rapid change in energy in the cavity as it builds up and is released that might trigger the Woodward effect as the cavity and it's medium is appropriately accelerated and each has the appropriate frequency (as I understand the mass fluctuation term).

Well, there is, in a resonating cavity, a variance between inductance and capacitance.  There is a big difference however between transverse electric modes (TE) and transverse magnetic modes (TM). 

The TE mode avoids charge separation altogether which is interesting.  As a result the energy alternates from inductance in the cavity and existing as light. 

The TM modes induce charge separation and so the energy alternates between inductance (current in the cavity) and charge separation (capacitance in the cavity) and that of light.  I'm not sure how big the difference between them is yet but it might be significant. 

I'm not an expert on the Woodward effect but from what I gather I think it has to do with storing energy in something to make it more massive.  My guess is in the case of a pezio-electric accelerator the idea is to shift energy from being stored in a material that is accelerated (say an inductor) to a device that is not repeatedly accelerated (maybe a capacitor) and back again. 

The stored energy makes it heavier or more coupled to the vacuum (maybe enhanced via some odd effect).  When it is pulled, it being heavier, drags on the vacuum in one direction and the device the other direction.  Shunting the energy out of the inductor decouples it from the vacuum (or virtual particles) and it's pushed back to start the process over again. 

If a cavity could mimic this effect I suspect the energy would have to alternate between something that is being accelerated to something that is not accelerated and back again.  Some how I suspect this would also effect the light inside the cavity.  The increase in mass of a charge may effect its field, and light is the field. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_mass_(solid-state_physics)

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron
Virtual particles
...
While an electron–positron virtual pair is in existence, the coulomb force from the ambient electric field surrounding an electron causes a created positron to be attracted to the original electron, while a created electron experiences a repulsion. This causes what is called vacuum polarization. In effect, the vacuum behaves like a medium having a dielectric permittivity more than unity. Thus the effective charge of an electron is actually smaller than its true value, and the charge decreases with increasing distance from the electron.[87][88] This polarization was confirmed experimentally in 1997 using the Japanese TRISTAN particle accelerator.[89] Virtual particles cause a comparable shielding effect for the mass of the electron.[90]

It may be interesting to see that paper spoken about above. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/11/2017 05:43 pm

I like it! It could be just the rapid change in energy in the cavity as it builds up and is released that might trigger the Woodward effect as the cavity and it's medium is appropriately accelerated and each has the appropriate frequency (as I understand the mass fluctuation term).

Well, there is, in a resonating cavity, a variance between inductance and capacitance.  There is a big difference however between transverse electric modes (TE) and transverse magnetic modes (TM). 

The TE mode avoids charge separation altogether which is interesting.  As a result the energy alternates from inductance in the cavity and existing as light. 

The TM modes induce charge separation and so the energy alternates between inductance (current in the cavity) and charge separation (capacitance in the cavity) and that of light.  I'm not sure how big the difference between them is yet but it might be significant. 

I'm not an expert on the Woodward effect but from what I gather I think it has to do with storing energy in something to make it more massive.  My guess is in the case of a pezio-electric accelerator the idea is to shift energy from being stored in a material that is accelerated (say an inductor) to a device that is not repeatedly accelerated (maybe a capacitor) and back again. 

The stored energy makes it heavier or more coupled to the vacuum (maybe enhanced via some odd effect).  When it is pulled, it being heavier, drags on the vacuum in one direction and the device the other direction.  Shunting the energy out of the inductor decouples it from the vacuum (or virtual particles) and it's pushed back to start the process over again. 

If a cavity could mimic this effect I suspect the energy would have to alternate between something that is being accelerated to something that is not accelerated and back again.  Some how I suspect this would also effect the light inside the cavity.  The increase in mass of a charge may effect its field, and light is the field. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_mass_(solid-state_physics)

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron
Virtual particles
...
While an electron–positron virtual pair is in existence, the coulomb force from the ambient electric field surrounding an electron causes a created positron to be attracted to the original electron, while a created electron experiences a repulsion. This causes what is called vacuum polarization. In effect, the vacuum behaves like a medium having a dielectric permittivity more than unity. Thus the effective charge of an electron is actually smaller than its true value, and the charge decreases with increasing distance from the electron.[87][88] This polarization was confirmed experimentally in 1997 using the Japanese TRISTAN particle accelerator.[89] Virtual particles cause a comparable shielding effect for the mass of the electron.[90]

It may be interesting to see that paper spoken about above.

I'm not an expert on the Woodward effect (but I'd like to be!) but I think the increased mass is not just E/c^2 of the added energy. That would require massive energy densities. It's a fundamentally different interaction with the rest of the mass in the universe.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/11/2017 05:48 pm
Quote
I like it! It could be just the rapid change in energy in the cavity as it builds up and is released that might trigger the Woodward effect as the cavity and it's medium is appropriately accelerated and each has the appropriate frequency (as I understand the mass fluctuation term).

My recollection is hazy, but mention was made of a paper being presented at the Estes Conference describing something similar to this.

Thanks, I have the proceedings. If you remember which paper it is please let me know. I'm beginning to suspect that there may be many ways of pumping massive amounts energy into an accelerating system that might work to get big effects.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 08/11/2017 08:39 pm
Quote
I like it! It could be just the rapid change in energy in the cavity as it builds up and is released that might trigger the Woodward effect as the cavity and it's medium is appropriately accelerated and each has the appropriate frequency (as I understand the mass fluctuation term).

My recollection is hazy, but mention was made of a paper being presented at the Estes Conference describing something similar to this.

Thanks, I have the proceedings. If you remember which paper it is please let me know. I'm beginning to suspect that there may be many ways of pumping massive amounts energy into an accelerating system that might work to get big effects.

Jean-Philippe Montillet's paper is about the similarity between the Em Drive cavity and the Mach effect.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 08/13/2017 04:00 pm
Quote
I like it! It could be just the rapid change in energy in the cavity as it builds up and is released that might trigger the Woodward effect as the cavity and it's medium is appropriately accelerated and each has the appropriate frequency (as I understand the mass fluctuation term).

My recollection is hazy, but mention was made of a paper being presented at the Estes Conference describing something similar to this.

Thanks, I have the proceedings. If you remember which paper it is please let me know. I'm beginning to suspect that there may be many ways of pumping massive amounts energy into an accelerating system that might work to get big effects.

Jean-Philippe Montillet's paper is about the similarity between the Em Drive cavity and the Mach effect.

Yes, as quoted on the Wikipedia page about the EmDrive, section Mach effect:

"The RF resonant cavity thruster would act as a capacitor where surface currents propagate inside the cavity on the conic wall, between the two end plates; electromagnetic resonant modes create electric charges on each end plate; a Mach effect is triggered by Lorentz forces from surface currents on the conic wall; and a thrust force arise in the RF cavity, due to the variation of the electromagnetic density from evanescent waves inside the skin layer. When a polymer insert is placed asymmetrically in the cavity, its dielectric properties result in greater asymmetry, while decreasing the cavity Q factor. The cavity's acceleration is a function of all the above factors, and the model can explain the acceleration of the cavity with and without a dielectric."

And the link to Montillet's paper:

Montillet, J.P. (September 2016). "Theory of the EM Drive in TM mode based on Mach-Lorentz theory" (http://ssi.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ssi_estes_park_proceedings_201609.pdf). Proceedings of the Advanced Propulsion Workshop. Estes Park, CO: Space Studies Institute. pp. 111–125.

The PDF file of the Estes Park Proceedings is very interesting but quite large to download and handle, so here is Montillet's paper extracted and attached below.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/16/2017 09:06 pm
Quote
I like it! It could be just the rapid change in energy in the cavity as it builds up and is released that might trigger the Woodward effect as the cavity and it's medium is appropriately accelerated and each has the appropriate frequency (as I understand the mass fluctuation term).

My recollection is hazy, but mention was made of a paper being presented at the Estes Conference describing something similar to this.

Thanks, I have the proceedings. If you remember which paper it is please let me know. I'm beginning to suspect that there may be many ways of pumping massive amounts energy into an accelerating system that might work to get big effects.

Jean-Philippe Montillet's paper is about the similarity between the Em Drive cavity and the Mach effect.

Yes, as quoted on the Wikipedia page about the EmDrive, section Mach effect:

"The RF resonant cavity thruster would act as a capacitor where surface currents propagate inside the cavity on the conic wall, between the two end plates; electromagnetic resonant modes create electric charges on each end plate; a Mach effect is triggered by Lorentz forces from surface currents on the conic wall; and a thrust force arise in the RF cavity, due to the variation of the electromagnetic density from evanescent waves inside the skin layer. When a polymer insert is placed asymmetrically in the cavity, its dielectric properties result in greater asymmetry, while decreasing the cavity Q factor. The cavity's acceleration is a function of all the above factors, and the model can explain the acceleration of the cavity with and without a dielectric."

And the link to Montillet's paper:

Montillet, J.P. (September 2016). "Theory of the EM Drive in TM mode based on Mach-Lorentz theory" (http://ssi.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ssi_estes_park_proceedings_201609.pdf). Proceedings of the Advanced Propulsion Workshop. Estes Park, CO: Space Studies Institute. pp. 111–125.

The PDF file of the Estes Park Proceedings is very interesting but quite large to download and handle, so here is Montillet's paper extracted and attached below.

This paper is discussing one particular model to explain current EM drive results in light of Mach theory and suggests ways to falsify the theory. Also it relies on skin effects in the copper frustum and not bulk radiation properties as we were discussing. I'm not clear on the requirements of the relationship between the energy fluctuations and any material structure it is assumed to be fluctuating inside of.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 09/07/2017 08:13 pm
I agree. The fact these devices exist and some show fairly good theoretical and experimental tracks (the MEGA is low thrust but very consistent) is exciting indeed.

You said MEGA produces consistent thrust among experiments. I am curious to take a look. Which experiment is the most detailed with photos and descriptions? Would you suggest one? Thank you!

Somebody sent me a link but his post was deleted so I do not know who did that. The link leads to a pdf file describing a proposal to expand the MEGA thrust. I googled online and found the paper referred in the pdf file. It is here:

http://www.tsijournals.com/articles/experimental-tests-of-the-mach-effect-thruster.pdf

I took a look of the pictures without looking into the theory part. This experiment troubles me a lot. Because I think the appearance of a thrust can be explained with regular mechanism without having to fetch Mach effect, Woodward effect, or alike. Think of the fact that you can moving a car/cart forward by rocking in it. A friction with ground in this car/cart experiment is needed. As to the experiment in the paper, if the experiment was not carried out in vacuum, then air friction must be considered. The beam in the experiment will jerk quickly back and forth. look into how a jellyfish swim in water, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2zZ2S5esu8

 The air turbulence interacting with some non-symmetric parts of the experiment apparatus will make this effect.  Even if the apparatus is symmetrical, if the beam jerk quickly toward one direction and move back slowly from another direction (think of the "chirp" part of the experiment), a thrust like effect may still be able to show up.

If the experiment was carried out in vacuum, close look of the bearing is needed. A hanging piano wire will be very helpful to serve as low friction bearing. If they have not taken measurement of this effect, then the conclusion is very skeptical. I think, if I mounting some non-symmetric parts on the beam to interact with air turbulence, I probably can reverse the thrust direction of that experiment. Dare to let me try, somebody?

Update: I know a device invented in the 50's by somebody (the name may bear a "wood" in it), documented on Wiki, showing that a closed system with moving parts can move itself on desk. It stirred much interest at its time as and propellant-less driver. We need to learn lessons from history. I worry that we do not include enough failed theory/invention in text books. For every successful theory, there may be more than 100 failed one. If we forget them, we may think the new theory we invent having much much higher chance to be successful than it really has.

Edited many times to correct grammar problems.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 09/07/2017 08:35 pm

moved from the EmDrive thread:
Quote
Quote from: Rodal on Today at 08:25 PM
1) You are in the wrong thread to be arguing this.  There is a thread exclusively devoted to the Woodward effect where you should move your discussion.
2) Contrary to what you imply, the experiments (and the paper you quote) were all conducted in a vacuum.
3) There is a null experiment: for a symmetric system, for example, having equal end masses, the experimental force is zero.
I am glad to learn that they are carried out in vacuum. For 3), in vacuum, it is expected to produce no force if it has equal end masses. This can be explained by regular mechanism that the jerking is canceled that it can not interact with friction. If somebody has a demonstration of the experiment near DC, I'd be very interested to take a personal look.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/07/2017 08:55 pm
Quote from: Rodal
{…}
3) There is a null experiment: for a symmetric system, for example, having equal end masses, the experimental force is zero.
For 3), in vacuum, it is expected to produce no force if it has equal end masses. This can be explained by regular mechanism that the jerking is canceled that it can not interact with friction. If somebody has a demonstration of the experiment near DC, I'd be very interested to take a personal look.

Are you implying the device would produce an apparent force (but no real thrust) with asymmetric masses at both ends and in a vacuum? BTW the friction engines from the 1950s you are talking about are "Dean drives". So are you thinking Woodward's MEGA drive may be a Dean drive?

And precisely, the last paragraph of the Wikipedia page about Dean drives (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_drive) tells the following:
Quote from: Wikipedia
In 2012 a researcher attempting to characterize the Woodward effect, another proposed reactionless drive effect, has stated that she carefully designed her experiments to specifically exclude any "Dean drive" effects: the unintended interaction with the environment in, around or touching the apparatus. She considered these effects "spurious noise".[18]

[18] Fearn, Heidi; Woodward, James F. (2013). "Experimental Null test of a Mach Effect Thruster". arXiv:1301.6178 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.6178).
This paper has been published in the Journal of Space Exploration July 29, 2013.

Summarised in the two following slides in Fearn's lecture presented October 5, 2012 at the Advanced Space Propulsion Workshop (ASPW 2012) held at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL:
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 09/07/2017 08:56 pm
I have not yet thought out a way to prove that this device work or not on Earth, because I can not find a friction-less bearing and/or hysteresis-free magnetic environment. Maybe it's worth it to test this device on a satellite because it is much easier to make and maintain than an EmDrive.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Rodal on 09/07/2017 09:01 pm

moved from the EmDrive thread:
Quote
Quote from: Rodal on Today at 08:25 PM
1) You are in the wrong thread to be arguing this.  There is a thread exclusively devoted to the Woodward effect where you should move your discussion.
2) Contrary to what you imply, the experiments (and the paper you quote) were all conducted in a vacuum.
3) There is a null experiment: for a symmetric system, for example, having equal end masses, the experimental force is zero.
I am glad to learn that they are carried out in vacuum. For 3), in vacuum, it is expected to produce no force if it has equal end masses. This can be explained by regular mechanism that the jerking is canceled that it can not interact with friction. If somebody has a demonstration of the experiment near DC, I'd be very interested to take a personal look.
For a personal look you can arrange for a visit with Prof. Woodward at CalState Fullerton.

Concerning friction, p. 153 of his book states:

Quote
In order to get a quantitative measure of the vibration communicated to the flexural
bearings supporting the balance beam – the only place where a Dean drive effect could act
to produce a spurious thrust-like effect – accelerometers were attached to the central part
of the beam in proximity to the lower flexural bearing. The accelerometers were fabricated
from 2-mm square pieces of thin PZT material, a brass electrode and a 2-mm square brass
“anvil” mass (1 mm thick). See Fig. 5.16.
The electrode is placed between the pieces of PZT (oriented with appropriate
polarizations), and the anvil mass is part of the ground circuit, locally grounded. In
order to suppress pickup that might appear on the accelerometer leads, the signals from
the accelerometer were detected with a differential amplifier so that pickup would be
rejected as common mode noise. The usual precautions were taken with the electronics.
These accelerometers made it possible to show that reversal of the direction of the device
on the end of the beam had no effect on the vibration reaching the flexural bearings in the
central column of the balance – but the observed thrust signal changed direction with the
device. See Fig. 5.17.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 09/07/2017 09:02 pm
Quote from: Rodal
{…}
3) There is a null experiment: for a symmetric system, for example, having equal end masses, the experimental force is zero.
For 3), in vacuum, it is expected to produce no force if it has equal end masses. This can be explained by regular mechanism that the jerking is canceled that it can not interact with friction. If somebody has a demonstration of the experiment near DC, I'd be very interested to take a personal look.

Are you implying the device would produce an apparent force (but no real thrust) with asymmetric masses at both ends and in a vacuum? BTW the friction engines from the 1950s you are talking about are "Dean drives". So are you thinking Woodward's MEGA drive may be a Dean drive?

And precisely, the last paragraph of the Wikipedia page about Dean drives (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_drive) tells the following:
Quote from: Wikipedia
In 2012 a researcher attempting to characterize the Woodward effect, another proposed reactionless drive effect, has stated that she carefully designed her experiments to specifically exclude any "Dean drive" effects: the unintended interaction with the environment in, around or touching the apparatus. She considered these effects "spurious noise".[18]

[18] Fearn, Heidi; Woodward, James F. (2013). "Experimental Null test of a Mach Effect Thruster". arXiv:1301.6178 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.6178).


Yes, that is what I think, that a bearing with friction or hysteresis effect may produce an appearance of thrust. Or it can be the magnetic interaction with environment magnetic field with hysteresis effect. Thank you for the name "Dean drive". I was referring to it but forgot its name.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 09/07/2017 09:12 pm

moved from the EmDrive thread:
Quote
Quote from: Rodal on Today at 08:25 PM
1) You are in the wrong thread to be arguing this.  There is a thread exclusively devoted to the Woodward effect where you should move your discussion.
2) Contrary to what you imply, the experiments (and the paper you quote) were all conducted in a vacuum.
3) There is a null experiment: for a symmetric system, for example, having equal end masses, the experimental force is zero.
I am glad to learn that they are carried out in vacuum. For 3), in vacuum, it is expected to produce no force if it has equal end masses. This can be explained by regular mechanism that the jerking is canceled that it can not interact with friction. If somebody has a demonstration of the experiment near DC, I'd be very interested to take a personal look.
For a personal look you can arrange for a visit with Prof. Woodward at CalState Fullerton.

Concerning friction, p. 153 of his book states:

Quote
In order to get a quantitative measure of the vibration communicated to the flexural
bearings supporting the balance beam – the only place where a Dean drive effect could act
to produce a spurious thrust-like effect – accelerometers were attached to the central part
of the beam in proximity to the lower flexural bearing. The accelerometers were fabricated
from 2-mm square pieces of thin PZT material, a brass electrode and a 2-mm square brass
“anvil” mass (1 mm thick). See Fig. 5.16.
The electrode is placed between the pieces of PZT (oriented with appropriate
polarizations), and the anvil mass is part of the ground circuit, locally grounded. In
order to suppress pickup that might appear on the accelerometer leads, the signals from
the accelerometer were detected with a differential amplifier so that pickup would be
rejected as common mode noise. The usual precautions were taken with the electronics.
These accelerometers made it possible to show that reversal of the direction of the device
on the end of the beam had no effect on the vibration reaching the flexural bearings in the
central column of the balance – but the observed thrust signal changed direction with the
device. See Fig. 5.17.

Thank you for the contact information. It is too far away for me to visit Cal State, though.

Besides the bearing, the hysteresis of the beam elastic bending may play a role too. I need to think hard to find a way to remove all those effects.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Rodal on 09/07/2017 09:19 pm
...
Thank you for the contact information. It is too far away for me to visit Cal State, though.

Besides the bearing, the hysteresis of the beam elastic bending may play a role too. I need to think hard to find a way to remove all those effects.
If you are discussing stress-strain hysteresis with plastic deformation (as it occurs with friction) in the torsional pendulum aluminum beam the word hysteresis contradicts your word "elastic bending" as there is no hysteresis in a perfectly elastic material. The torsional pendulum aluminum beam is made of aerospace aluminum grade, if you consider the fact that a metal like aluminum eventually does exhibit plasticity hysteresis due to pile-up of dislocations, (which is a non-elastic phenomenon) it is trivial to calculate that the strains in the beam are infinitesimal (since the device has a mass of less than 200 grams) and therefore plastic hysteresis of the beam is non-existent, since the strains in the beam are orders of magnitude below the yield strain.  Aerospace engineers reading this that are familiar with fatigue calculations and elastic-plastic deformations in metals will realize this at once.  Stress-strain hysteresis due to plastic strain in the aluminum beam is much more unrealistic than discussing friction in the bearing.

For infinitesimal strains, at ~30 kHz, there is dissipation in Aluminum which can be characterized by tan delta, this is structural damping (stress-strain hysteresis such that there is no permanent strain upon unloading, the strain being zero upon unloading: no plastic strains, which is an effect unlike friction).  Tan delta for aluminum is very small ~10^(-3): see graph

(http://silver.neep.wisc.edu/~lakes/StiffLossMap10.gif)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 09/07/2017 09:25 pm
...
Thank you for the contact information. It is too far away for me to visit Cal State, though.

Besides the bearing, the hysteresis of the beam elastic bending may play a role too. I need to think hard to find a way to remove all those effects.
If you are discussing stress-strain hysteresis in the aluminum beam, the beam is made of aerospace aluminum grade, it is trivial to calculate that the strains in the beam are infinitesimal and therefore hysteresis of the beam is non-existent, since the strains in the beam are orders of magnitude below the yield strain.  Aerospace engineers reading this that are familiar with fatigue calculations and elastic-plastic deformations in metals will realize this at once.

Thanks. The fact that the masses vibrate quickly and intensely worries me. There are just too many places this can cause problems. I need to think and read when I get some more time.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 09/07/2017 09:52 pm
I came up with an experiment that could potentially falsify MEGA. Let me think it over and polish it further. I may seek publishing the idea.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Rodal on 09/07/2017 09:56 pm
...
Thank you for the contact information. It is too far away for me to visit Cal State, though.

Besides the bearing, the hysteresis of the beam elastic bending may play a role too. I need to think hard to find a way to remove all those effects.
If you are discussing stress-strain hysteresis in the aluminum beam, the beam is made of aerospace aluminum grade, it is trivial to calculate that the strains in the beam are infinitesimal and therefore hysteresis of the beam is non-existent, since the strains in the beam are orders of magnitude below the yield strain.  Aerospace engineers reading this that are familiar with fatigue calculations and elastic-plastic deformations in metals will realize this at once.

Thanks. The fact that the masses vibrate quickly and intensely worries me. There are just too many places this can cause problems. I need to think and read when I get some more time.

There is one peculiar feature with Woodward's experiments with a piezoelectric stack: his theory predicts a force that is proportional to the 4th power of the Voltage.  His experiments shows this very nonlinear dependence of the force going like the 4th power of the Voltage.

Alternative explanations need to address this experimental dependence of the measured force going like the 4th power of the Voltage.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star-Drive on 09/08/2017 03:20 pm
I came up with an experiment that could potentially falsify MEGA. Let me think it over and polish it further. I may seek publishing the idea.

P-N:

Please be aware that Dr. Woodward has been pursuing the development of the Mach Effect conjecture and its supporting experimental work since ~1989 with a number of published peer reviewed papers along the way.  I think the best papers specifically on Dr. Woodward's Mach-Effect conjecture are the two attached papers for your review, but there are many others including Jim's "Making Starships..." book worth reviewing as well.

Best, Paul M.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/08/2017 07:51 pm
I came up with an experiment that could potentially falsify MEGA. Let me think it over and polish it further. I may seek publishing the idea.

I very very much doubt that. Even if you come up with an experiment that shows another effect it doesn't falsify another experiment unless you assume that's what's happening which of course, many people blindly would given an excuse to do so. In the past such claims have set physics back.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Rodal on 09/12/2017 06:44 pm
From what I was thinking about above, the same thing is happening in a MET (just talking about the device, not Mach effects theory). A changing energy density (capacitor being charged and discharged) is being jerked around (back and forth in the case of a MET) by a PZT. The return journey doesn't look like a good design feature to have, although if you think about it, it's inevitable in a resonant system. I'm thinking really hard about why the addition of the rubber pad (from the book Making Starships) greatly increased the thrust. That's a good way to absorb energy and reduce the return energy by reducing r. That rubber pad is dissipative. That's the asymmetry. This is an electromechanical version of the EMdrive. They're analogous.

Pics included for research purposes.

May I suggest that the rubber pad allowed room for the copper block to move back and forth, thus allowed more intense vibration? If so, it can be replaced with a compressed spring.

It looks to me like the rubber pad is the dissipative element, serving the same function as the dielectric disc in an EMdrive. They're both lowering the amount of reflected energy by turning it into heat. They both serve to facilitate a partial standing wave.

If you really think about it, it's immediately obvious why a fully superconducting EMdrive is a BAD idea. You better have a load on it.

Do you predict the "thrust" to change direction, if the rubber washer is installed on the other side (on the nut side, not on the bolt side)? From my understanding of how it worked, the "thrust" will likely change direction.



I attach a picture of the present MEGA drive (bottom picture) to compare with the early version from years ago in the book (top picture).

Notice how much smaller is the rubber gasket compared to the rubber pad used for the device of many years ago shown in the book.  The present rubber gasket is confined to distribute stresses resulting from the fasteners, to reduce stress concentrations (see https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1721787#msg1721787 for explanation), rather than a large rubber pad as shown in the book.  Moreover, when thicker rubber pads were tested, the measured force decreased, as one would expect from dissipation effect decreasing the quality of resonance Q, so experiment confirms theory.

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1447226;image)

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/13/2017 08:49 pm
From what I was thinking about above, the same thing is happening in a MET (just talking about the device, not Mach effects theory). A changing energy density (capacitor being charged and discharged) is being jerked around (back and forth in the case of a MET) by a PZT. The return journey doesn't look like a good design feature to have, although if you think about it, it's inevitable in a resonant system. I'm thinking really hard about why the addition of the rubber pad (from the book Making Starships) greatly increased the thrust. That's a good way to absorb energy and reduce the return energy by reducing r. That rubber pad is dissipative. That's the asymmetry. This is an electromechanical version of the EMdrive. They're analogous.

Pics included for research purposes.

May I suggest that the rubber pad allowed room for the copper block to move back and forth, thus allowed more intense vibration? If so, it can be replaced with a compressed spring.

It looks to me like the rubber pad is the dissipative element, serving the same function as the dielectric disc in an EMdrive. They're both lowering the amount of reflected energy by turning it into heat. They both serve to facilitate a partial standing wave.

If you really think about it, it's immediately obvious why a fully superconducting EMdrive is a BAD idea. You better have a load on it.

Do you predict the "thrust" to change direction, if the rubber washer is installed on the other side (on the nut side, not on the bolt side)? From my understanding of how it worked, the "thrust" will likely change direction.



I attach a picture of the present MEGA drive (bottom picture) to compare with the early version from years ago in the book (top picture).

Notice how much smaller is the rubber gasket compared to the rubber pad used for the device of many years ago shown in the book.  The present rubber gasket is confined to distribute stresses resulting from the fasteners, to reduce stress concentrations (see https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1721787#msg1721787 for explanation), rather than a large rubber pad as shown in the book.  Moreover, when thicker rubber pads were tested, the measured force decreased, as one would expect from dissipation effect decreasing the quality of resonance Q, so experiment confirms theory.

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1447226;image)

I'm curious about other possibilities than PZT stacks to fluctuate energy and create mass changes. What about thermal or mechanical effects? Things that could be made on a larger scale? Thanks.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star-Drive on 09/14/2017 03:54 pm
Bob:

"I'm curious about other possibilities than PZT stacks to fluctuate energy and create mass changes. What about thermal or mechanical effects? Things that could be made on a larger scale? Thanks."

Please look at the attached 2012 JPC paper from Woodward and Fearn and look at the MEGA drive thrust equation 21 on page 8, which is near complete except not including the Q-factor losses in each MEGA drive component and their respective physical sizes.  An engineering oversight that Dr. Rodal will be more than happy to tell you was a blunder by Woodward and Fearn and then he will show you why.  (In defense of the authors of this paper, being teachers and researchers first and foremost, their main goal in writing it was the validation of the Mach-Effect physics, not to get all the engineering niceties nailed down in the making of such thrusters.)     

Be that as it may, you will notice in the numerator of the MEGA-drive equation-21 the variables that will increase thrust for a given OD sized piezoelectric stack with larger OD stacks generally providing larger thrust levels with everything else being equal.  However, ALL of these variables plus their respective ac losses are not independent of each other.  This MEGA-drive thrust equation variable inter-dependence requires a fair about of engineering compromising while selecting these variables during the MEGA-drive design process, but we can already see that increasing the w^6 operating freq, increasing the driven V^4 operating voltage and x^3 stack excursion distances while minimizing i^2*R losses in each of the stack components while concurrently increasing their heat rejection capability will greatly increase the steady-state operating thrust of the MEGA drive. 

(One of these thrust scaling parameters was already demonstrated by Woodward in several of his 2012 MEGA-drive prototypes that inadvertently excited the 3rd and 4th harmonics in their operations.  I.e., they doubled the effective operating frequency of the MEGA-drive stack from ~33 kHz to ~66 kHz with a thrust increase from ~2 uN at 33 kHz to over 128 uN at 66 kHz thus demonstrating this thrust equation's w^6 scaling rule.)

Then you have the secondary engineering parameters in the thrust equation-21 such as the piezoelectric constant Kp^2 and its electrostrictive constant Ke, plus the amount of dielectric mass used to control via the initial material choices for the stack and of course the physical design of the stack as well.  Lastly in the denominator of this equation we see that we should minimize the dielectric's density as well if we are to fully maximize the thrust output.

Best, Paul M.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 09/14/2017 04:59 pm

I'm curious about other possibilities than PZT stacks to fluctuate energy and create mass changes. What about thermal or mechanical effects? Things that could be made on a larger scale? Thanks.

Our thoughts start to converge. I am also thinking about mechanical effects, such as the one in the Dean Drive. Careful experiment can reveal whether there is one. A good experiment needs to take care of every possibility by means of control experiments. For example, will the change of the beam material to aluminum or wood make a difference? How about fix the drive to the beam with cushions? Rotate the beam to different angles to the earth magnetic field?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/14/2017 05:22 pm
Bob:

"I'm curious about other possibilities than PZT stacks to fluctuate energy and create mass changes. What about thermal or mechanical effects? Things that could be made on a larger scale? Thanks."

Please look at the attached 2012 JPC paper from Woodward and Fearn and look at the MEGA drive thrust equation 21 on page 8, which is near complete except not including the Q-factor losses in each MEGA drive component and their respective physical sizes.  An engineering oversight that Dr. Rodal will be more than happy to tell you was a blunder by Woodward and Fearn and then he will show you why.  (In defense of the authors of this paper, being teachers and researchers first and foremost, their main goal in writing it was the validation of the Mach-Effect physics, not to get all the engineering niceties nailed down in the making of such thrusters.)     

Be that as it may, you will notice in the numerator of the MEGA-drive equation-21 the variables that will increase thrust for a given OD sized piezoelectric stack with larger OD stacks generally providing larger thrust levels with everything else being equal.  However, ALL of these variables plus their respective ac losses are not independent of each other.  This MEGA-drive thrust equation variable inter-dependence requires a fair about of engineering compromising while selecting these variables during the MEGA-drive design process, but we can already see that increasing the w^6 operating freq, increasing the driven V^4 operating voltage and x^3 stack excursion distances while minimizing i^2*R losses in each of the stack components while concurrently increasing their heat rejection capability will greatly increase the steady-state operating thrust of the MEGA drive. 

(One of these thrust scaling parameters was already demonstrated by Woodward in several of his 2012 MEGA-drive prototypes that inadvertently excited the 3rd and 4th harmonics in their operations.  I.e., they doubled the effective operating frequency of the MEGA-drive stack from ~33 kHz to ~66 kHz with a thrust increase from ~2 uN at 33 kHz to over 128 uN at 66 kHz thus demonstrating this thrust equation's w^6 scaling rule.)

Then you have the secondary engineering parameters in the thrust equation-21 such as the piezoelectric constant Kp^2 and its electrostrictive constant Ke, plus the amount of dielectric mass used to control via the initial material choices for the stack and of course the physical design of the stack as well.  Lastly in the denominator of this equation we see that we should minimize the dielectric's density as well if we are to fully maximize the thrust output.

Best, Paul M.

Thanks Paul for your thoughtful answer. I'm actually interested in non-PZT stack possibilities such as Dr. Woodward's earlier work with capacitors but even non electrical devices. For example, rapidly heating and cooling of filaments by the Stephan-Boltzmann Law or mechanical vibrations of elastic materials, or rapid changes in rotational energy and such things. Perhaps these things can't manipulate the power fast enough but I'd like to know if such things are being considered. Thanks again.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/14/2017 05:30 pm

I'm curious about other possibilities than PZT stacks to fluctuate energy and create mass changes. What about thermal or mechanical effects? Things that could be made on a larger scale? Thanks.

Our thoughts start to converge. I am also thinking about mechanical effects, such as the one in the Dean Drive. Careful experiment can reveal whether there is one. A good experiment needs to take care of every possibility by means of control experiments. For example, will the change of the beam material to aluminum or wood make a difference? How about fix the drive to the beam with cushions? Rotate the beam to different angles to the earth magnetic field?

Yes, we might be on the same wavelength in general but I doubt  that the Dean drive as originally conceived would have any direct relevance and a Mach effect device should be designed from scratch. Dean may have has some suspicions that rotating masses may provide thrust but his approach had no hope of working in the realm  of classical physics.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 09/14/2017 09:53 pm

I'm curious about other possibilities than PZT stacks to fluctuate energy and create mass changes. What about thermal or mechanical effects? Things that could be made on a larger scale? Thanks.

Our thoughts start to converge. I am also thinking about mechanical effects, such as the one in the Dean Drive. Careful experiment can reveal whether there is one. A good experiment needs to take care of every possibility by means of control experiments. For example, will the change of the beam material to aluminum or wood make a difference? How about fix the drive to the beam with cushions? Rotate the beam to different angles to the earth magnetic field?

Yes, we might be on the same wavelength in general but I doubt  that the Dean drive as originally conceived would have any direct relevance and a Mach effect device should be designed from scratch. Dean may have has some suspicions that rotating masses may provide thrust but his approach had no hope of working in the realm  of classical physics.

Rotating mass is just mass moving back and forth in two dimensions. I am interested in whether the same balance beam system used in Dr. Woodward's experiment will measure some uN's of thrust if we mount a Dean Drive on one side.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: HMXHMX on 09/15/2017 03:32 am

I'm curious about other possibilities than PZT stacks to fluctuate energy and create mass changes. What about thermal or mechanical effects? Things that could be made on a larger scale? Thanks.

Our thoughts start to converge. I am also thinking about mechanical effects, such as the one in the Dean Drive. Careful experiment can reveal whether there is one. A good experiment needs to take care of every possibility by means of control experiments. For example, will the change of the beam material to aluminum or wood make a difference? How about fix the drive to the beam with cushions? Rotate the beam to different angles to the earth magnetic field?



Yes, we might be on the same wavelength in general but I doubt  that the Dean drive as originally conceived would have any direct relevance and a Mach effect device should be designed from scratch. Dean may have has some suspicions that rotating masses may provide thrust but his approach had no hope of working in the realm  of classical physics.

Rotating mass is just mass moving back and forth in two dimensions. I am interested in whether the same balance beam system used in Dr. Woodward's experiment will measure some uN's of thrust if we mount a Dean Drive on one side.

See page ten highlight in the attached.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 09/15/2017 12:14 pm

I'm curious about other possibilities than PZT stacks to fluctuate energy and create mass changes. What about thermal or mechanical effects? Things that could be made on a larger scale? Thanks.

Our thoughts start to converge. I am also thinking about mechanical effects, such as the one in the Dean Drive. Careful experiment can reveal whether there is one. A good experiment needs to take care of every possibility by means of control experiments. For example, will the change of the beam material to aluminum or wood make a difference? How about fix the drive to the beam with cushions? Rotate the beam to different angles to the earth magnetic field?



Yes, we might be on the same wavelength in general but I doubt  that the Dean drive as originally conceived would have any direct relevance and a Mach effect device should be designed from scratch. Dean may have has some suspicions that rotating masses may provide thrust but his approach had no hope of working in the realm  of classical physics.

Rotating mass is just mass moving back and forth in two dimensions. I am interested in whether the same balance beam system used in Dr. Woodward's experiment will measure some uN's of thrust if we mount a Dean Drive on one side.

See page ten highlight in the attached.

I think their way to remove Dean Drive effect from their asserted Mach effect thrust was incorrect. On the opposite of what they said they proved, their experiment of using equal weight mass proved that when Dean Drive effect was removed by using equal size mass, the thrust was gone.

Let us assume the Mach effect thrust exist. There original test then had both Mach effect thrust and potentially Dean Drive effect "thrust". A correctly designed experiment to deal with the Dean Drive effect noise is one of the following,

1. that removes Dean Drive effect thrust but keeps Mach effect thrust.

2. that removes Mach effect thrust but keeps Dean Drive effect thrust.

I guess their intention was 1; but what they did was 3,

3. that removes both Dean Drive effect thrust and Mach effect thrust, by using equal size mass, and ends up with no thrust from either.


Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/15/2017 03:56 pm

I'm curious about other possibilities than PZT stacks to fluctuate energy and create mass changes. What about thermal or mechanical effects? Things that could be made on a larger scale? Thanks.

Our thoughts start to converge. I am also thinking about mechanical effects, such as the one in the Dean Drive. Careful experiment can reveal whether there is one. A good experiment needs to take care of every possibility by means of control experiments. For example, will the change of the beam material to aluminum or wood make a difference? How about fix the drive to the beam with cushions? Rotate the beam to different angles to the earth magnetic field?



Yes, we might be on the same wavelength in general but I doubt  that the Dean drive as originally conceived would have any direct relevance and a Mach effect device should be designed from scratch. Dean may have has some suspicions that rotating masses may provide thrust but his approach had no hope of working in the realm  of classical physics.

Rotating mass is just mass moving back and forth in two dimensions. I am interested in whether the same balance beam system used in Dr. Woodward's experiment will measure some uN's of thrust if we mount a Dean Drive on one side.

See page ten highlight in the attached.

I think their way to remove Dean Drive effect from their asserted Mach effect thrust was incorrect. On the opposite of what they said they proved, their experiment of using equal weight mass proved that when Dean Drive effect was removed by using equal size mass, the thrust was gone.

Let us assume the Mach effect thrust exist. There original test then had both Mach effect thrust and potentially Dean Drive effect "thrust". A correctly designed experiment to deal with the Dean Drive effect noise is one of the following,

1. that removes Dean Drive effect thrust but keeps Mach effect thrust.

2. that removes Mach effect thrust but keeps Dean Drive effect thrust.

I guess their intention was 1; but what they did was 3,

3. that removes both Dean Drive effect thrust and Mach effect thrust, by using equal size mass, and ends up with no thrust from either.

You seem to be trying to tell me that there is no Mach effect but there is a 'Dean drive' effect going on. That's not where I see things. They and several other groups have reported what they believe to be solid data showing a Mach effect. You are free to reject their analysis and conclusions but I don't have good reason to do so.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 09/15/2017 04:43 pm

See page ten highlight in the attached.

I think their way to remove Dean Drive effect from their asserted Mach effect thrust was incorrect. On the opposite of what they said they proved, their experiment of using equal weight mass proved that when Dean Drive effect was removed by using equal size mass, the thrust was gone.

Let us assume the Mach effect thrust exist. There original test then had both Mach effect thrust and potentially Dean Drive effect "thrust". A correctly designed experiment to deal with the Dean Drive effect noise is one of the following,

1. that removes Dean Drive effect thrust but keeps Mach effect thrust.

2. that removes Mach effect thrust but keeps Dean Drive effect thrust.

I guess their intention was 1; but what they did was 3,

3. that removes both Dean Drive effect thrust and Mach effect thrust, by using equal size mass, and ends up with no thrust from either.

You seem to be trying to tell me that there is no Mach effect but there is a 'Dean drive' effect going on. That's not where I see things. They and several other groups have reported what they believe to be solid data showing a Mach effect. You are free to reject their analysis and conclusions but I don't have good reason to do so.

(I suspect the Dean Drive effect was going on. But this is not important here.) What I tried to say was the experiment HMXHMX linked to did not effectively remove the Dean Drive effect contamination. This is a logic exercise and is technique detail oriented and can potentially be objective and not belief related.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 09/15/2017 07:02 pm

I'm curious about other possibilities than PZT stacks to fluctuate energy and create mass changes. What about thermal or mechanical effects? Things that could be made on a larger scale? Thanks.

Our thoughts start to converge. I am also thinking about mechanical effects, such as the one in the Dean Drive. Careful experiment can reveal whether there is one. A good experiment needs to take care of every possibility by means of control experiments. For example, will the change of the beam material to aluminum or wood make a difference? How about fix the drive to the beam with cushions? Rotate the beam to different angles to the earth magnetic field?



Yes, we might be on the same wavelength in general but I doubt  that the Dean drive as originally conceived would have any direct relevance and a Mach effect device should be designed from scratch. Dean may have has some suspicions that rotating masses may provide thrust but his approach had no hope of working in the realm  of classical physics.

Rotating mass is just mass moving back and forth in two dimensions. I am interested in whether the same balance beam system used in Dr. Woodward's experiment will measure some uN's of thrust if we mount a Dean Drive on one side.

See page ten highlight in the attached.

I think their way to remove Dean Drive effect from their asserted Mach effect thrust was incorrect. On the opposite of what they said they proved, their experiment of using equal weight mass proved that when Dean Drive effect was removed by using equal size mass, the thrust was gone.

Let us assume the Mach effect thrust exist. There original test then had both Mach effect thrust and potentially Dean Drive effect "thrust". A correctly designed experiment to deal with the Dean Drive effect noise is one of the following,

1. that removes Dean Drive effect thrust but keeps Mach effect thrust.

2. that removes Mach effect thrust but keeps Dean Drive effect thrust.

I guess their intention was 1; but what they did was 3,

3. that removes both Dean Drive effect thrust and Mach effect thrust, by using equal size mass, and ends up with no thrust from either.






It seems to me that what they did was 2. ; if you look at picture 5a and 5b you can see there's still an apparent thrust that does not reverse or change when the device is rotated by 180 degrees.
No real reversing thrust should be produced by such arrangement, and given how the signal does not reverse it must be due to vibrations.
It's not reassuring that the entity of such vibration induced signal is about the same of the real ones though.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 09/19/2017 10:35 pm
Regarding the energy conservation issue, I'm glad that Dr. Woodward recognized the true behaviour of the MET/MEGA drive.

From what I got from Estes Park workshop videos it seems like the current explanation of the energy extraction mechanism is a sort of gravity assist with the universe.
Could someone involved please give me some more detail about it? I know pretty well how conventional gravity assist works, but I fail to see how such process applies to this device.


If we imagine to model the observable universe as a spherical shell of uniform density with the device in its center, is it then correct to assume that a mass fluctuation in the device corresponds to an equal and opposite uniformly distributed mass fluctuation in the surrounding cosmic shell?
If, through its interaction with the device, this shell could sligthly reduce its radius after each MEGA cycle then its gravitational potential would decrease, and the potential energy lost could correspond to the kinetic energy acquired by the drive.

The problem I see is that the push-pull action of the device doesn't seem compatible with such radial "collapse", so to say.
Is this picture correct?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 09/20/2017 01:59 pm
Regarding the energy conservation issue, I'm glad that Dr. Woodward recognized the true behaviour of the MET/MEGA drive.

From what I got from Estes Park workshop videos it seems like the current explanation of the energy extraction mechanism is a sort of gravity assist with the universe.
Could someone involved please give me some more detail about it? I know pretty well how conventional gravity assist works, but I fail to see how such process applies to this device.


If we imagine to model the observable universe as a spherical shell of uniform density with the device in its center, is it then correct to assume that a mass fluctuation in the device corresponds to an equal and opposite uniformly distributed mass fluctuation in the surrounding cosmic shell?
If, through its interaction with the device, this shell could sligthly reduce its radius after each MEGA cycle then its gravitational potential would decrease, and the potential energy lost could correspond to the kinetic energy acquired by the drive.

The problem I see is that the push-pull action of the device doesn't seem compatible with such radial "collapse", so to say.
Is this picture correct?

I agree about being reluctant to jump onto the gravity assist wagon.  My unclear understanding of how this could be a gravity assist has left me to consider instead that it could be a back reaction on the vacuum itself.  The device becoming heavier would be a increased coupling with some invisible vacuum that seems to impart resistance to acceleration locally.  When you pull in the heavier mass it pulls vacuum along with it.  The device becoming less massive represents un-coupling with the vacuum which then you push the device forward and then repeat the cycle.  Basically like scooting your self across the carpet. 

The reaction on the rest of the universe would eventually be imparted to the rest of the universe via the induce flow in the vacuum.  Edit: After reading this:
Quote from: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1725178#msg1725178
quote in bottom image:

"Energy and Momentum
* The kinetic energy of the spacecraft comes from the gravitational field.
...
* Momentum of the open system is conserved since the energy gained by the space craft is potential energy lost by the gravitational field of the universe."
I began to think that maybe an induced flow in the vacuum is gravity.  You can almost think of space time as contracting into planets via acceleration which is suggestive of a flow.  We know a rotating spherical object can also induce a flow via frame dragging.

On the other hand I think it is Richard Feynman's idea of some form of light that propagates backwards in time to give us the quantum nature of the photon that also may allow such an instantaneous back reaction with the rest of the universe.  Basically as soon as light is induced where ever it was absorbed also emits a backwards traveling wave.  They constructively inter-fear such that a quanta of light is conveyed directly between objects in space.  In such a way objects instantaneously convey momentum and all energy is directly conveyed between mass. 

Quote from: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/28111/why-did-feynmans-thesis-almost-work
The main important idea of Feynman Wheeler theory is to use propagators which are non-causal, that can go forward and backward in time.

Feynman diagrams I have been told also appear to allow propagation backwards in time to some extent. 

I remain on the fence that it isn't some local effect as I have my own suspicions of a local vacuum but it may be that some how they are related.

My one suspicion is that anti-matter is negative energy that runs backwards in time.  If that's the case the negative energy while it exists would appear as positive energy.  Annihilation of an electron and positron would be cancellation of their time such that the positive energy of the positron suddenly becomes negative energy canceling the positive energy of the electron and they cloak into the vacuum but never quite disappear as the vacuum has a minimum energy. 

I would suspect the anti-matter component to be the conjugator that might carry signals backward in time. 


Edit 2: Polarization of the anti matter in the vacuum towards matter could concentrate negative energy toward massive objects and set up fields of time that slow near massive objects similar to how gravity slows time.  Not sure what exactly would cause the attraction of the anti-matter towards matter in the vacuum. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 09/21/2017 02:35 pm
Thank you dustinthewind.

I find a bit absurd that such an important issue has not been addressed by Woodward and the team members that have worked with him through the years.
All I can find are generic qualitative statements such as Fearn "gravity assist" or what Woodward wrote on his webpage almost 20 years ago (https://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/nasa-pap/ (https://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/nasa-pap/)):

Quote
The appearance of momentum conservation violation in our impulse engine doesn't mean that momentum isn't conserved. It means that we can't treat the impulse engine as an isolated system. Since the effect responsible for the apparent violation of the conservation principle is inertial/gravitational, this should come as no surprise at all. As Mach's principle makes plain, anytime a process involves gravity/inertia, the only meaningful isolated system is the entire universe. Since inertial reaction forces appear instantaneous [see Woodward, 1996a and Cramer, 1997 in this connection], evidently our impulse engine is engaging in some "non-local" momentum transfer with the distant matter in the universe. With suitable choice of gauge, this momentum transfer can be envisaged as transpiring via retarded and advanced disturbances in the gravitational field that propagate with speed c.

Gauge freedom muddies up discussions of inertial reaction effects [Woodward, 1996a]. Choosing a gauge where all physical influences propagate at speeds figure has the advantage that lightcones in space-time have an invariant meaning, whereas the surfaces of simultaneity that appear in other gauges (e.g., the Coulomb gauge) do not. As just mentioned, in the Lorentz [or Einstein-Hilbert] gauge the inertial reaction effect, and thus our impulse engine, consists of a retarded/advanced coupling between the engine and the distant matter in the universe that lies along the future light cone.The introduction of the force transducer in the engine allows us to extract a net momentum flux here and now from the potentially largely thermalized matter in the far future. The net momentum flux is accompanied by a net energy flux, so although our impulse engine, considered locally, appears to violate energy conservation, that need not necessarily be the case. The extraction of useful work from matter that may be completely thermalized raises interesting questions. Boosting, rather than borrowing, from the future, however, seems to be the nature of the process involved.

Or this excerpt from wikipedia (clearly taken from Ron Stahl article):

Quote
Considering those conservation issues, a Mach effect thruster relies on Mach's principle, hence it is not an electrical to kinetic transducer, i.e. it does not convert electric energy to kinetic energy. Rather, a Mach Effect Thruster is a gravinertial transistor that controls the flow of gravinertial flux, in and out of the active mass of the thruster. The primary power into the thruster is contained in the flux of the gravitational field, not the electricity that powers the device. Failing to account for this flux, is much the same as failing to account for the wind on a sail.[87] Mach effects are relativistic by nature, and considering a spaceship accelerating with a Mach effect thruster, the propellant is not accelerating with the ship, so the situation should be treated as an accelerating and therefore non-inertial reference frame, where F does not equal ma. Keith H. Wanser, professor of physics at California State University, Fullerton, published a paper in 2013 concerning the conservation issues of Mach effect thrusters.

Again, very generic. Nowhere in the literature available on Mach/Woodward effect there's a clear quantitative statement with equations characterizing the source of energy/momentum or a full balance including both the device and the rest of the universe where it is showed clearly where the energy comes from. And from what I saw from Estes Park videos no one asked more to Fearn or Woodward about this.
(minute 20:34)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mliNE_B_vNQ


I'm curious if that stack of calculations performed using HN/Gravity absorber theory Fearn is referring to at the end of the video contains at least some elements that could shed light on this.

I feel this is something that should have been tackled long time ago.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 09/23/2017 11:34 am
Thank you dustinthewind.

I find a bit absurd that such an important issue has not been addressed by Woodward and the team members that have worked with him through the years.
All I can find are generic qualitative statements such as Fearn "gravity assist" or what Woodward wrote on his webpage almost 20 years ago (https://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/nasa-pap/ (https://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/nasa-pap/)):

Quote
The appearance of momentum conservation violation in our impulse engine doesn't mean that momentum isn't conserved. It means that we can't treat the impulse engine as an isolated system. Since the effect responsible for the apparent violation of the conservation principle is inertial/gravitational, this should come as no surprise at all. As Mach's principle makes plain, anytime a process involves gravity/inertia, the only meaningful isolated system is the entire universe. Since inertial reaction forces appear instantaneous [see Woodward, 1996a and Cramer, 1997 in this connection], evidently our impulse engine is engaging in some "non-local" momentum transfer with the distant matter in the universe. With suitable choice of gauge, this momentum transfer can be envisaged as transpiring via retarded and advanced disturbances in the gravitational field that propagate with speed c.

Gauge freedom muddies up discussions of inertial reaction effects [Woodward, 1996a]. Choosing a gauge where all physical influences propagate at speeds figure has the advantage that lightcones in space-time have an invariant meaning, whereas the surfaces of simultaneity that appear in other gauges (e.g., the Coulomb gauge) do not. As just mentioned, in the Lorentz [or Einstein-Hilbert] gauge the inertial reaction effect, and thus our impulse engine, consists of a retarded/advanced coupling between the engine and the distant matter in the universe that lies along the future light cone.The introduction of the force transducer in the engine allows us to extract a net momentum flux here and now from the potentially largely thermalized matter in the far future. The net momentum flux is accompanied by a net energy flux, so although our impulse engine, considered locally, appears to violate energy conservation, that need not necessarily be the case. The extraction of useful work from matter that may be completely thermalized raises interesting questions. Boosting, rather than borrowing, from the future, however, seems to be the nature of the process involved.

Or this excerpt from wikipedia (clearly taken from Ron Stahl article):

Quote
Considering those conservation issues, a Mach effect thruster relies on Mach's principle, hence it is not an electrical to kinetic transducer, i.e. it does not convert electric energy to kinetic energy. Rather, a Mach Effect Thruster is a gravinertial transistor that controls the flow of gravinertial flux, in and out of the active mass of the thruster. The primary power into the thruster is contained in the flux of the gravitational field, not the electricity that powers the device. Failing to account for this flux, is much the same as failing to account for the wind on a sail.[87] Mach effects are relativistic by nature, and considering a spaceship accelerating with a Mach effect thruster, the propellant is not accelerating with the ship, so the situation should be treated as an accelerating and therefore non-inertial reference frame, where F does not equal ma. Keith H. Wanser, professor of physics at California State University, Fullerton, published a paper in 2013 concerning the conservation issues of Mach effect thrusters.

Again, very generic. Nowhere in the literature available on Mach/Woodward effect there's a clear quantitative statement with equations characterizing the source of energy/momentum or a full balance including both the device and the rest of the universe where it is showed clearly where the energy comes from. And from what I saw from Estes Park videos no one asked more to Fearn or Woodward about this.
(minute 20:34)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mliNE_B_vNQ


I'm curious if that stack of calculations performed using HN/Gravity absorber theory Fearn is referring to at the end of the video contains at least some elements that could shed light on this.

I feel this is something that should have been tackled long time ago.

Having read Woodward's book, I am not certain what you are looking for?  Are you looking for a mathematical model for what the operation of a Mach effect device does to the momentum of an atom? or a kg? located X far away?

I am more interested in quantization of the distal effects.  The universe is really big.  To provide the momentum to accelerate the very tiny ME active mass, it seems intuitively obvious some of the universe is moved a Planck length and some not moved at all.  To me this requires "shear force" which is potentially energy robbing.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Stormbringer on 09/24/2017 01:43 am
There were a couple of articles about the nature of gravity last week. One says there are at least two types of gravity and that like neutrinos they oscillate from one type to the other. Another articles says that gravity is a result of the average of quantum collapse states at the quantum level.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 09/24/2017 03:20 pm
There were a couple of articles about the nature of gravity last week. One says there are at least two types of gravity and that like neutrinos they oscillate from one type to the other. Another articles says that gravity is a result of the average of quantum collapse states at the quantum level.

So if the momentum with which useful work is done in an ME drive is brought about by influencing how quantum states collapse, hence which "sets" of backwards and forward sets of arrows in time are realized, the action of the device introduces no shear in the GI field--and so no more energy is required than operates the device in a rest state (drive waves in phase as opposed to 90 out).
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Stormbringer on 09/24/2017 03:56 pm
here is an article about the collapse theory. from it people who need the peer review or at least more detailed reports can track 'em down.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/physics/gravity-could-be-the-result-of-random-quantum-fluctuations/

and here is an article on two types of gravity (waves) that oscillate into each other just to confuse everybody...

https://phys.org/news/2017-09-gravitational-oscillate-neutrinos.html

( To wade into just a bit fringey part of the pool;  Either of those look like they might just barely lead to ways to create, destroy or manipulate gravity.)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 09/24/2017 07:03 pm
Quote
Having read Woodward's book, I am not certain what you are looking for?  Are you looking for a mathematical model for what the operation of a Mach effect device does to the momentum of an atom? or a kg? located X far away?

I am more interested in quantization of the distal effects.  The universe is really big.  To provide the momentum to accelerate the very tiny ME active mass, it seems intuitively obvious some of the universe is moved a Planck length and some not moved at all.  To me this requires "shear force" which is potentially energy robbing.

Yes, that's what I'm looking for. I've also read the book, and there's no mention of this.
I don't know if it is possible and/or convenient to try to trace down each contribute every far away bit of "mass"  gives to the momentum/kinetic energy of the device, but if the effect is real this must be possible to do it in principle at least at a reasonable level of approximation using the relevant model.


It seems to me that a classical theory should be able to handle this, with no necessity of introducing quantum mechanics. After all, general relativity with absorber interactions or Hoyle-Narlikar/gravity absorber theory are classical.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/25/2017 04:51 pm
Quote
Having read Woodward's book, I am not certain what you are looking for?  Are you looking for a mathematical model for what the operation of a Mach effect device does to the momentum of an atom? or a kg? located X far away?

I am more interested in quantization of the distal effects.  The universe is really big.  To provide the momentum to accelerate the very tiny ME active mass, it seems intuitively obvious some of the universe is moved a Planck length and some not moved at all.  To me this requires "shear force" which is potentially energy robbing.

Yes, that's what I'm looking for. I've also read the book, and there's no mention of this.
I don't know if it is possible and/or convenient to try to trace down each contribute every far away bit of "mass"  gives to the momentum/kinetic energy of the device, but if the effect is real this must be possible to do it in principle at least at a reasonable level of approximation using the relevant model.


It seems to me that a classical theory should be able to handle this, with no necessity of introducing quantum mechanics. After all, general relativity with absorber interactions or Hoyle-Narlikar/gravity absorber theory are classical.

I agree there is no need to invoke QM at all to explain Mach effects and the technology that might follow from such effects. It seems to me that once the force is accounted for, the energy is accounted for simply by the way kinetic energy is dependent on different reference frames, that it can be generated in one frame and harvested in another where it has a higher value. In this case, harvesting simply means the vehicle gains extraordinary kinetic energy because the force acting on it always acts from within a moving reference frame which is co-moving with the vehicle. This is not a mystery.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 09/26/2017 12:30 am
Quote
Having read Woodward's book, I am not certain what you are looking for?  Are you looking for a mathematical model for what the operation of a Mach effect device does to the momentum of an atom? or a kg? located X far away?

I am more interested in quantization of the distal effects.  The universe is really big.  To provide the momentum to accelerate the very tiny ME active mass, it seems intuitively obvious some of the universe is moved a Planck length and some not moved at all.  To me this requires "shear force" which is potentially energy robbing.

Yes, that's what I'm looking for. I've also read the book, and there's no mention of this.
I don't know if it is possible and/or convenient to try to trace down each contribute every far away bit of "mass"  gives to the momentum/kinetic energy of the device, but if the effect is real this must be possible to do it in principle at least at a reasonable level of approximation using the relevant model.


It seems to me that a classical theory should be able to handle this, with no necessity of introducing quantum mechanics. After all, general relativity with absorber interactions or Hoyle-Narlikar/gravity absorber theory are classical.

I agree there is no need to invoke QM at all to explain Mach effects and the technology that might follow from such effects. It seems to me that once the force is accounted for, the energy is accounted for simply by the way kinetic energy is dependent on different reference frames, that it can be generated in one frame and harvested in another where it has a higher value. In this case, harvesting simply means the vehicle gains extraordinary kinetic energy because the force acting on it always acts from within a moving reference frame which is co-moving with the vehicle. This is not a mystery.

Pull heavy, push light is intuitively obvious from a classical standpoint, the issue is whether you can actually make something alternatively "heavy" and "light".  My interest is the concept that the thing made heavy and light has a mass which is infinitesimal compared to the light cone of the observable universe.  If in order for it to experience a net force, momentum is exchanged which if that momentum were taken evenly from all the observable universe, the rest of the universe then moves 1/10^19th a Planck length, that no, that doesn't happen.  Instead 1/10^19 of the universe moves a Planck length, and the rest stays still.  Classical and quantized.

I have no idea how to write the equation, but it seems intuitively obvious.

I am wondering what the holes are in the theory?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 09/26/2017 01:29 am
Quote
Having read Woodward's book, I am not certain what you are looking for?  Are you looking for a mathematical model for what the operation of a Mach effect device does to the momentum of an atom? or a kg? located X far away?

I am more interested in quantization of the distal effects.  The universe is really big.  To provide the momentum to accelerate the very tiny ME active mass, it seems intuitively obvious some of the universe is moved a Planck length and some not moved at all.  To me this requires "shear force" which is potentially energy robbing.

Yes, that's what I'm looking for. I've also read the book, and there's no mention of this.
I don't know if it is possible and/or convenient to try to trace down each contribute every far away bit of "mass"  gives to the momentum/kinetic energy of the device, but if the effect is real this must be possible to do it in principle at least at a reasonable level of approximation using the relevant model.


It seems to me that a classical theory should be able to handle this, with no necessity of introducing quantum mechanics. After all, general relativity with absorber interactions or Hoyle-Narlikar/gravity absorber theory are classical.

I agree there is no need to invoke QM at all to explain Mach effects and the technology that might follow from such effects. It seems to me that once the force is accounted for, the energy is accounted for simply by the way kinetic energy is dependent on different reference frames, that it can be generated in one frame and harvested in another where it has a higher value. In this case, harvesting simply means the vehicle gains extraordinary kinetic energy because the force acting on it always acts from within a moving reference frame which is co-moving with the vehicle. This is not a mystery.

Are you sure its pushing off something that is always at rest with respect to the observer (w.r.t.) ?  Take for instance the twin paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox WarpTech brought up in the "Any resolutions to FTL paradoxes?" thread https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43385.0.  Paralleling that with the space time cone where the person that accelerates converges their space & time axis into the light cone (blue) - making space part of time and time part of space.  As a result the person that accelerates now travels through time (blue axis on light cone - motion through space is motion through time).  By special relativity in the Twin paradox you might have difficulty discerning which twin ages more than the other.
By their relative velocity to each other both their clocks should seem to run slow so whose axis tilts when velocity is relative???

Taking into account which person actually tilts their time & space axis (blue) toward the light cone via acceleration makes it clear which person is the time traveler and who isn't (white axis of light cone).  This seems to demand that one person is actually moving near c while another is not. 

from: http://www.theculture.org/rich/sharpblue/archives/000089.html
(http://www.theculture.org/rich/sharpblue/images/lorentz.png)

We may see this reflected in the CMB background of our universe and discussed here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43385.msg1708835#msg1708835  A web side on the matter: http://webhome.phy.duke.edu/~kolena/cmb.htm 

I guess what I am saying is that I am not so sure we can think of the vacuum as being always at rest w.r.t. any moving individual.  Take for instance a black hole.  If the frame of the local vacuum is accelerating near a gravitational object and the vacuum frame reaches the speed of light at the event horizon then no light can escape. 

It might be argued that our mass prefers to be at rest w.r.t. some vacuum frame and that is why we are accelerated toward a gravitational object.  This may suggest any non-accelerated object is at rest w.r.t. that vacuum but then again maybe it's just that objects resist accelerating in a vacuum but not moving at a constant velocity through it.  (do super-fluids behave like this?)

If we think of space/time as contracting into the planet via the same effect we can almost visualize such a forward motion through space time.  That space time axis having converged some what on the light cone and our forward motion through it, suggests the possibly the reason our clock runs slower in a gravitational field.  It also suggests why we end up in the universes future via slowing our time. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/26/2017 05:44 pm
Quote
Having read Woodward's book, I am not certain what you are looking for?  Are you looking for a mathematical model for what the operation of a Mach effect device does to the momentum of an atom? or a kg? located X far away?

I am more interested in quantization of the distal effects.  The universe is really big.  To provide the momentum to accelerate the very tiny ME active mass, it seems intuitively obvious some of the universe is moved a Planck length and some not moved at all.  To me this requires "shear force" which is potentially energy robbing.

Yes, that's what I'm looking for. I've also read the book, and there's no mention of this.
I don't know if it is possible and/or convenient to try to trace down each contribute every far away bit of "mass"  gives to the momentum/kinetic energy of the device, but if the effect is real this must be possible to do it in principle at least at a reasonable level of approximation using the relevant model.


It seems to me that a classical theory should be able to handle this, with no necessity of introducing quantum mechanics. After all, general relativity with absorber interactions or Hoyle-Narlikar/gravity absorber theory are classical.

I agree there is no need to invoke QM at all to explain Mach effects and the technology that might follow from such effects. It seems to me that once the force is accounted for, the energy is accounted for simply by the way kinetic energy is dependent on different reference frames, that it can be generated in one frame and harvested in another where it has a higher value. In this case, harvesting simply means the vehicle gains extraordinary kinetic energy because the force acting on it always acts from within a moving reference frame which is co-moving with the vehicle. This is not a mystery.

Are you sure its pushing off something that is always at rest with respect to the observer (w.r.t.) ?  Take for instance the twin paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox WarpTech brought up in the "Any resolutions to FTL paradoxes?" thread https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43385.0.  Paralleling that with the space time cone where the person that accelerates converges their space & time axis into the light cone (blue) - making space part of time and time part of space.  As a result the person that accelerates now travels through time (blue axis on light cone - motion through space is motion through time).  By special relativity in the Twin paradox you might have difficulty discerning which twin ages more than the other.
By their relative velocity to each other both their clocks should seem to run slow so whose axis tilts when velocity is relative???

Taking into account which person actually tilts their time & space axis (blue) toward the light cone via acceleration makes it clear which person is the time traveler and who isn't (white axis of light cone).  This seems to demand that one person is actually moving near c while another is not. 

from: http://www.theculture.org/rich/sharpblue/archives/000089.html
(http://www.theculture.org/rich/sharpblue/images/lorentz.png)

We may see this reflected in the CMB background of our universe and discussed here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43385.msg1708835#msg1708835  A web side on the matter: http://webhome.phy.duke.edu/~kolena/cmb.htm 

I guess what I am saying is that I am not so sure we can think of the vacuum as being always at rest w.r.t. any moving individual.  Take for instance a black hole.  If the frame of the local vacuum is accelerating near a gravitational object and the vacuum frame reaches the speed of light at the event horizon then no light can escape. 

It might be argued that our mass prefers to be at rest w.r.t. some vacuum frame and that is why we are accelerated toward a gravitational object.  This may suggest any non-accelerated object is at rest w.r.t. that vacuum but then again maybe it's just that objects resist accelerating in a vacuum but not moving at a constant velocity through it.  (do super-fluids behave like this?)

If we think of space/time as contracting into the planet via the same effect we can almost visualize such a forward motion through space time.  That space time axis having converged some what on the light cone and our forward motion through it, suggests the possibly the reason our clock runs slower in a gravitational field.  It also suggests why we end up in the universes future via slowing our time.

The vacuum doesn't figure in my point and Special Relativity isn't necessary in the low speed limit. A big caveat is I said "once the force is taken into account" I'm assuming that with the Mach effect, the force acts on the object the same regardless of what speed it's going since velocity is relative and not absolute. Thus it can be considered to act in the reference frame (or the instantaneous rest frame co-moving with the object) at that instant and every instant.

A very simple example is this. Suppose there exists a reference frame R moving at speed v w.r.t. some frame such as the earth we shall call the lab frame L. An object of mass m in L is accelerated to v using a unit of energy K=1/2 m v^2 and is thus moving with R. Now, we apply the same energy in R to move the object from zero speed in R to v w.r.t. R. The object now has speed 2v and four times the kinetic energy w.r.t. L. We invested 2K (one K in L and one K in R) and harvested 4K in L. We don't have to agonize over where the extra energy came from. It didn't miraculously appear from the 'vacuum'. Ideally, it didn't 'come from' anywhere because it already existed in the form of the kinetic energy it had in R. It's a property of the relativity of kinetic energy.

You can raise the question of the validity of the existence of the idealized reference frame R (or any frame) and argue a perfect reference frame doesn't really exist, one that is immutable. Even if R were a planet moving by it would lose a little kinetic energy accelerating the object in R but if nature provides a near perfect frame to use, one can multiply energy in principle. Then you can assume the extra energy comes from the loss of energy of R needed to support it acting like a near ideal reference frame. Applying this to the Mach effect as I understand it, the Mach effect acts on the object regardless of speed in effect creating the frame R at whatever speed v the object is going as well as the energy to accelerate the object in R but the cost is the slight loss of gravitational potential energy of the universe as a whole. We merely put in some energy to create the conditions that support the Mach effect to work much like a transistor is provided a very small current (energy) to switch a much larger current (energy). The gain in kinetic energy of the object w.r.t. L is matched by that loss which supports the integrity of R but the gain is really explained by the translation of kinetic energy from one frame to another supported by the energy it takes to support the integrity of that reference frame and the force. This is my simplified conceptual tool to understand the propellent less propulsion generated by the Mach effect.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob Woods on 09/27/2017 03:29 pm
Today Dr. Fearn will be giving her presentation on the Mach Effect MEGA thruster at 11:10 Mountain Time.  It's available live at https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017 (https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: HMXHMX on 09/27/2017 03:39 pm
Today Dr. Fearn will be giving her presentation on the Mach Effect MEGA thruster at 11:10 Mountain Time.  It's available live at https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017 (https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017)

And SSI.org will post her slides, Q&A handout and poster at approximately the same time.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 09/27/2017 05:09 pm
Today Dr. Fearn will be giving her presentation on the Mach Effect MEGA thruster at 11:10 Mountain Time.  It's available live at https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017 (https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017)

And SSI.org will post her slides, Q&A handout and poster at approximately the same time.
Looking forward to watching the presentation!
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: aceshigh on 09/27/2017 10:54 pm
poster 41 mb
http://ssi.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/SSI_NIAC2017_Poster.pdf

slides 37mb
http://ssi.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/SSI_NIAC2017_Slides.pdf

Q&A 10mb
http://ssi.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/SSI_NIAC2017_QandA.pdf
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/28/2017 01:40 am
poster 41 mb
http://ssi.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/SSI_NIAC2017_Poster.pdf

slides 37mb
http://ssi.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/SSI_NIAC2017_Slides.pdf

Q&A 10mb
http://ssi.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/SSI_NIAC2017_QandA.pdf

NIAC video:
https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017/videos/163432557 starts at approx 48:00

Calculated specific thrust for the interstellar probe's MEGA drive is 5N/kW. 1.2MWe driving the MEGA drives. 6,000N from the MEGA drives pushing a 15t spacecraft = 0.4m/sec^2 acceleration.

Constant acceleration at 0.4m/sec^2 1/2 way to their target star and then constant deceleration the last half of the journey. Then enter orbit around a target planet.

Believe Prof Tajmar has presented his paper at IAC 2017 on his MEGA drive replication.

Trust the full paper will surface some time soon.

Abstract here:
https://iafastro.directory/iac/paper/id/38595/summary/

Expect the full paper to turn up here:
https://tu-dresden.de/ing/maschinenwesen/ilr/rfs/forschung/forschungsfelder/raumfahrtantriebe-und-neue-konzepte/breakthrough-propulsion-physics

Three main slides:
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: aceshigh on 09/28/2017 02:17 am
1.2 MWe seems very doable. Didn´t VASIMR required 200 MWe to send a spacecraft to Mars in 30 days?


Based on those assumptions of power requirements,what our current nuclear reactor tech would allow?

there is also the question of how much nuclear fuel we can take on a spacecraft and how long it takes to consume the fuel. (suppose we want to send humans to Proxima at 1G acceleration to reach 99.9% C, decelerate, and return. 200 tons spacecraft. How much of the 200 tons would need to be nuclear fuel?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/28/2017 02:35 am
1.2 MWe seems very doable. Didn´t VASIMR required 200 MWe to send a spacecraft to Mars in 30 days?


Based on those assumptions of power requirements,what our current nuclear reactor tech would allow?

there is also the question of how much nuclear fuel we can take on a spacecraft and how long it takes to consume the fuel. (suppose we want to send humans to Proxima at 1G acceleration to reach 99.9% C, decelerate, and return. 200 tons spacecraft. How much of the 200 tons would need to be nuclear fuel?

Hi AcesHigh,

For 1g at 200t will need 1.96x10^6 N and at 5N/kWe that needs 392MWe. Then at say 2kg/kWe for the total power system mass = 784t.

Suggests that ship will need more like 100N/kWe P-P drives, which reduces power system mass to 39.2t. Still a lot of the total 200t ship mass but a good start.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tchernik on 09/28/2017 03:36 am
Very interesting presentation, thanks TT!

And it seems Dr. Slavas' presentation right after it about solar gravity lens telescopy, is like a match made in Heaven for the MEGA thruster probe presented by Dr. Fearn: no need of gravity assists (why use Jupiter's and the Sun's masses when you can use the entire Universe  ;D ) and I imagine it could reach the required 650 AU much faster (like in months instead of 20 something years).
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/28/2017 03:49 am
Expect Prof Tajmar's full MEGA drive replication paper to turn up here:

https://tu-dresden.de/ing/maschinenwesen/ilr/rfs/forschung/forschungsfelder/raumfahrtantriebe-und-neue-konzepte/breakthrough-propulsion-physics

Unless someone posts it here 1st?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/28/2017 05:37 am
Here is the MEGA drive theory as presented in the ssi.org linked documents.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/28/2017 07:23 am
Dr. Heidi Fearn's NIAC presentation is now on YouTube:

https://youtu.be/OLs9NEt9LRQ
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: bad_astra on 09/28/2017 02:08 pm
This is is an amazingly easy to understand presentation, especially when combined with the QandA. I have to wonder why Emdrive gets so much attention when this is a device with a working theory which should be able to be replicated.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: M.E.T. on 09/28/2017 03:45 pm
This is is an amazingly easy to understand presentation, especially when combined with the QandA. I have to wonder why Emdrive gets so much attention when this is a device with a working theory which should be able to be replicated.

As my username indicates, the Mach Effect Thruster is what brought me to this site in the first place (until I discovered the SpaceX section), and I have asked the exact question you ask above periodically over the last couple of years. I still don't quite understand the answer. It seems the EMdrive is what the public likes, while the now renamed MEGA thruster (Mach Effect thruster) seems to be based on actual theory and proper science to a far greater extent.

Anyway, hopefully we will see the breakthrough we have been waiting for sooner rather than later.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: wicoe on 09/28/2017 03:48 pm
First time posting in this thread, so I apologize if I'm asking something obvious... regarding the general principle that inertia is caused by some sort of interaction with the rest of the matter in the universe, while it's relatively easy to think of a world with no (or very little) matter, I'm having a hard time imagining a world without inertia.  Specifically, non-existent inertia would mean infinite acceleration during interaction of any kind (electromagnetic, etc), which makes no sense to me.  What would happen to interacting objects (e.g. two masses on a spring, etc) if we "get rid" of all the other matter in the universe?  It looks like inertia is a necessary condition for any kind of local interaction to make sense, so I'm not sure I fully understand the reasoning behind the Mach interpretation.  If it is true, then not only inertia, but essentially all forces must be attributed to some sort of coupling with the rest of the universe, because otherwise there would be no interaction of any kind, and therefore, no matter would form.  This sounds like a circular argument to me, and that's why I'm having a hard time accepting the Mach principle.  Any comments/clarifications would be appreciated!
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 09/28/2017 03:52 pm
First time posting in this thread, so I apologize if I'm asking something obvious... regarding the general principle that inertia is caused by some sort of interaction with the rest of the matter in the universe, while it's relatively easy to think of a world with no (or very little) matter, I'm having a hard time imagining a world without inertia.  Specifically, non-existent inertia would mean infinite acceleration during interaction of any kind (electromagnetic, etc), which makes no sense to me.  What would happen to interacting objects (e.g. two masses on a spring, etc) if we "get rid" of all the other matter in the universe?  It looks like inertia is a necessary condition for any kind of local interaction to make sense, so I'm not sure I fully understand the reasoning behind the Mach interpretation.  If it is true, then not only inertia, but essentially all forces must be attributed to some sort of coupling with the rest of the universe, because otherwise there would be no interaction of any kind, and therefore, no matter would form.  This sounds like a circular argument to me, and that's why I'm having a hard time accepting the Mach principle.  Any comments/clarifications would be appreciated!

I don't understand why Mach's principle involved in any way accepting a lack of inertia?  It is a conceptual explanation for inertia.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/28/2017 04:34 pm
This is is an amazingly easy to understand presentation, especially when combined with the QandA. I have to wonder why Emdrive gets so much attention when this is a device with a working theory which should be able to be replicated.

As my username indicates, the Mach Effect Thruster is what brought me to this site in the first place (until I discovered the SpaceX section), and I have asked the exact question you ask above periodically over the last couple of years. I still don't quite understand the answer. It seems the EMdrive is what the public likes, while the now renamed MEGA thruster (Mach Effect thruster) seems to be based on actual theory and proper science to a far greater extent.

Anyway, hopefully we will see the breakthrough we have been waiting for sooner rather than later.

There are two threads, one for the MEGA device using the Woodward effect and one for the EMDrive. Both concepts have data which is the most important thing. The theory for EMDrive is more unsettled at the moment but some feel it ultimately is a form of the Mach effect. Regardless, people claim to have replicated it and continue to attempt better replications of both. It's also possible they are both independent forms of propellentless propulsion. Proponents of EMDrive have been better at talking to the media earlier and more often but there is room for both concepts to be explored.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tchernik on 09/28/2017 04:49 pm
Well, any of them being true and moderately scalable changes the world.

As Dr. Fearn's concept for a non-flyby interstellar probe with useful payload arriving in 20 or so years to Proxima B very eloquently shows.

Such a thing is simply impossible with any known technology.

The fact this is an actual phenomenon with evidence and now a NIAC project being actively researched is very exciting to say the least.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/28/2017 05:08 pm
Well, any of them being true and moderately scalable changes the world.

As Dr. Fearn's concept for a non-flyby interstellar probe with useful payload arriving in 20 or so years to Proxima B very eloquently shows.

Such a thing is simply impossible with any known technology.

The fact this is an actual phenomenon with evidence and now a NIAC project being actively researched is very exciting to say the least.

It is exciting but it's not the first proposal for any propellentless propulsion based device (excluding beamed energy concepts) although it's likely the best and most scientifically reasonable proposal to date. Cannae has a Deep Space Probe concept and Shawyer has published an Intersteller Probe concept based on their respective drives. This is the first concept designed to stop at the target star though and the scientific team is more credible.

http://cannae.com/deep-space-probes/

http://www.emdrive.com/IAC14publishedpaper.pdf


Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/28/2017 05:20 pm
Looking at the  section of the Q and A shown below, I wondered why they assert using the Mach effect as an energy generation scheme would be "very inefficient" if you assume the same advanced development devices assumed for the intersteller probe ~3 N/kW. Regardless, my reaction aligns with Jim Carrey's below;

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 09/28/2017 06:40 pm
Quote
Looking at the  section of the Q and A shown below, I wondered why they assert using the Mach effect as an energy generation scheme would be "very inefficient" if you assume the same advanced development devices assumed for the intersteller probe ~3 N/kW. Regardless, my reaction aligns with Jim Carrey's below;

I'm wondering the same thing. Honestly that answer really doesn't mean anything. Saying that "the kinetic energy comes from the gravitational field" without further explanations on how this process works is not better than saying that it comes "from the vacuum".
Saying that using the device is an "inefficient" way to generate energy reminds me of a post from Rodal in this same thread.. don't know what are they thinking, but an inexhaustible source of energy beats any solar or nuclear option in my mind.

I'm frankly surprised that no one at the NIAC meeting asked about this.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: bad_astra on 09/28/2017 08:17 pm
Saying that "the kinetic energy comes from the gravitational field" without further explanations on how this process works is not better than saying that it comes "from the vacuum".
Saying that using the device is an "inefficient" way to generate energy reminds me of a post from Rodal in this same thread.. don't know what are they thinking, but an inexhaustible source of energy beats any solar or nuclear option in my mind.

I'm frankly surprised that no one at the NIAC meeting asked about this.

This is not complicated. Space-based solar is for all practicable purposes likewise inexhaustible, as well. Space Based Solar power in the orbit of Neptune, on the other hand would be so inefficient, even if it were possible, that there would be many better ways to generate power.

You might also design some Rube Goldberg solar-wind windmill as well, but it would not be very efficient. There would be better ways, far better ways to get what you needed done.

The MEGA Drive seems suited best to one thing, propellantless drive.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 09/28/2017 09:41 pm
Quote
This is not complicated. Space-based solar is for all practicable purposes likewise inexhaustible, as well. Space Based Solar power in the orbit of Neptune, on the other hand would be so inefficient, even if it were possible, that there would be many better ways to generate power.

You might also design some Rube Goldberg solar-wind windmill as well, but it would not be very efficient. There would be better ways, far better ways to get what you needed done.

The MEGA Drive seems suited best to one thing, propellantless drive.

I honestly don't see any reason to say this, given the current data available.
It might be so, sure.
But at this point it seems more like an apriori statement that is conveniently putted forward to avoid the whole discussion on where and how exactly this energy pops out.

If the MEGA drive really works, then in principle, with the efficiencies they are aiming for (~1N/MW), building a generator is as hard as putting two drives on a wheel and let them spin around the axis.
Depending on the mass of the device, after a more or less long "booting" time the kinetic energy of the wheel equals the output from the generator you are using to power the device, be it solar or nuclear, etc.
Running for double that time (four double of the energy) grants you 4 times the energy in output, triple it and you get 9 times and so on..

After closing the loop all you have to do for achieving high energy densities with such system is to wait.
So you could in theory end up with an energy source comparable in density with  nuclear power with none of its disadvantage and infinite. How can this be considered "inefficient"?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/29/2017 01:01 am
Interesting data, which suggests that the MEGA drive efficiency, ie Specific Force in uN/kW doubles as input power doubles.

This is NOT a characteristic of either the Shawyer EmDrive or a White QV Thruster, which both exhibit a 1:1 relationship between input power, generated force and Specific Force.

MEGA drive load impedance was selected as 200 ohm from Dr. Fearn's comment the input power was 200W. It is also assumed that the load impedance stays constant as voltage and power are varied.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 09/29/2017 05:50 am
Interesting data, which suggests that the MEGA drive efficiency, ie Specific Force in uN/kW doubles as input power doubles.

This is NOT a characteristic of either the Shawyer EmDrive or a White QV Thruster, which both exhibit a 1:1 relationship between input power, generated force and Specific Force.

MEGA drive load impedance was selected as 200 ohm from Dr. Fearn's comment the input power was 200W. It is also assumed that the load impedance stays constant as voltage and power are varied.

This makes me think back to when I was speculating at a change in mass of light at one end of the cavity I got some term for force that went like the stored energy squared or Power squared which seemed too good to be true.  Not sure it really has any relevance to reality, though those look like experimental values. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/29/2017 05:59 pm
Quote
This is not complicated. Space-based solar is for all practicable purposes likewise inexhaustible, as well. Space Based Solar power in the orbit of Neptune, on the other hand would be so inefficient, even if it were possible, that there would be many better ways to generate power.

You might also design some Rube Goldberg solar-wind windmill as well, but it would not be very efficient. There would be better ways, far better ways to get what you needed done.

The MEGA Drive seems suited best to one thing, propellantless drive.

I honestly don't see any reason to say this, given the current data available.
It might be so, sure.
But at this point it seems more like an apriori statement that is conveniently putted forward to avoid the whole discussion on where and how exactly this energy pops out.

If the MEGA drive really works, then in principle, with the efficiencies they are aiming for (~1N/MW), building a generator is as hard as putting two drives on a wheel and let them spin around the axis.
Depending on the mass of the device, after a more or less long "booting" time the kinetic energy of the wheel equals the output from the generator you are using to power the device, be it solar or nuclear, etc.
Running for double that time (four double of the energy) grants you 4 times the energy in output, triple it and you get 9 times and so on..

After closing the loop all you have to do for achieving high energy densities with such system is to wait.
So you could in theory end up with an energy source comparable in density with  nuclear power with none of its disadvantage and infinite. How can this be considered "inefficient"?

Did you mean 1N/KW?

I wonder if the team feels that since energy generation is not the primary goal, focusing on it may be a distraction as well as that might "bring out the crazies" which is bad for scientific credibility?

But of course the same technology that could make the MEGA drive practical could also make energy generation practical, especially energy generation in deep space say, along the way to Proxima B ....just given the mission parameters in the presentation, the probe is generating some 10^5 times the total nuclear reactor energy in the form of kinetic energy. ;D

My questions for the team are;

1) Can deltaM/M be significantly increased?
2) Why does power have to be dissipated?
3) How much mass assumed per each MEGA drive in the probe design?
4) Are they exploring different means besides piezoelectric/electrostriction phenomenon?

Thanks!
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 09/30/2017 12:38 pm
2) Why does power have to be dissipated?

Because electrical power is being moved through resistances, it will be dissipated.  V=I*R, W=I*I*R .  I know of no high k superconducting capacitors.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/30/2017 05:27 pm
2) Why does power have to be dissipated?

Because electrical power is being moved through resistances, it will be dissipated.  V=I*R, W=I*I*R .  I know of know high k superconducting capacitors.

One can imagine energy pumped in and out of a system to create a mass fluctuation but the question is why there necessarily needs to be a dissipation mechanism, that's completely different from the fact that resistive devices dissipate power.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 09/30/2017 09:36 pm
2) Why does power have to be dissipated?

Because electrical power is being moved through resistances, it will be dissipated.  V=I*R, W=I*I*R .  I know of know high k superconducting capacitors.

One can imagine energy pumped in and out of a system to create a mass fluctuation but the question is why there necessarily needs to be a dissipation mechanism, that's completely different from the fact that resistive devices dissipate power.

Hopefully, this will explain it. The power dissipation is an "effective gravitational potential".
See attached. I put this together for you from notes I posted in the EMDrive thread.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 10/04/2017 04:51 pm
Everyone's favorite wormhole guy, Kip Thorne shares the 2017 Nobel physics prize for his contributions with the LIGO team which discovered gravitational waves.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 10/05/2017 05:40 pm
2) Why does power have to be dissipated?

Because electrical power is being moved through resistances, it will be dissipated.  V=I*R, W=I*I*R .  I know of know high k superconducting capacitors.

One can imagine energy pumped in and out of a system to create a mass fluctuation but the question is why there necessarily needs to be a dissipation mechanism, that's completely different from the fact that resistive devices dissipate power.

Hopefully, this will explain it. The power dissipation is an "effective gravitational potential".
See attached. I put this together for you from notes I posted in the EMDrive thread.

Thanks. I understand that since the mass change is very tiny, most of the effect to accelerate the CM is due to classical physics at the appropriate frequencies.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 10/05/2017 06:58 pm
2) Why does power have to be dissipated?

Because electrical power is being moved through resistances, it will be dissipated.  V=I*R, W=I*I*R .  I know of know high k superconducting capacitors.

One can imagine energy pumped in and out of a system to create a mass fluctuation but the question is why there necessarily needs to be a dissipation mechanism, that's completely different from the fact that resistive devices dissipate power.

Hopefully, this will explain it. The power dissipation is an "effective gravitational potential".
See attached. I put this together for you from notes I posted in the EMDrive thread.

Thanks. I understand that since the mass change is very tiny, most of the effect to accelerate the CM is due to classical physics at the appropriate frequencies.

I would speculate this gravitational potential induced may be an induced flow in space time.  Similar to the speculation time slows down in Earth's gravitational potential because of increased relative velocity w.r.t. the vacuums velocity.  This being possibly similar to an induced flow in superfluid helium where you create a superfluid fountain?  Or basically momentum conserved by this acceleration of the vacuum which then acts on the rest of the universe.  Just my speculation. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 10/06/2017 02:01 am
2) Why does power have to be dissipated?

Because electrical power is being moved through resistances, it will be dissipated.  V=I*R, W=I*I*R .  I know of know high k superconducting capacitors.

One can imagine energy pumped in and out of a system to create a mass fluctuation but the question is why there necessarily needs to be a dissipation mechanism, that's completely different from the fact that resistive devices dissipate power.

Hopefully, this will explain it. The power dissipation is an "effective gravitational potential".
See attached. I put this together for you from notes I posted in the EMDrive thread.

Thanks. I understand that since the mass change is very tiny, most of the effect to accelerate the CM is due to classical physics at the appropriate frequencies.

I would speculate this gravitational potential induced may be an induced flow in space time.  Similar to the speculation time slows down in Earth's gravitational potential because of increased relative velocity w.r.t. the vacuums velocity.  This being possibly similar to an induced flow in superfluid helium where you create a superfluid fountain?  Or basically momentum conserved by this acceleration of the vacuum which then acts on the rest of the universe.  Just my speculation.

In this case, the gravitational potential is the (negative) time derivative of the gravito-magnetic flux.

φ = -dχ/dt

Magnetic flux may be defined as Joule-seconds/Coulomb
Gravito-magnetic flux may be defined as Joule-seconds/Kilogram

The "Jerk" term that Dr. Rodal refers to in his paper, I equate to the 3rd time derivative of the gravito-magnetic flux, which is the 2nd derivative of the potential. You can see that power has to be dissipated to make it go. If anything, there is probably an asymmetrical flow of gravito-magnetic flux escaping the device, which carries away momentum.

IMO, all the matter and energy in the universe, along with the planet Earth, conspire to give us the local speed of light, as in c/K where K is "normalized" to 1 in the local space-time. Meaning, our rulers and clocks are scaled such that locally, c is a constant when measured using our local measuring devices. Therefore, "Inertia" is simply the sum of the dispersion forces acting on the wave functions, when those quantum objects are accelerated in a medium where the velocity must remain constant.


Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 10/09/2017 06:24 pm
Tajmar's new model of a Mach Effect Thruster.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319974638_Mach-Effect_thruster_model
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: vnbt4 on 10/10/2017 02:22 am
Hello, I have been popping into the forum for a while now and have been wonder what happened to the Mach Lorentz thruster experiments?

Also, i don't have a physics or engineering background at all. So I ask that you forgive my presumptuousness but, I was wondering if a plasma might be a possible substitute for a capacitor or PZT stack?

Thank you.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 10/12/2017 07:06 pm
Tajmar's new model of a Mach Effect Thruster.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319974638_Mach-Effect_thruster_model

Tajmar says only mechanical power, not electrical power, generated by the PZT stack is responsible for the mass fluctuations. Doesn't that imply other mechanical means aside from PZT stacks or PIN-PMN-PT materials might be developed?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: GeneralRulofDumb on 10/13/2017 08:55 am
Tajmar's new model of a Mach Effect Thruster.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319974638_Mach-Effect_thruster_model

Tajmar says only mechanical power, not electrical power, generated by the PZT stack is responsible for the mass fluctuations. Doesn't that imply other mechanical means aside from PZT stacks or PIN-PMN-PT materials might be developed?

Somehow that seems to make sense, considering that inertia is a purely physical/mechanical phenomenon.
Creating mechanical fluctuations at frequencies of several dozens of kHz is a great challenge, however.

On that note, as inertia is an effect experienced by objects with mass, couldn't one mechanically 'fluctuate' electrons, giving the possibility of much higher frequencies ?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: sanman on 10/13/2017 09:48 am
Nanotubes could be made to mechanically oscillate at very high frequencies:

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep22600

1.7 MHz is pretty fast for a mechanical oscillation frequency
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 10/13/2017 04:17 pm
Nanotubes could be made to mechanically oscillate at very high frequencies:

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep22600

1.7 MHz is pretty fast for a mechanical oscillation frequency

Chip based micro-mechanical resonators might work if the derivative of the mechanical power can be made high enough. Plus all the control electronics can be fabricated with the oscillators. The power doesn't have to be huge but it's rate of change does.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 10/13/2017 05:23 pm
Tajmar's new model of a Mach Effect Thruster.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319974638_Mach-Effect_thruster_model

Tajmar says only mechanical power, not electrical power, generated by the PZT stack is responsible for the mass fluctuations. Doesn't that imply other mechanical means aside from PZT stacks or PIN-PMN-PT materials might be developed?

My hypothesis was that it is just another Dean Drive. I had thought of experimenting on it but it seems Tajmar is ahead of me and my plan.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: giulioprisco on 10/14/2017 03:58 am
I'm interested in the possibility, hinted at in the conclusions of the Estes Park workshop proceedings, that Woodward Mach effects could be derived from conventional, textbook general relativity, without advanced waves. What should I read?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 10/14/2017 03:18 pm
I'm interested in the possibility, hinted at in the conclusions of the Estes Park workshop proceedings, that Woodward Mach effects could be derived from conventional, textbook general relativity, without advanced waves. What should I read?

Lance Williams, and watch the videos. That part was a very short discussion, not part of any particular presentation.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: sanman on 10/18/2017 10:40 am
So there's some things I wanted to ask about here

According to what Dr Fearn said, the propulsive force generated goes up with the cube of the oscillation frequency?

Also, does the propulsive effect get more efficient at faster - even relativistic - velocities?
(If so, then that's quite an appealing way to travel. And in that case, then don't you want to measure those propulsive forces during a test flight, where you're already moving as fast as possible?)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLs9NEt9LRQ#t=18m54
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: sanman on 10/18/2017 12:55 pm
Nanotubes could be made to mechanically oscillate at very high frequencies:

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep22600

1.7 MHz is pretty fast for a mechanical oscillation frequency

Chip based micro-mechanical resonators might work if the derivative of the mechanical power can be made high enough. Plus all the control electronics can be fabricated with the oscillators. The power doesn't have to be huge but it's rate of change does.

Does anyone remember that experiment from UC Riverside, where they generated Lateral Casimir Force by nesting together 2 nano-precision corrugated surfaces, to make some kind of MEMS "virtual spring"?

http://www.physics.ucr.edu/people/faculty/mohideen.html

Couldn't this be used as a tiny mechanical oscillator?

But Dr Fearn said there needs to be damping, right? In that case, Nanotubes are said to have a lot of damping and a lower Q factor.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 10/19/2017 12:56 am
Tajmar's new model of a Mach Effect Thruster.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319974638_Mach-Effect_thruster_model

Tajmar says only mechanical power, not electrical power, generated by the PZT stack is responsible for the mass fluctuations. Doesn't that imply other mechanical means aside from PZT stacks or PIN-PMN-PT materials might be developed?

My hypothesis was that it is just another Dean Drive. I had thought of experimenting on it but it seems Tajmar is ahead of me and my plan.

Tajmar is not saying it's a Dean Drive though, he's saying he has no reason to think it isn't real.  The electrical power is how the mechanical power is being created.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: sanman on 10/19/2017 06:54 am
Is it possible to use a rotational oscillation to achieve a similar effect with torque?

Instead of a linear oscillation, imagine a device that twists one way, and then twists back the other way. And then likewise you'd be varying the mass on one stroke compared to the return stroke.

Would that produce a rotational torque in the same way that the linear oscillation allegedly produces the linear force? Wouldn't the mathematical description be derived in roughly the same way?

So I'm imagining this could be used for producing torque to change the orientation of a spacecraft without the use of propellant or reaction wheels.

Could a Mach Effect for Torque produce something similar to the Lens-Thirring Effect? (ie. rotational frame-dragging)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 10/19/2017 04:43 pm
Is it possible to use a rotational oscillation to achieve a similar effect with torque?

Instead of a linear oscillation, imagine a device that twists one way, and then twists back the other way. And then likewise you'd be varying the mass on one stroke compared to the return stroke.

Would that produce a rotational torque in the same way that the linear oscillation allegedly produces the linear force? Wouldn't the mathematical description be derived in roughly the same way?

So I'm imagining this could be used for producing torque to change the orientation of a spacecraft without the use of propellant or reaction wheels.

Could a Mach Effect for Torque produce something similar to the Lens-Thirring Effect? (ie. rotational frame-dragging)

I hope so as that's the natural way to use the effect to create an energy generator. I would assume if it really works, it should work in any orientation which implies it would work in a rotational device too. In the Q&A of the recent NIAC presentation they imply energy generation is possible but then claim "There are far more efficient ways of extracting energy. Trying to extract energy from gravitation via the Mach effect is very inefficient". Well maybe now but if we assume the technology they project to make the probe possible ~around 4.5N per KW, it's just a matter of design. And the probe itself ends up generating almost a quarter million times as much kinetic energy w.r.t. the earth frame as total electrical energy input which works out to an average power of 340 GW continuously over the whole 20 year trip. And how does one measure efficiency for a process, that once the engineering of such devices is done, and yes that would be costly, there is no fuel cost and it makes energy anywhere continuously till the parts wear out! Of course it won't make as much energy per device because rotational speeds are limited in practice. It would probably take advantage of advanced flywheel technology.

 Also, nothing could be simpler than reaction wheels to change the orientation of a spacecraft and the Mach effect would be overkill.


Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: sanman on 10/19/2017 08:03 pm
I hope so as that's the natural way to use the effect to create an energy generator. I would assume if it really works, it should work in any orientation which implies it would work in a rotational device too. In the Q&A of the recent NIAC presentation they imply energy generation is possible but then claim "There are far more efficient ways of extracting energy. Trying to extract energy from gravitation via the Mach effect is very inefficient". Well maybe now but if we assume the technology they project to make the probe possible ~around 4.5N per KW, it's just a matter of design. And the probe itself ends up generating almost a quarter million times as much kinetic energy w.r.t. the earth frame as total electrical energy input which works out to an average power of 340 GW continuously over the whole 20 year trip. And how does one measure efficiency for a process, that once the engineering of such devices is done, and yes that would be costly, there is no fuel cost and it makes energy anywhere continuously till the parts wear out! Of course it won't make as much energy per device because rotational speeds are limited in practice. It would probably take advantage of advanced flywheel technology.

Also, nothing could be simpler than reaction wheels to change the orientation of a spacecraft and the Mach effect would be overkill.

Well, even reaction wheels can get saturated, and propellant must be expended to desaturate them.

What about a rotary device that didn't twist back and forth, but just kept rotating continuously? You would vary energy-potential/mass downward on half of the period, and vary it upward on the other half. Could that create a net force in one direction?

Anyway, for the linear device I think carbon nanotubes would be best. Based on the issues they were discussing in their presentations, it sounds like device longevity could be a concern. Nanotubes are strong and can take a lot of stress. They're also conductive and can be used as both sensors as well as transducers. This could help in that feedback-control idea that Dr Rodal proposed.

It's possible to vary their length using Field Effect to quantum-mechanically change the C-C bond length, and as we know Field Effect Transistors are probably the smallest/fastest type of switch available.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: sanman on 10/20/2017 08:43 am
Please note the following citation, which dates from 2004:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0957-4484/15/4/012/meta

Quote
We report molecular dynamics studies of carbon nanotubes as mechanical gigahertz oscillators. Our results show that different oscillatory regimes exist but that sustained oscillations are possible only when the radii difference values of the inner and outer tubes are ~3.4 Å. Frequencies as large as 87 GHz were obtained. Calculated force and frequency values are in good agreement with estimated data from recent experimental investigations.

87 GHz is an astonishingly high frequency for a mechanical oscillator - and if the force scales up with the cube of frequency, then wouldn't a frequency like this send the force levels up through the roof?

This citation dates from 2004. Has anybody actually been able to achieve such mechanical oscillation frequencies since then?

Additionally, in the presentation by Dr Rodal that I saw online, he mentions the issues/challenges with piezos, such as stress fracturing and heat buildup. Nanotubes are very strong and very thermally conductive, so that such problems would be mitigated.


Here's a different citation from 2011:

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/nl203279v

(http://pubs.acs.org/appl/literatum/publisher/achs/journals/content/nalefd/2012/nalefd.2012.12.issue-1/nl203279v/production/images/medium/nl-2011-03279v_0006.gif)


And now that I think about it further, didn't Dr Rodal say during his presentation that having larger cross-sectional area relative to the axis of oscillation, would achieve more Mach Effect force?

So then why not even use planar graphene sheets in a manner similar to the nanotube image I included above?

Just as the nanotube can be made to oscillate/vibrate like a guitar string, likewise the graphene sheets could be made to oscillate/vibrate like a drum skin. This would then also allow much greater cross-sectional area to improve the propulsive force.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22141577

Quote
We present a simple micromanipulation technique to transfer suspended graphene flakes onto any substrate and to assemble them with small localized gates into mechanical resonators. The mechanical motion of the graphene is detected using an electrical, radio frequency (RF) reflection readout scheme where the time-varying graphene capacitor reflects a RF carrier at f = 5-6 GHz producing modulation sidebands at f ± f(m). A mechanical resonance frequency up to f(m) = 178 MHz is demonstrated. We find both hardening/softening Duffing effects on different samples and obtain a critical amplitude of ~40 pm for the onset of nonlinearity in graphene mechanical resonators. Measurements of the quality factor of the mechanical resonance as a function of dc bias voltage V(dc) indicates that dissipation due to motion-induced displacement currents in graphene electrode is important at high frequencies and large V(dc).

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 10/20/2017 04:10 pm
I hope so as that's the natural way to use the effect to create an energy generator. I would assume if it really works, it should work in any orientation which implies it would work in a rotational device too. In the Q&A of the recent NIAC presentation they imply energy generation is possible but then claim "There are far more efficient ways of extracting energy. Trying to extract energy from gravitation via the Mach effect is very inefficient". Well maybe now but if we assume the technology they project to make the probe possible ~around 4.5N per KW, it's just a matter of design. And the probe itself ends up generating almost a quarter million times as much kinetic energy w.r.t. the earth frame as total electrical energy input which works out to an average power of 340 GW continuously over the whole 20 year trip. And how does one measure efficiency for a process, that once the engineering of such devices is done, and yes that would be costly, there is no fuel cost and it makes energy anywhere continuously till the parts wear out! Of course it won't make as much energy per device because rotational speeds are limited in practice. It would probably take advantage of advanced flywheel technology.

Also, nothing could be simpler than reaction wheels to change the orientation of a spacecraft and the Mach effect would be overkill.

Well, even reaction wheels can get saturated, and propellant must be expended to desaturate them.

What about a rotary device that didn't twist back and forth, but just kept rotating continuously? You would vary energy-potential/mass downward on half of the period, and vary it upward on the other half. Could that create a net force in one direction?

No, rotational motion cannot be rectified into linear motion in free space. That was the basis of the 'Dean Drive' and associated inventions which don't work. If it did linear momentum wouldn't be conserved. You can spin up mass and release it but that just makes the device into a rocket of sorts which does conserve both angular and linear momentum.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: sanman on 10/20/2017 05:52 pm
Speaking of graphene, individual electrons traveling inside graphene have been shown to behave masslessly, like the photon.
But if you apply an electric field, they'll collectively behave like they have mass.

https://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2014/06/measuring-mass-of-massless-electrons

Quote
“Graphene is a unique material because, effectively, individual graphene electrons act as though they have no mass. What that means is that the individual electrons always move at a constant velocity,” explains Ham. “But suppose we apply a force, like an electric field. The velocity of the individual electrons still remains constant, but collectively, they accelerate and their total energy increases—just like entities with mass. It’s quite interesting.”


If we can then selectively apply an electric field to the electrons as they move back and forth in graphene, then can't this likewise produce the Mach Effect?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: sanman on 10/21/2017 12:29 pm
Okay, building further on what I was saying - can we combine the graphene ideas expressed in my last 2 posts?

IE.:  Can we have our graphene drumskin vibrating/oscillating back and forth along the axis that is orthonormal to its surface -- and while this is going on, we have electrons moving back and forth across the graphene??

So the idea would then be that while the graphene sheet is moving one way, we will like our electrons to move masslessly, and then while the graphene sheet is moving back the other way, then we will like our electrons to move back across the sheet in a way that exhibits mass (ie. we would apply electric field for this).

And we want all of this to happen at Gigahertz frequency.


(Okay, I know you'll probably say there's something obvious I'm neglecting, but try not to bash me like a drum)   ;)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 10/21/2017 04:37 pm
Okay, building further on what I was saying - can we combine the graphene ideas expressed in my last 2 posts?

IE.:  Can we have our graphene drumskin vibrating/oscillating back and forth along the axis that is orthonormal to its surface -- and while this is going on, we have electrons moving back and forth across the graphene??

So the idea would then be that while the graphene sheet is moving one way, we will like our electrons to move masslessly, and then while the graphene sheet is moving back the other way, then we will like our electrons to move back across the sheet in a way that exhibits mass (ie. we would apply electric field for this).

And we want all of this to happen at Gigahertz frequency.


(Okay, I know you'll probably say there's something obvious I'm neglecting, but try not to bash me like a drum)   ;)

That's a proposal I would have to defer to the experts in the Mach effect to comment on. I don't know.  :)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: sanman on 10/21/2017 07:08 pm
Well, I figured that electrons traveling in graphene only have apparent zero mass, but not actual zero mass, and must somehow be transferring apparent mass to the graphene in order for they themselves to seem massless (ie. some interaction between the electrons and graphene would reciprocally make the graphene heavier, even as it made the electrons seem massless)
So the mass of the graphene would presumably be the same regardless of whether you applied the electric field or not.

And yet, if work is required to make the electrons behave this way - isn't that work coming from the Vacuum?

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 10/24/2017 04:59 pm
OK, I stated in the EMDrive thread that I planned to do some Dean Drive experiments. The purpose was to try to investigate whether the Dean Drive effect was what really happening in the Mach Effect Thruster (MET or MEGA drive). My instinct told me that it was. (Side note: I have good physics instincts. Last time I thought NASA EW's 2014 experiment had not accounted for Lorentz force caused by ground loop DC current, and I experimentally showed that a similar construction had large Lorentz force up to a hundred micro-Newtons. A pdf document about it is downloadable from https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.07752)

 This time, I planned to experiment with MEGA.  I planned to first reproduce "their" MEGA results, ideally with "their" MEGA device; then I plan to place the entire thing (stand, counterweight, beam, bearing, MEGA, power supply etc) in a sealed box, hang the box under a thin piano wire, control the device on and off with optical or RF switch, then measure the rotation of the piano wire. If the thrust was true, the wire would rotate, at least to an angle. If the thrust was not there, it would not rotate.

I thought this was a good plan. Triggered by Monomorphic's post about his new E-10 bearing today, I started to do some on-line research to prepare for my experiment. To my disappointment,  I found that my experiment will not bring in anything new. Here is why.

I started from searching "metal spring dissipation", for differential dissipation between the cases when the spring was compressed quickly and slowly. This kind of asymmetrical movement, present in previous MEGA experiment, might have caused the "thrust", much like what happened in Dean Drive. I found some interesting documents, such as "Anomalous low frequency dissipation processes in metal springs" by Riccardo DeSalvo, "Dissipation processes in Metal springs" by Arianna Di Cintio, "The Elastic Hysteresis of Steel" by Bertram Hopkinson and G. Trevor Williams. And finally I found this page: https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/test-pm.htm (https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/test-pm.htm). They quoted an article http://www.rexresearch.com/bull/1bull.htm (http://www.rexresearch.com/bull/1bull.htm) about Harry W. BULL's "Reaction Motor". See how similar it is to MEGA!

(http://www.rexresearch.com/bull/2bull.gif)
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1447226;image)

Quote:
"Balance scales and even electronic balances can also be fooled by vibrations, due to mechanical "stiction" (the "stick and slip" phenomenon of friction). The scale itself is affected by nonlinear phenomena in its mechanism, and these can often display resonance peaks, dependent on the frequency of the vibrations. So a running motor on a balance scale may indeed seem to weigh less when it's running. That has fooled many people, and is one of the reasons for the strange results when Norman Dean demonstrated his "reactionless" drive of the early 1960s."

I lost the interest in performing the said experiment in the beginning of this post. Would my experiment add more evidence to science? I guess the answer is "No". That web page had summarized well the existing evidence. All my experiment would be able to show had been shown.

I write down this post to wrap up my short-lived interest in MET. By the way, I am interested in AI and I have been three years into it. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Tcarey on 10/24/2017 06:11 pm
Potomic...   I am somewhat confused by your rational for not pursuing this exp. As I understand it a torsion wire would not be subject to the stiction error  of scales.  You would be looking for rotation in the wire larger than any back and forth motion produced by the drive. The won't be any stiction in a torsion wire since there is nothing to slip against or to stick to.

What am I missing?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 10/24/2017 06:17 pm
I noticed the rubber pad was absent in the "null" device constructed by Woodward. If the Mach Effect Thruster is basically a Harry Bull Reaction Motor, then it needs the rubber pad to "work."

Potomic...   I am somewhat confused by your rational for not pursuing this exp. As I understand it a torsion wire would not be subject to the stiction error  of scales.  You would be looking for rotation in the wire larger than any back and forth motion produced by the drive. The won't be any stiction in a torsion wire since there is nothing to slip against or to stick to.

What am I missing?

Here is the pertinent part copied from the link above:

"Even with this arrangement, self-deception can occur, as in Henry Bull's impulse engine of 1935. You can read about it in Popular Science Monthly, Jan 1935, p. 27: Harry W. Bull: Reaction Motor. His device was in an enclosed box, and suspended from wires as a pendulum. Inside the box two weights were driven by electromagnets, one weight making an inelastic impact with a spring, the other making a nearly elastic metal-to-metal impact. When running, the box containing the device moved to the side. Why? Due to the asymmetric motion inside the box, the center of mass of the box and its contents shifts relative to the box. But the center of mass must still remain where it was before (relative to the laboratory). So the box moves aside, while its center of mass stays put. Newton's laws were working properly, as they always do."
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 10/24/2017 07:32 pm
I noticed the rubber pad was absent in the "null" device constructed by Woodward. If the Mach Effect Thruster is basically a Harry Bull Reaction Motor, then it needs the rubber pad to "work."

I read somewhere that the pad greatly enhanced the "thrust". Without the pad, I think it will still "work", with less "thrust". This is because this time the asymmetrical elastic property of the stack (different k between compression and stretching) will provide the necessary asymmetrical movement (relatively elastic to one side and stiffer to the other side) for a Dean effect ("stiction").
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 10/24/2017 07:55 pm
Potomic...   I am somewhat confused by your rational for not pursuing this exp. As I understand it a torsion wire would not be subject to the stiction error  of scales.  You would be looking for rotation in the wire larger than any back and forth motion produced by the drive. The won't be any stiction in a torsion wire since there is nothing to slip against or to stick to.

What am I missing?

My rational is that, I planed to use my experiment to relate MET to Dean effect, if successful, the ball would be in Woodward's yard. It would be their responsibility to explain why MET was / was not a Dean drive. Now I found the Bull's impulse engine (I think it belongs to Dean Drive in the general sense), that is sufficiently similar to MET that the ball is now in their yard indeed. My planned experiment thus will not contribute much.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 10/24/2017 08:02 pm
Potomic...   I am somewhat confused by your rational for not pursuing this exp. As I understand it a torsion wire would not be subject to the stiction error  of scales.  You would be looking for rotation in the wire larger than any back and forth motion produced by the drive. The won't be any stiction in a torsion wire since there is nothing to slip against or to stick to.

What am I missing?

Here is the pertinent part copied from the link above:

"Even with this arrangement, self-deception can occur, as in Henry Bull's impulse engine of 1935. You can read about it in Popular Science Monthly, Jan 1935, p. 27: Harry W. Bull: Reaction Motor. His device was in an enclosed box, and suspended from wires as a pendulum. Inside the box two weights were driven by electromagnets, one weight making an inelastic impact with a spring, the other making a nearly elastic metal-to-metal impact. When running, the box containing the device moved to the side. Why? Due to the asymmetric motion inside the box, the center of mass of the box and its contents shifts relative to the box. But the center of mass must still remain where it was before (relative to the laboratory). So the box moves aside, while its center of mass stays put. Newton's laws were working properly, as they always do."

I have not thought of this effect in detail. It may rotate or may not rotate because of shift of mass center. Anyway, I decide to save some brain cells by now.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 10/25/2017 12:03 am
OK, I stated in the EMDrive thread that I planned to do some Dean Drive experiments. The purpose was to try to investigate whether the Dean Drive effect was what really happening in the Mach Effect Thruster (MET or MEGA drive). My instinct told me that it was. (Side note: I have good physics instincts. Last time I thought NASA EW's 2014 experiment had not accounted for Lorentz force caused by ground loop DC current, and I experimentally showed that a similar construction had large Lorentz force up to a hundred micro-Newtons. A pdf document about it is downloadable from https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.07752)

 This time, I planned to experiment with MEGA.  I planned to first reproduce "their" MEGA results, ideally with "their" MEGA device; then I plan to place the entire thing (stand, counterweight, beam, bearing, MEGA, power supply etc) in a sealed box, hang the box under a thin piano wire, control the device on and off with optical or RF switch, then measure the rotation of the piano wire. If the thrust was true, the wire would rotate, at least to an angle. If the thrust was not there, it would not rotate.

I thought this was a good plan. Triggered by Monomorphic's post about his new E-10 bearing today, I started to do some on-line research to prepare for my experiment. To my disappointment,  I found that my experiment will not bring in anything new. Here is why.

I started from searching "metal spring dissipation", for differential dissipation between the cases when the spring was compressed quickly and slowly. This kind of asymmetrical movement, present in previous MEGA experiment, might have caused the "thrust", much like what happened in Dean Drive. I found some interesting documents, such as "Anomalous low frequency dissipation processes in metal springs" by Riccardo DeSalvo, "Dissipation processes in Metal springs" by Arianna Di Cintio, "The Elastic Hysteresis of Steel" by Bertram Hopkinson and G. Trevor Williams. And finally I found this page: https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/test-pm.htm (https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/test-pm.htm). They quoted an article http://www.rexresearch.com/bull/1bull.htm (http://www.rexresearch.com/bull/1bull.htm) about Harry W. BULL's "Reaction Motor". See how similar it is to MEGA!

(http://www.rexresearch.com/bull/2bull.gif)
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1447226;image)

Quote:
"Balance scales and even electronic balances can also be fooled by vibrations, due to mechanical "stiction" (the "stick and slip" phenomenon of friction). The scale itself is affected by nonlinear phenomena in its mechanism, and these can often display resonance peaks, dependent on the frequency of the vibrations. So a running motor on a balance scale may indeed seem to weigh less when it's running. That has fooled many people, and is one of the reasons for the strange results when Norman Dean demonstrated his "reactionless" drive of the early 1960s."

I lost the interest in performing the said experiment in the beginning of this post. Would my experiment add more evidence to science? I guess the answer is "No". That web page had summarized well the existing evidence. All my experiment would be able to show had been shown.

I write down this post to wrap up my short-lived interest in MET. By the way, I am interested in AI and I have been three years into it.

So I am very curious about your thought process here. Especially since they have presented experimental results showing not only thrust but also no thrust with the exact same stack configuration that has depolarized (IIRMC). I n addition their test results I believe also cover the case where the stack is driven outside of the correct frequency. Finally, the paper your referring to is talking about what looks like a different set of tests.

edit

Most importantly I dont believe the paper explain why the measured thrust results match the predicted thrust scaling from the theoretical derivation.

If your going to argue that the effect is not real or is something else then you would need to provide an explaination for the results in section 2 of Theory of mach effect thrust II, and I am not finding that in the paper you quoted
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: sanman on 10/25/2017 01:14 am
Apart from Mach Effect experiments, are there any other experiments or devices out there which attempt to oscillate the property of mass?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 10/25/2017 01:47 am

So I am very curious about your thought process here. Especially since they have presented experimental results showing not only thrust but also no thrust with the exact same stack configuration that has depolarized (IIRMC). I n addition their test results I believe also cover the case where the stack is driven outside of the correct frequency. Finally, the paper your referring to is talking about what looks like a different set of tests.

edit

Most importantly I dont believe the paper explain why the measured thrust results match the predicted thrust scaling from the theoretical derivation.

If your going to argue that the effect is not real or is something else then you would need to provide an explaination for the results in section 2 of Theory of mach effect thrust II, and I am not finding that in the paper you quoted

Some articles referred by "Theory of mach effect thrust II" are not downloadable. I think one needs to look into details to figure out why there is no thrust if the stack is depolarized, or is driven with different frequency. I think I will need to see and manipulate the experiment myself if I want to get a better understanding why. There are multiple possible reasons, for example, the frequency may need to be close to the resonance frequency of the system. Also I'd like to see they do the experiment I planned (sealed box with everything hanging under a wire). I generally lost interest to do that myself.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 10/25/2017 03:47 am

So I am very curious about your thought process here. Especially since they have presented experimental results showing not only thrust but also no thrust with the exact same stack configuration that has depolarized (IIRMC). I n addition their test results I believe also cover the case where the stack is driven outside of the correct frequency. Finally, the paper your referring to is talking about what looks like a different set of tests.

edit

Most importantly I dont believe the paper explain why the measured thrust results match the predicted thrust scaling from the theoretical derivation.

If your going to argue that the effect is not real or is something else then you would need to provide an explaination for the results in section 2 of Theory of mach effect thrust II, and I am not finding that in the paper you quoted

Some articles referred by "Theory of mach effect thrust II" are not downloadable. I think one needs to look into details to figure out why there is no thrust if the stack is depolarized, or is driven with different frequency. I think I will need to see and manipulate the experiment myself if I want to get a better understanding why. There are multiple possible reasons, for example, the frequency may need to be close to the resonance frequency of the system. Also I'd like to see they do the experiment I planned (sealed box with everything hanging under a wire). I generally lost interest to do that myself.

Honestly, I don't care if you have personally lost interest. I am just pointing out that if you want to show that the experimental results are being incorrectly interpreted. You have to do way more than you have done so far, otherwise, all you have is a belief that the measured effect is something else.

Basically, I am asking for critics to do the same thing they ask others to do.  If a critic isn't willing to do that when the person/team proposing a new idea has done the work to show agreement with their theory so far. I have a hard time taking the critics seriously.

P.S. please also keep in mind that it looks like between estes park last year and the NIAC presentation a lot more experimental runs have been performed that continue to show strong agreement with the predicted scaling.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 10/25/2017 08:05 am

Honestly, I don't care if you have personally lost interest. I am just pointing out that if you want to show that the experimental results are being incorrectly interpreted. You have to do way more than you have done so far, otherwise, all you have is a belief that the measured effect is something else.

Basically, I am asking for critics to do the same thing they ask others to do.  If a critic isn't willing to do that when the person/team proposing a new idea has done the work to show agreement with their theory so far. I have a hard time taking the critics seriously.

P.S. please also keep in mind that it looks like between estes park last year and the NIAC presentation a lot more experimental runs have been performed that continue to show strong agreement with the predicted scaling.

We direct our limited resources (time, brain capacity...) based on our own judgement. Calling it belief is not too inaccurate. Anyway, I am out of this MET business and it is my belief that it will not go too far.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: aceshigh on 10/25/2017 10:41 pm
Anyway, I am out of this MET business and it is my belief that it will not go too far.

Thanks for your personal input. Bye bye.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 10/26/2017 02:07 am

Honestly, I don't care if you have personally lost interest. I am just pointing out that if you want to show that the experimental results are being incorrectly interpreted. You have to do way more than you have done so far, otherwise, all you have is a belief that the measured effect is something else.

Basically, I am asking for critics to do the same thing they ask others to do.  If a critic isn't willing to do that when the person/team proposing a new idea has done the work to show agreement with their theory so far. I have a hard time taking the critics seriously.

P.S. please also keep in mind that it looks like between estes park last year and the NIAC presentation a lot more experimental runs have been performed that continue to show strong agreement with the predicted scaling.

We direct our limited resources (time, brain capacity...) based on our own judgement. Calling it belief is not too inaccurate. Anyway, I am out of this MET business and it is my belief that it will not go too far.

Agreed. Thank you for your input to the thread and being honest... wish more critics were at least that.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 10/27/2017 11:06 pm
Due to the asymmetric motion inside the box, the center of mass of the box and its contents shifts relative to the box. But the center of mass must still remain where it was before (relative to the laboratory). So the box moves aside, while its center of mass stays put. Newton's laws were working properly, as they always do."

I've constructed a couple of "asymmetric shakers" to test whether a Harry Bull Reaction Motor can produce similar "thrust" signatures as a Mach Effect Thruster (MET) using a torsional pendulum. It is a very straightforward design having a vibrator-weight-spring/damper internal configuration.

Two models have been produced, a 0.5W version and a 5.0W version. There is just enough room on my torsional pendulum to mount these one at a time for testing.  Both models are capable of vibrating from 31 Hz to 64,000 Hz. 
 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 10/28/2017 01:10 am
Due to the asymmetric motion inside the box, the center of mass of the box and its contents shifts relative to the box. But the center of mass must still remain where it was before (relative to the laboratory). So the box moves aside, while its center of mass stays put. Newton's laws were working properly, as they always do."

I've constructed a couple of "asymmetric shakers" to test whether a Harry Bull Reaction Motor can produce similar "thrust" signatures as a Mach Effect Thruster (MET) using a torsional pendulum. It is a very straightforward design having a vibrator-weight-spring/damper internal configuration.

Two models have been produced, a 0.5W version and a 5.0W version. There is just enough room on my torsional pendulum to mount these one at a time for testing.  Both models are capable of vibrating from 31 Hz to 64,000 Hz. 
 

Can you share your design?
Are these vibrators PZT based or electromagnetic solenoid?
What makes it "asymmetrical"?

Thanks!
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 10/28/2017 11:55 am
Can you share your design?
Are these vibrators PZT based or electromagnetic solenoid?
What makes it "asymmetrical"?

These two are electromagnetic. I purchased a 0.5W PZT version, but it does not vibrate very much in comparison. What makes it asymmetrical is simply the internal configuration: vibrator-mass-spring, with the mass and spring on one side of the vibrator, similar to METs having the brass mass and rubber pad on one side.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 10/28/2017 03:53 pm
Judging by the links provided on Bull's device it looks like his procedure to assess "thrust" was fundamentally different from Woodward's one. From the pictures it seems like he was using a simple pendulum, and its deflection was used as a qualitative measure of "thrust" with not further elaboration, like computing the total movement in a cycle, which of course is zero:

Quote
His device was in an enclosed box, and suspended from wires as a pendulum. Inside the box two weights were driven by electromagnets, one weight making an inelastic impact with a spring, the other making a nearly elastic metal-to-metal impact. When running, the box containing the device moved to the side. Why? Due to the asymmetric motion inside the box, the center of mass of the box and its contents shifts relative to the box. But the center of mass must still remain where it was before (relative to the laboratory). So the box moves aside, while its center of mass stays put.

I don't think that such effect could show up on a torsion/thrust balance (at least in a quasi-static situation where the center of mass moves relative to the device "box" and then stays there; it could happen on a simple pendulum though) since any movement of the center of mass relative to the device happens on a plane which is parallel to the direction of movement of the balance arm.
At most, with the frequencies involved, the arm should oscillate back and forth, averaging to zero, and the only way for this to simulate a thrust signal is if there were unaccounted sources of Dean drive-like effect.

By the way, I found this interesting 2006 paper from Marc Millis and Nicholas Thomas (back when Millis was working at NASA).
Quoting directly from the abstract:

Quote
Based on the experiences of the NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project, suggestions are
offered for constructively responding to proposals that purport breakthrough propulsion using mechanical
devices. Because of the relatively large number of unsolicited submissions received (about 1 per
workday) and because many of these involve similar concepts, this report is offered to help the would-be
submitters make genuine progress as well as to help reviewers respond to such submissions. Devices that
use oscillating masses or gyroscope falsely appear to create net thrust through differential friction or by
misinterpreting torques as linear forces. To cover both the possibility of an errant claim and a genuine
discovery, reviews should require that submitters meet minimal thresholds of proof before engaging in
further correspondence; such as achieving sustained deflection of a level-platform pendulum in the case
of mechanical thrusters.

I think it is an interesting read for everyone here.



Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 10/28/2017 11:56 pm
What am I missing?

Nothing.

" Inside the box two weights were driven by electromagnets, one weight making an inelastic impact with a spring, the other making a nearly elastic metal-to-metal impact. "

And there is no such thing mechanically analogous to that in an MET.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Stormbringer on 10/29/2017 01:59 am
looks left...
looks right...

Wormholes are real!!!

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/10/teleportation-and-traversible-wormholes-are-all-real.html

...Runs out of thread cackling like a mad scientist.

(Of course the article appears to go out of the way to limit the potential usage to non superluminal communication of information or non violation of causality.)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: sanman on 11/02/2017 06:27 am
Another thought I had in my head - if there is some Machian interaction with "gravinertial field" - then could anything be detected through the technique of Atom Interferometry?

After all, Atom Lasers / Atom Optics is extremely precise, and should also be sensitive to mass fluctuations.

Why not try to make use of this technique to try to detect and characterize any mass fluctuation phenomena that might be happening?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezzvYiXSf6s

Note that while LIGO is located at a vast distance away from the large gravitational wave sources (astrophysical phenomena) it's detecting, an atom interferometer could be positioned very close to the MEGA apparatus, howsoever tiny its possible mass fluctuations may be.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 11/15/2017 12:01 am
Mach Effect bumped at NextBigFuture.

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/11/mach-effect-propulsion-2016-it-is-proven-replicated-and-will-scale-to-fast-interstellar-travel.html
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: sanman on 11/15/2017 02:53 pm
Regarding stealing entropy, or energy from the overall expansion of the universe - thrust or travel has to be in a specific direction, and so  if you're stealing, then technically you're stealing from the overall universe with respect to a particular axis of it.

Couldn't it be possible that you're still increasing the overall entropy of the universe in the remaining axes, other than the one you've stolen from?

Anyone?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 11/15/2017 04:06 pm
I've been working on understanding the mechanics of the MEGA Drive. I see several engineering issues regarding the design and setup.

1. The SM-111, 19mm x 2mm disks are rated to operate at about 25W maximum power. In the MEGA Drive application, they operate at resonance up to 200+ Volts. These disks have a resonant resistance < 2 Ohms per the MFGR.

P = V2/R = 20,000 W

So in the application, the D.U.T. is being driven to 1000x its rated power. Hmm... I wonder why they don't last long.

EDIT: If it's true that the input power is only 100W, then the resistance at resonance is 3200 Ohms, not <2 Ohms, per the MFGR's spec. I assume the impedance goes up as the frequency goes down when the massive end caps are added. It will be fun to test it myself and see.

2. In the video, Prof. Woodward shows a 1-Line diagram for the setup. The On/Off relay is ahead of the power amplifier, and a step-up transformer of all things is connected directly to the D.U.T.  A transformer has a very high leakage inductance and a high impedance compared to the D.U.T. I would not be surprised if the big Transients at Turn-on and Turn-off are simply the flyback energy from the leakage inductance dumping the energy into the D.U.T.

EDIT: The test setup I see shows that the equipment is on a table, approximately 2 meters from the D.U.T inside the vacuum chamber. The leads to the device look like about 20 AWG wire. That's fine for 0.5 Amps, but when I examine the voltage trace, it shows the voltage collapsing at the D.U.T. during turn on, and during resonance. So when the device hits resonance and is trying to draw more power, the in-line resistance is preventing it from doing so. I really think it is likely the transients are due to the XFMR and these long, thin wires.

3. In the PZT stack they put 2 thinner disks of the same SM-111 material to be used as an accelerometer, but I don't see how it actually measures acceleration. What I think it measures is the pressure exerted on those disks. She also calls it a Stress sensor, which I think is more accurate. In that regard, if the PZT stack is supposed to drive the mass variation into resonance to get thrust, doesn't the addition of the 2 extra disks which absorb those fluctuations, reduce the mass fluctuations and the thrust? I would think so. In addition, as the device heats up, the pressure on those disks increases and so they will inherently have a thermally drifting DC offset.

I have applied my QG model and have determined that overall, the MEGA Drive idea is a good one and it should work. However, I find the engineering of the drive could use some improvement. Therefore, I'm working on building a couple of thrusters of my own using bigger PZT disks that can handle 3X more power. Then I will design a optimized driving circuit and put everything, including the batteries in one faraday cage box. Hopefully, this will scale the thrust several orders of magnitude and get the measurements out of the mud.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 11/15/2017 05:55 pm
I've been working on understanding the mechanics of the MEGA Drive. I see several engineering issues regarding the design and setup.

1. The SM-111, 19mm x 2mm disks are rated to operate at about 25W maximum power. In the MEGA Drive application, they operate at resonance up to 200+ Volts. These disks have a resonant resistance < 2 Ohms per the MFGR.

P = V2/R = 20,000 W

So in the application, the D.U.T. is being driven to 1000x its rated power. Hmm... I wonder why they don't last long.

2. In the video, Prof. Woodward shows a 1-Line diagram for the setup. The On/Off relay is ahead of the power amplifier, and a step-up transformer of all things is connected directly to the D.U.T.  A transformer has a very high leakage inductance and a high impedance compared to the D.U.T. I would not be surprised if the big Transients at Turn-on and Turn-off are simply the flyback energy from the leakage inductance dumping the energy into the D.U.T.

3. In the PZT stack they put 2 thinner disks of the same SM-111 material to be used as an accelerometer, but I don't see how it actually measures acceleration. What I think it measures is the pressure exerted on those disks. In that regard, if the PZT stack is supposed to drive the mass variation into resonance to get thrust, doesn't the addition of the 2 extra disks which absorb those fluctuations, reduce the mass fluctuations and the thrust? I would think so. In addition, as the device heats up, the pressure on those disks increases and so they will inherently have a thermally drifting DC offset.

I have applied by QG model and have determined that overall, the MEGA Drive idea is a good one and it should work. However, I find the engineering of the drive could use some improvement. Therefore, I'm working on building a couple of thrusters of my own using bigger PZT disks that can handle 3X more power. Then I will design a optimized driving circuit and put everything, including the batteries in one faraday cage box. Hopefully, this will scale the thrust several orders of magnitude and get the measurements out of the mud.

I've asked before and generally I'm ignored but the question is if there are fundamentally better ways to manipulate the energy density to produce the MACH effect and are they investigating that question or are they just planning on taking PZT stacks to the limits?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 11/15/2017 05:58 pm
Regarding stealing entropy, or energy from the overall expansion of the universe - thrust or travel has to be in a specific direction, and so  if you're stealing, then technically you're stealing from the overall universe with respect to a particular axis of it.

Couldn't it be possible that you're still increasing the overall entropy of the universe in the remaining axes, other than the one you've stolen from?

Anyone?

Who says it has to be in any specific direction? My take is that it's arbitrary, that the MACH effect itself is directionless and has to do with the distant universe and what you do with mass fluctuations, i.e. accelerate, is up to you. I think you can apply the mass fluctuations, which are a scalar not vector quantity, in any desired direction.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 11/15/2017 06:00 pm
I've been working on understanding the mechanics of the MEGA Drive. I see several engineering issues regarding the design and setup.

1. The SM-111, 19mm x 2mm disks are rated to operate at about 25W maximum power. In the MEGA Drive application, they operate at resonance up to 200+ Volts. These disks have a resonant resistance < 2 Ohms per the MFGR.

P = V2/R = 20,000 W

So in the application, the D.U.T. is being driven to 1000x its rated power. Hmm... I wonder why they don't last long.

2. In the video, Prof. Woodward shows a 1-Line diagram for the setup. The On/Off relay is ahead of the power amplifier, and a step-up transformer of all things is connected directly to the D.U.T.  A transformer has a very high leakage inductance and a high impedance compared to the D.U.T. I would not be surprised if the big Transients at Turn-on and Turn-off are simply the flyback energy from the leakage inductance dumping the energy into the D.U.T.

3. In the PZT stack they put 2 thinner disks of the same SM-111 material to be used as an accelerometer, but I don't see how it actually measures acceleration. What I think it measures is the pressure exerted on those disks. In that regard, if the PZT stack is supposed to drive the mass variation into resonance to get thrust, doesn't the addition of the 2 extra disks which absorb those fluctuations, reduce the mass fluctuations and the thrust? I would think so. In addition, as the device heats up, the pressure on those disks increases and so they will inherently have a thermally drifting DC offset.

I have applied by QG model and have determined that overall, the MEGA Drive idea is a good one and it should work. However, I find the engineering of the drive could use some improvement. Therefore, I'm working on building a couple of thrusters of my own using bigger PZT disks that can handle 3X more power. Then I will design a optimized driving circuit and put everything, including the batteries in one faraday cage box. Hopefully, this will scale the thrust several orders of magnitude and get the measurements out of the mud.

I've asked before and generally I'm ignored but the question is if there are fundamentally better ways to manipulate the energy density to produce the MACH effect and are they investigating that question or are they just planning on taking PZT stacks to the limits?

I don't know everything others are working on, only that progress has been too slow for my liking. I'm personally working on understanding the fundamentals in terms of my own QG model, so I can engineer a MEGA Drive to get the thrust out of the mud. In that regard, the issues I raised above are where I'm currently at. It's a work in progress. I should probably have some results sometime after the holidays. My metal work is being done by a machinist friend of mine, and I hope to get the machined parts back sometime in the next 2 to 3 weeks. Then I can assemble and start testing my driver circuit.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 11/15/2017 06:12 pm
I've been working on understanding the mechanics of the MEGA Drive. I see several engineering issues regarding the design and setup.

1. The SM-111, 19mm x 2mm disks are rated to operate at about 25W maximum power. In the MEGA Drive application, they operate at resonance up to 200+ Volts. These disks have a resonant resistance < 2 Ohms per the MFGR.

P = V2/R = 20,000 W

So in the application, the D.U.T. is being driven to 1000x its rated power. Hmm... I wonder why they don't last long.

2. In the video, Prof. Woodward shows a 1-Line diagram for the setup. The On/Off relay is ahead of the power amplifier, and a step-up transformer of all things is connected directly to the D.U.T.  A transformer has a very high leakage inductance and a high impedance compared to the D.U.T. I would not be surprised if the big Transients at Turn-on and Turn-off are simply the flyback energy from the leakage inductance dumping the energy into the D.U.T.

3. In the PZT stack they put 2 thinner disks of the same SM-111 material to be used as an accelerometer, but I don't see how it actually measures acceleration. What I think it measures is the pressure exerted on those disks. In that regard, if the PZT stack is supposed to drive the mass variation into resonance to get thrust, doesn't the addition of the 2 extra disks which absorb those fluctuations, reduce the mass fluctuations and the thrust? I would think so. In addition, as the device heats up, the pressure on those disks increases and so they will inherently have a thermally drifting DC offset.

I have applied by QG model and have determined that overall, the MEGA Drive idea is a good one and it should work. However, I find the engineering of the drive could use some improvement. Therefore, I'm working on building a couple of thrusters of my own using bigger PZT disks that can handle 3X more power. Then I will design a optimized driving circuit and put everything, including the batteries in one faraday cage box. Hopefully, this will scale the thrust several orders of magnitude and get the measurements out of the mud.

I've asked before and generally I'm ignored but the question is if there are fundamentally better ways to manipulate the energy density to produce the MACH effect and are they investigating that question or are they just planning on taking PZT stacks to the limits?

I don't know everything others are working on, only that progress has been too slow for my liking. I'm personally working on understanding the fundamentals in terms of my own QG model, so I can engineer a MEGA Drive to get the thrust out of the mud. In that regard, the issues I raised above are where I'm currently at. It's a work in progress. I should probably have some results sometime after the holidays. My metal work is being done by a machinist friend of mine, and I hope to get the machined parts back sometime in the next 2 to 3 weeks. Then I can assemble and start testing my driver circuit.

Great! I encourage you to think of different ways energy can be manipulated as it is in the PZT stacks. Maybe you'll find some conduit that's easier, cheaper and more powerful.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 11/15/2017 06:20 pm
Great! I encourage you to think of different ways energy can be manipulated as it is in the PZT stacks. Maybe you'll find some conduit that's easier, cheaper and more powerful.

This is what I have... See Milonni, The Quantum Vacuum. Sec. 5.4 for the detailed Math.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: sanman on 11/15/2017 06:30 pm
Regarding stealing entropy, or energy from the overall expansion of the universe - thrust or travel has to be in a specific direction, and so  if you're stealing, then technically you're stealing from the overall universe with respect to a particular axis of it.

Couldn't it be possible that you're still increasing the overall entropy of the universe in the remaining axes, other than the one you've stolen from?

Anyone?

Who says it has to be in any specific direction? My take is that it's arbitrary, that the MACH effect itself is directionless and has to do with the distant universe and what you do with mass fluctuations, i.e. accelerate, is up to you. I think you can apply the mass fluctuations, which are a scalar not vector quantity, in any desired direction.

Apologies, perhaps I wasn't clear - I meant that each linear oscillation is occurring in a specific axial direction, and therefore if some kind of energy or entropy theft is occurring at the expense of the rest of the universe, then each little Action-Reaction interaction with the rest of the universe is happening in a specific axial direction. Do you agree with that much?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 11/15/2017 06:34 pm
Great! I encourage you to think of different ways energy can be manipulated as it is in the PZT stacks. Maybe you'll find some conduit that's easier, cheaper and more powerful.

This is what I have... See Milonni, The Quantum Vacuum. Sec. 5.4 for the detailed Math.

Thanks, I'll have to find a copy. I wonder whether by constant they mean just magnitude since acceleration is a vector.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 11/15/2017 06:37 pm
Regarding stealing entropy, or energy from the overall expansion of the universe - thrust or travel has to be in a specific direction, and so  if you're stealing, then technically you're stealing from the overall universe with respect to a particular axis of it.

Couldn't it be possible that you're still increasing the overall entropy of the universe in the remaining axes, other than the one you've stolen from?

Anyone?

Who says it has to be in any specific direction? My take is that it's arbitrary, that the MACH effect itself is directionless and has to do with the distant universe and what you do with mass fluctuations, i.e. accelerate, is up to you. I think you can apply the mass fluctuations, which are a scalar not vector quantity, in any desired direction.

Apologies, perhaps I wasn't clear - I meant that each linear oscillation is occurring in a specific axial direction, and therefore if some kind of energy or entropy theft is occurring at the expense of the rest of the universe, then each little interaction with the rest of the universe is happening in a specific axial direction. Do you agree with that much?

I think so with the caveat that one can change what direction one wants arbitrarily.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: sanman on 11/15/2017 06:42 pm
I think so with the caveat that one can change what direction one wants arbitrarily.

Oh sure, I'm with you there - just a matter of which way you choose to point your device. I think we even previously discussed what could happen if you had a device that twisted back and forth while doing the mass fluctuations. Maybe you're doing some artificial frame-dragging in that situation.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/16/2017 01:21 am
Version 3 of the asymmetric shaker.  The arduino board is not capable of providing enough power for the shaker so I had to use a very small 3W amplifier. Finally I am getting useful data.

I was able to find a frequency that shows similar "thrust" results as a mach effect thruster. I have included a simple 1 second moving average to show how a vibrating device can return false positive thrust results on a torsional pendulum.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 11/16/2017 01:57 am
Version 3 of the asymmetric shaker.  The arduino board is not capable of providing enough power for the shaker so I had to use a very small 3W amplifier. Finally I am getting useful data.

I was able to find a frequency that shows similar "thrust" results as a mach effect thruster. I have included a simple 1 second moving average to show how a vibrating device can return false positive thrust results on torsional pendulum.

Jamie,

Can you share more data please?

Frequency of the oscillation/shaker.
Snapshot of the input signal voltage and current at the driving frequency.
Mass at each end.
Composition of the masses at each end?
Pulse width modulation?
Duty cycle?
Did you determine the resonant frequency of the shaker with the given masses?

Thanks!
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 11/16/2017 02:07 am
Version 3 of the asymmetric shaker.  The arduino board is not capable of providing enough power for the shaker so I had to use a very small 3W amplifier. Finally I am getting useful data.

I was able to find a frequency that shows similar "thrust" results as a mach effect thruster. I have included a simple 1 second moving average to show how a vibrating device can return false positive thrust results on torsional pendulum.

To make the data more rigorous, you may want to align your test bed to other angles with the Earth's magnetic field and test again, to assess the influence of Lorentz force to your experiment. This is easier and cheaper than using Helmholtz coils. Best if with 8 angles, but I think 3 or 4 are good enough.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 11/16/2017 09:59 am
Version 3 of the asymmetric shaker.  The arduino board is not capable of providing enough power for the shaker so I had to use a very small 3W amplifier. Finally I am getting useful data.

I was able to find a frequency that shows similar "thrust" results as a mach effect thruster. I have included a simple 1 second moving average to show how a vibrating device can return false positive thrust results on torsional pendulum.

It's not like a Mach Effect device trace.  The baseline does not return to the same level after the drive period.  I believe you are seeing stiction or play in your bearings or another part of the assembly.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/16/2017 12:12 pm
It's not like a Mach Effect device trace.  The baseline does not return to the same level after the drive period.  I believe you are seeing stiction or play in your bearings or another part of the assembly.

I've pulled out just 5 pulses and compared it to the mach effect trace. Looks very similar to me. The torsional pendulum is suspended by wire so there are no bearings.

This was the very first run with the new 3W amplifier. I am pretty confident that with a little work honing in on the right frequency, I will be able to produce traces identical to the mach effect. I suppose I will have then invented a ~1uN space engine with a 3W bass shaker.   ;)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/16/2017 12:35 pm
Can you share more data please?

Frequency of the oscillation/shaker.
Snapshot of the input signal voltage and current at the driving frequency.
Mass at each end.
Composition of the masses at each end?
Pulse width modulation?
Duty cycle?
Did you determine the resonant frequency of the shaker with the given masses?

This was the very first run where I was testing the new 3W amplifier. I was entering frequencies at random. I didn't write them down at the time, so I am not sure what frequency this is. It may be 10 - 25Hz, but could be up to 330Hz. I suspected the frequency would be lower since my torsional pendulum is probably 10X the mass of Woodward's. This is all done with arduino codes available in the example code, so I will need to check the specifications for more details.

 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 11/16/2017 12:51 pm
@ Monomorphic

Does the "thrust" signal invert if the direction of the device is reversed, like with Woodward signal?
 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/16/2017 12:58 pm
@ Monomorphic

Does the "thrust" signal invert if the direction of the device is reversed, like with Woodward signal?

I will have to get back to you on that once I've better isolated the best frequency and have made more test runs. The shaker can be rotated 360 degrees so it will be a simple test, though my prediction is the "thrust" will reverse.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 11/16/2017 01:23 pm
Thank you Monomorphic.

I'd also like to point out that the mach signal you attached in the last post is the so called "chirped one", which according to Estes Park proceedings was obtained by using a specifically shaped signal to get the big transients at the beginning and at the end of a cycle to be asymmetric.
At pages 153-154 of the same document you can find "regular" mach signals, which at least to me look much less asymmetric.
I'm curious to know if the asymmetric shaker can reproduce signals that mimic these ones too.


By the way, averaging on a whole cycle should produce no "thrust" whatsoever in the case of the shaker.
Is this requisite respected? If not there might be unaccounted sources of interference. If the frequency is low there might be interactions with the torsional pendulum structure for example.

Woodward's device "shakings" happen at a much higher frequency, and he seems to have done all sort of analysis on the mechanical/thermal/electrical interactions between the device and the balance structure. He might have missed something though.

The problem of this sorts of tests performed with dummy devices is that they only show the quality of manifacture and the "weak spots" of the thrust balance/torsion pendulum used, since they should detect no thrust signal and if they do it means not all sources of noise have been compensated.

It would be interesting to see if the thrust balance used by Woodward can be fooled by using these.
It would also be interesting to do structural modeling not only of the device but also of the thrust balance itself, and run some simulation showing how it reacts to the MEGA drive shakes. That's quite a lot of work though.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 11/16/2017 03:05 pm
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31037.0;attach=1460565;image)

Because the MET trace returns to baseline, it is plainly not a Dean Drive effect.  Because yours does not, it clearly is.

If you dispute this interpretation, please label your traces clearly and include data showing your mechanism does return to baseline position when unpowered or when driven out of proper phase.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 11/16/2017 03:08 pm
@ WarpTech

Quote
In the video, Prof. Woodward shows a 1-Line diagram for the setup. The On/Off relay is ahead of the power amplifier, and a step-up transformer of all things is connected directly to the D.U.T.  A transformer has a very high leakage inductance and a high impedance compared to the D.U.T. I would not be surprised if the big Transients at Turn-on and Turn-off are simply the flyback energy from the leakage inductance dumping the energy into the D.U.T.

EDIT: The test setup I see shows that the equipment is on a table, approximately 2 meters from the D.U.T inside the vacuum chamber. The leads to the device look like about 20 AWG wire. That's fine for 0.5 Amps, but when I examine the voltage trace, it shows the voltage collapsing at the D.U.T. during turn on, and during resonance. So when the device hits resonance and is trying to draw more power, the in-line resistance is preventing it from doing so. I really think it is likely the transients are due to the XFMR and these long, thin wires

I'd like to know your thoughts on the following passage by Woodward about these transients, always from Estes Park proceedings ( look at pages 154-155 for figures)

Quote
What’s  especially  interesting  about  the  thrust  trace  in  Figure  19  is  the  large  switching  transients  that
occur  when  the  power  to  the  device  is  turned  on  and  off.   It  is  easy  to  believe  that  these  transients  are
just electrical artifacts having nothing to do with any long-range gravitational interaction.  However,  this
accounting  for  the  transients  is  wanting  for  a  couple  of  reasons.   First,  the  signal  that  drives  the  power
amplifier is switched at random phase of the AC signal.  So the voltage at switching is just as likely to be
negative as positive, and just as likely to be increasing as decreasing in magnitude.  These considerations
suggest  that  the  switching  transients  in  individual  runs,  if  present,  should  have  random  magnitudes  and
be equally likely positive and negative. When transients of this sort are averaged over several runs,  they
should average to zero.  The observed transients do NOT display this behavior.  They are always in the same
direction and do not average away.


Another  way  to  address  the  switching  transients  is  to  ask  if  they  are  produced  when  a  DC  voltage  is
switched.  In this case, one is no longer bothered by pesky random phase AC effects.  But the DC voltage
does produce a displacement of the center of mass of the device, and that should produce a displacement
of  the  balance  beam  as  the  new  center  of  mass  moves  to  the  equilibrium  position  of  the  old  center  of
mass.  Since the voltage polarities produce displacements in opposite directions, one might expect any such
effect to be polarity dependent.  Actually, this test was first carried out several years ago at the behest of
evaluators from Aerospace Corp.  The results are contained in Figure 20.  Run averages for both positive and
negative polarities and forward and reversed device orientation were obtained.  When the negative polarity
averages were subtracted from the positive polarity averages for the two orientations, and then the reversed
polarity difference was subtracted from the forward polarity difference,  the resulting net thrust showed a
small transient (a few tenths of a uN) at switch-on, as is evident in the left panel of Figure 20.  This is to be
compared with the transients in Figures 19
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 11/16/2017 03:49 pm
It's not like a Mach Effect device trace.  The baseline does not return to the same level after the drive period.  I believe you are seeing stiction or play in your bearings or another part of the assembly.

I've pulled out just 5 pulses and compared it to the mach effect trace. Looks very similar to me. The torsional pendulum is suspended by wire so there are no bearings.

This was the very first run with the new 3W amplifier. I am pretty confident that with a little work honing in on the right frequency, I will be able to produce traces identical to the mach effect. I suppose I will have then invented a ~1uN space engine with a 3W bass shaker.   ;)

Because the hanging wire is less likely to show stiction problem than the bearing Dr. Woodward used, I'd guess your results may be caused in asymmetric stiction response of air. So it might go away in vacuum. To show that Woodward's experiment is caused by stiction, you might need to use their bearing to show the "thrust" in vacuum, or to show that their system can not show thrust in a sealed box hanging in your torsion balance. The later is a much easier experiment than the former. But you need to obtain a thruster they have. Just my two cents.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/16/2017 04:48 pm
Because the hanging wire is less likely to show stiction problem than the bearing Dr. Woodward used, I'd guess your results may be caused in asymmetric stiction response of air. So it might go away in vacuum. To show that Woodward's experiment is caused by stiction, you might need to use their bearing to show the "thrust" in vacuum, or to show that their system can not show thrust in a sealed box hanging in your torsion balance. The later is a much easier experiment than the former. But you need to obtain a thruster they have. Just my two cents.

In torsional pendulums, the "stiction" is the torsional spring rate. The spring rate is what prevents the pendulum arm from being set in motion, with air coming in second.  The shakers I designed were meant to test the following statement: "Due to the asymmetric motion inside the box, the center of mass of the box and its contents shifts relative to the box. But the center of mass must still remain where it was before (relative to the laboratory). So the box moves aside, while its center of mass stays put. Newton's laws were working properly, as they always do." 

I don't think it's any more complicated than that. Testing vibrating devices for thrust on a torsional pendulum is a fundamentally flawed experiment. I would recommend switching to a linear track where acceleration over a distance can be shown. That the device can cause a box attached to an arm to jiggle one way or the other is not very convincing in my opinion.

I will build version 4 of the shaker with 20W. These things are not very expensive to test. I think 20W will be enough to get a more detailed trace.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 11/16/2017 05:53 pm
@ Monomorphic

Does the "thrust" signal invert if the direction of the device is reversed, like with Woodward signal?

I will have to get back to you on that once I've better isolated the best frequency and have made more test runs. The shaker can be rotated 360 degrees so it will be a simple test, though my prediction is the "thrust" will reverse.

Don't forget that Woodward's device has theoretical support, the effect is derived from physics and the data reasonably matches so it's highly unlikely it's all a mistake due to imagination plus Dean Drive effects. It's also been seen on multiple kinds of setups over two decades as well as by other experimenters. Are they all making the same simple mistake? What are the odds?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 11/16/2017 06:14 pm
@ Monomorphic

Does the "thrust" signal invert if the direction of the device is reversed, like with Woodward signal?

I will have to get back to you on that once I've better isolated the best frequency and have made more test runs. The shaker can be rotated 360 degrees so it will be a simple test, though my prediction is the "thrust" will reverse.

Don't forget that Woodward's device has theoretical support, the effect is derived from physics and the data reasonably matches so it's highly unlikely it's all a mistake due to imagination plus Dean Drive effects. It's also been seen on multiple kinds of setups over two decades as well as by other experimenters. Are they all making the same simple mistake? What are the odds?

I doubt the quality of their theories. How many different theories are there so far for Em Drive? Only 0 or a few of those can be correct. I do not understand his high level theories, but I do know that he makes  elementary mistakes in college level physics, such as pointed out here (By my other ID)

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1589319#msg1589319
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 11/16/2017 06:37 pm
@ Monomorphic

Does the "thrust" signal invert if the direction of the device is reversed, like with Woodward signal?

I will have to get back to you on that once I've better isolated the best frequency and have made more test runs. The shaker can be rotated 360 degrees so it will be a simple test, though my prediction is the "thrust" will reverse.

Don't forget that Woodward's device has theoretical support, the effect is derived from physics and the data reasonably matches so it's highly unlikely it's all a mistake due to imagination plus Dean Drive effects. It's also been seen on multiple kinds of setups over two decades as well as by other experimenters. Are they all making the same simple mistake? What are the odds?

I doubt the quality of their theories. How many different theories are there so far for Em Drive? Only 0 or a few of those can be correct. I do not understand his high level theories, but I do know that he makes  elementary mistakes in college level physics, such as pointed out here (By my other ID)

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1589319#msg1589319

Woodward appears to have changed his arguments on the "over unity" issue but I don't agree with your analysis. The power you discuss is the mechanical power the moving device has with respect to some observer and is dependent on that observer. In Woodward's paper, the power is applied wrt the instantaneous rest frame co-moving with the device. That's makes a huge difference. It's just like the rocket you describe. The rocket does a burn of the same power irregardless of its current velocity wrt some observer. Yet the rocket's mechanical power as measured by some observer may be a lot higher or lower depending on the relative speed. So, no, I don't accept your statement that Woodward makes elementary mistakes.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 11/16/2017 07:10 pm
Thank you Monomorphic.

I'd also like to point out that the mach signal you attached in the last post is the so called "chirped one", which according to Estes Park proceedings was obtained by using a specifically shaped signal to get the big transients at the beginning and at the end of a cycle to be asymmetric.
At pages 153-154 of the same document you can find "regular" mach signals, which at least to me look much less asymmetric.
I'm curious to know if the asymmetric shaker can reproduce signals that mimic these ones too.


By the way, averaging on a whole cycle should produce no "thrust" whatsoever in the case of the shaker.
Is this requisite respected? If not there might be unaccounted sources of interference. If the frequency is low there might be interactions with the torsional pendulum structure for example.

Woodward's device "shakings" happen at a much higher frequency, and he seems to have done all sort of analysis on the mechanical/thermal/electrical interactions between the device and the balance structure. He might have missed something though.

The problem of this sorts of tests performed with dummy devices is that they only show the quality of manifacture and the "weak spots" of the thrust balance/torsion pendulum used, since they should detect no thrust signal and if they do it means not all sources of noise have been compensated.

It would be interesting to see if the thrust balance used by Woodward can be fooled by using these.
It would also be interesting to do structural modeling not only of the device but also of the thrust balance itself, and run some simulation showing how it reacts to the MEGA drive shakes. That's quite a lot of work though.

They have done experiments where the mass on both ends was the same, and there was no thrust detected. That would appear to negate this whole argument, IMO. At such low frequency, what I suspect Jamie is detecting is a resonance in his balance, which could be a multiple harmonic of the suspension strings or balance arm and/or damper.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 11/16/2017 07:14 pm
Woodward appears to have changed his arguments on the "over unity" issue but I don't agree with your analysis. The power you discuss is the mechanical power the moving device has with respect to some observer and is dependent on that observer. In Woodward's paper, the power is applied wrt the instantaneous rest frame co-moving with the device. That's makes a huge difference. It's just like the rocket you describe. The rocket does a burn of the same power irregardless of its current velocity wrt some observer. Yet the rocket's mechanical power as measured by some observer may be a lot higher or lower depending on the relative speed. So, no, I don't accept your statement that Woodward makes elementary mistakes.
In a rocket, you have to account for the loss (or gain in some frames) of mechanical energy by the exhaust. The chemical energy released is the same between frames, but not the energy imparted to the rocket. (You keep using the word power, but the energy is more relevant to this discussion. Power depends on whether the burn lasts 5 seconds or 5 minutes which is irrelevant to this discussion.)

Doing calculations in the "instantaneous rest frame" is one of the elementary mistakes. Since the frame is constantly changing, you are not using an inertial reference frame. There are ways to correctly do calculations in a non-inertial frame, but Woodward does not do these, and there is no point, since you can get the answer much more easily by just using an inertial frame.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 11/16/2017 07:39 pm
@ WarpTech

Quote
In the video, Prof. Woodward shows a 1-Line diagram for the setup. The On/Off relay is ahead of the power amplifier, and a step-up transformer of all things is connected directly to the D.U.T.  A transformer has a very high leakage inductance and a high impedance compared to the D.U.T. I would not be surprised if the big Transients at Turn-on and Turn-off are simply the flyback energy from the leakage inductance dumping the energy into the D.U.T.

EDIT: The test setup I see shows that the equipment is on a table, approximately 2 meters from the D.U.T inside the vacuum chamber. The leads to the device look like about 20 AWG wire. That's fine for 0.5 Amps, but when I examine the voltage trace, it shows the voltage collapsing at the D.U.T. during turn on, and during resonance. So when the device hits resonance and is trying to draw more power, the in-line resistance is preventing it from doing so. I really think it is likely the transients are due to the XFMR and these long, thin wires

I'd like to know your thoughts on the following passage by Woodward about these transients, always from Estes Park proceedings ( look at pages 154-155 for figures)

Quote
What’s  especially  interesting  about  the  thrust  trace  in  Figure  19  is  the  large  switching  transients  that
occur  when  the  power  to  the  device  is  turned  on  and  off.   It  is  easy  to  believe  that  these  transients  are
just electrical artifacts having nothing to do with any long-range gravitational interaction.  However,  this
accounting  for  the  transients  is  wanting  for  a  couple  of  reasons.   First,  the  signal  that  drives  the  power
amplifier is switched at random phase of the AC signal.  So the voltage at switching is just as likely to be
negative as positive, and just as likely to be increasing as decreasing in magnitude.  These considerations
suggest  that  the  switching  transients  in  individual  runs,  if  present,  should  have  random  magnitudes  and
be equally likely positive and negative. When transients of this sort are averaged over several runs,  they
should average to zero.  The observed transients do NOT display this behavior.  They are always in the same
direction and do not average away.


Another  way  to  address  the  switching  transients  is  to  ask  if  they  are  produced  when  a  DC  voltage  is
switched.  In this case, one is no longer bothered by pesky random phase AC effects.  But the DC voltage
does produce a displacement of the center of mass of the device, and that should produce a displacement
of  the  balance  beam  as  the  new  center  of  mass  moves  to  the  equilibrium  position  of  the  old  center  of
mass.  Since the voltage polarities produce displacements in opposite directions, one might expect any such
effect to be polarity dependent.  Actually, this test was first carried out several years ago at the behest of
evaluators from Aerospace Corp.  The results are contained in Figure 20.  Run averages for both positive and
negative polarities and forward and reversed device orientation were obtained.  When the negative polarity
averages were subtracted from the positive polarity averages for the two orientations, and then the reversed
polarity difference was subtracted from the forward polarity difference,  the resulting net thrust showed a
small transient (a few tenths of a uN) at switch-on, as is evident in the left panel of Figure 20.  This is to be
compared with the transients in Figures 19

Honestly, it's difficult to make any conclusions based on the images provided here and in other papers. The blue trace is said to be the Voltage. The 1-Line diagram shows the voltage measurement directly at the device. If you look at the scale on the charts, the voltage pulse never goes negative. I assume the amplitude of the sine wave fits inside this pulse. This would imply that the signal at the device has a DC offset, which I could assume is confirmed by the transient directions. The Carvin amplifiers are capable of outputting a DC offset and the transformer will not correct it unless the core goes into saturation, or there is some circuit to cause it to balance.

Also, you can see that when the device turns on, the voltage (blue) drops quickly, the same thing happens as it approaches resonance. This is due to the voltage drop across either the thin wires, the transformer, the amplifier output impedance or all of the above. On some charts, the voltage does not even rise for several seconds after the signal is sent to turn on (green). This could be due to transformer saturation and a lack of available power to reset  the core.

When I get my MEGA-D built, I will be able to characterize it myself, without all these ambiguities.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/16/2017 07:58 pm
They have done experiments where the mass on both ends was the same, and there was no thrust detected. That would appear to negate this whole argument, IMO.

One would expect there to be no "thrust" if the masses on both ends are the same. What I have built is analogous to the mach effect thruster because I have a large mass on one side of the shaker - just like Woodward has a larger brass mass on one side of the PZT stack.   
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 11/16/2017 09:41 pm
They have done experiments where the mass on both ends was the same, and there was no thrust detected. That would appear to negate this whole argument, IMO.

One would expect there to be no "thrust" if the masses on both ends are the same. What I have built is analogous to the mach effect thruster because I have a large mass on one side of the shaker - just like Woodward has a larger brass mass on one side of the PZT stack.   

Okay, sorry I will need more data to be able to discuss this intelligently. Such as the masses at each end and the frequency of oscillation. Plots of voltage and current, etc...

However, I would say to make sure the frequency is not a resonance of your balance. The thrust depends on the frequency squared, so as you go up in frequency, the thrust should be more pronounced. If it disappears, it is more likely a resonance in your setup that is causing the apparent thrust.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 11/16/2017 10:30 pm
Quote
I doubt the quality of their theories. How many different theories are there so far for Em Drive? Only 0 or a few of those can be correct. I do not understand his high level theories, but I do know that he makes  elementary mistakes in college level physics, such as pointed out here (By my other ID)

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1589319#msg1589319

That "overunity" paper is a mistery to me. Woodward seems to perfectly understand the issue and he even re-derives the argument, but at some points he gets basic physics completely wrong.
Even more strange, he actually acknowledged the energy production implications of his device many years ago, as is showed on this page (dated 1997!)

https://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/nasa-pap/ (https://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/nasa-pap/)

Quote
....

The appearance of momentum conservation violation in our impulse engine doesn't mean that momentum isn't conserved. It means that we can't treat the impulse engine as an isolated system. Since the effect responsible for the apparent violation of the conservation principle is inertial/gravitational, this should come as no surprise at all. As Mach's principle makes plain, anytime a process involves gravity/inertia, the only meaningful isolated system is the entire universe. Since inertial reaction forces appear instantaneous [see Woodward, 1996a and Cramer, 1997 in this connection], evidently our impulse engine is engaging in some "non-local" momentum transfer with the distant matter in the universe. With suitable choice of gauge, this momentum transfer can be envisaged as transpiring via retarded and advanced disturbances in the gravitational field that propagate with speed c.

Gauge freedom muddies up discussions of inertial reaction effects [Woodward, 1996a]. Choosing a gauge where all physical influences propagate at speeds figure has the advantage that lightcones in space-time have an invariant meaning, whereas the surfaces of simultaneity that appear in other gauges (e.g., the Coulomb gauge) do not. As just mentioned, in the Lorentz [or Einstein-Hilbert] gauge the inertial reaction effect, and thus our impulse engine, consists of a retarded/advanced coupling between the engine and the distant matter in the universe that lies along the future light cone. The introduction of the force transducer in the engine allows us to extract a net momentum flux here and now from the potentially largely thermalized matter in the far future. The net momentum flux is accompanied by a net energy flux, so although our impulse engine, considered locally, appears to violate energy conservation, that need not necessarily be the case. The extraction of useful work from matter that may be completely thermalized raises interesting questions. Boosting, rather than borrowing, from the future, however, seems to be the nature of the process involved.

...
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 11/17/2017 11:03 am
That "overunity" paper is a mistery to me. Woodward seems to perfectly understand the issue and he even re-derives the argument, but at some points he gets basic physics completely wrong.
Even more strange, he actually acknowledged the energy production implications of his device many years ago, as is showed on this page (dated 1997!)

https://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/nasa-pap/ (https://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/nasa-pap/)

The inflation event produced momentum.  Even thermalized matter is moving and experiences gravity.  Therefore even in the heat death future, there is a gravinertial field from which Feynman's backwards and forwards waves will originate and land--and that GI field can be exploited by a gravinertial drive.

Whatever error may have crept into his thinking at some point, Woodward currently acknowledges that seen as a closed system of only the vessel, a GI drive equipped ship will appear to violate CoE.  Since it is exploiting the GI field it is in, which encompasses at least the light cone of the observable universe, it is not such a closed system and is not violating CoE.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: mubahni on 11/17/2017 03:31 pm
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31037.0;attach=1460565;image)

Because the MET trace returns to baseline, it is plainly not a Dean Drive effect.  Because yours does not, it clearly is.

If you dispute this interpretation, please label your traces clearly and include data showing your mechanism does return to baseline position when unpowered or when driven out of proper phase.

So what is then the explanation for the sudden change in direction of the force in the attached presentation page 33 at about 42s. Was the change in direction not predicted by Dr. Rodal? See the proceedings of the Estes Park workshop.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 11/17/2017 04:29 pm
Woodward appears to have changed his arguments on the "over unity" issue but I don't agree with your analysis. The power you discuss is the mechanical power the moving device has with respect to some observer and is dependent on that observer. In Woodward's paper, the power is applied wrt the instantaneous rest frame co-moving with the device. That's makes a huge difference. It's just like the rocket you describe. The rocket does a burn of the same power irregardless of its current velocity wrt some observer. Yet the rocket's mechanical power as measured by some observer may be a lot higher or lower depending on the relative speed. So, no, I don't accept your statement that Woodward makes elementary mistakes.
In a rocket, you have to account for the loss (or gain in some frames) of mechanical energy by the exhaust. The chemical energy released is the same between frames, but not the energy imparted to the rocket. (You keep using the word power, but the energy is more relevant to this discussion. Power depends on whether the burn lasts 5 seconds or 5 minutes which is irrelevant to this discussion.)

Doing calculations in the "instantaneous rest frame" is one of the elementary mistakes. Since the frame is constantly changing, you are not using an inertial reference frame. There are ways to correctly do calculations in a non-inertial frame, but Woodward does not do these, and there is no point, since you can get the answer much more easily by just using an inertial frame.


I used power because that was the point about which I was responding. I agree with your point about accounting but it's different from the point I was making which was that in Woodward's paper in question, like the rocket, the energy coming from the device only has to support acceleration wrt the co-moving inertial frame at that instant, not the mechanical power wrt each observer which was a mistake in the critique I was commenting on. I believe Woodward's current position is that they are completely independent and the device only sets up the conditions that allow the Mach effect to work and not the energy to accelerate the device which comes from the gravitational potential of the universe. Still, I think the critique of his old paper was flawed.

Also, I am not "doing calculations" in a non-inertial constantly changing frame. I pick an inertial frame co-moving with the device at some instant and watch the evolution from that vantage point. I believe that's what Woodward did also in that paper.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 11/17/2017 07:35 pm
Also, I am not "doing calculations" in a non-inertial constantly changing frame. I pick an inertial frame co-moving with the device at some instant and watch the evolution from that vantage point. I believe that's what Woodward did also in that paper.
No by definition, the "instantaneous reference frame" is constantly changing and is therefore a non-inertial reference frame. If you were just picking a single frame to work with, then you could just pick the "initial rest frame" or define some other specific frame. Without changing the reference frame it is simple to show that any constant force/power relationship results in energy generation.

... It's just like the rocket you describe. The rocket does a burn of the same power...
...
I used power because that was the point about which I was responding.
No, you explicitly were referring to the other poster's paper and not Woodward's. Go read the paper again and you will see he use delta-energy (dE) not power.

I agree with your point about accounting but it's different from the point I was making which was that in Woodward's paper in question, like the rocket, the energy coming from the device only has to support acceleration wrt the co-moving inertial frame at that instant, not the mechanical power wrt each observer which was a mistake in the critique I was commenting on.
Completely false. When you say it only has to support the power in the co-moving frame, you are talking about a non-inertial reference frame. One second later, the object is moving at a different speed, so either your argument breaks down because you are no longer in a co-moving frame, you have made a mistake by changing reference frames while pretending you haven't, or you are using a non-inertial frame and leaving out all of the non-inertial effects. There is no mistake in the critique of Woodward's paper, and your attempt at claiming a mistake appears to be a complete strawman, because you are still using the term power while referring to a section of the critique that specifically calculated change in energy, not power. If you have any further complaints about that paper please reference the exact equation or statement that you have an issue with.

Maybe it would help you see the problem if you tried actually calculating the instantaneous rate of change of kinetic energy of an accelerating object that is currently at rest. This minimum power obviously cannot be the actual minimum for an object accelerating for a finite amount of time.

I believe Woodward's current position is that they are completely independent and the device only sets up the conditions that allow the Mach effect to work and not the energy to accelerate the device which comes from the gravitational potential of the universe. Still, I think the critique of his old paper was flawed.
Woodward's current position is not relevant to the question of whether he (and now you) made mistakes in entry level physics.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 11/17/2017 07:52 pm
Also, I am not "doing calculations" in a non-inertial constantly changing frame. I pick an inertial frame co-moving with the device at some instant and watch the evolution from that vantage point. I believe that's what Woodward did also in that paper.
No by definition, the "instantaneous reference frame" is constantly changing and is therefore a non-inertial reference frame. If you were just picking a single frame to work with, then you could just pick the "initial rest frame" or define some other specific frame. Without changing the reference frame it is simple to show that any constant force/power relationship results in energy generation.

... It's just like the rocket you describe. The rocket does a burn of the same power...
...
I used power because that was the point about which I was responding.
No, you explicitly were referring to the other poster's paper and not Woodward's. Go read the paper again and you will see he use delta-energy (dE) not power.

I agree with your point about accounting but it's different from the point I was making which was that in Woodward's paper in question, like the rocket, the energy coming from the device only has to support acceleration wrt the co-moving inertial frame at that instant, not the mechanical power wrt each observer which was a mistake in the critique I was commenting on.
Completely false. When you say it only has to support the power in the co-moving frame, you are talking about a non-inertial reference frame. One second later, the object is moving at a different speed, so either your argument breaks down because you are no longer in a co-moving frame, you have made a mistake by changing reference frames while pretending you haven't, or you are using a non-inertial frame and leaving out all of the non-inertial effects. There is no mistake in the critique of Woodward's paper, and your attempt at claiming a mistake appears to be a complete strawman, because you are still using the term power while referring to a section of the critique that specifically calculated change in energy, not power. If you have any further complaints about that paper please reference the exact equation or statement that you have an issue with.

Maybe it would help you see the problem if you tried actually calculating the instantaneous rate of change of kinetic energy of an accelerating object that is currently at rest. This minimum power obviously cannot be the actual minimum for an object accelerating for a finite amount of time.

I believe Woodward's current position is that they are completely independent and the device only sets up the conditions that allow the Mach effect to work and not the energy to accelerate the device which comes from the gravitational potential of the universe. Still, I think the critique of his old paper was flawed.
Woodward's current position is not relevant to the question of whether he (and now you) made mistakes in entry level physics.


Here is Tellmeagain's statements I'm responding to; it's all about power. And it's fundamentally flawed because he fundamentally misunderstands Woodward's paper in the first place. He claims Woodward is defining the figure of merit when in fact, Woodward is criticizing his critics for defining a figure of merit.

The power of F, denoted as P, can be obtained too,
P =d(Ef−Ei)/dt=Fat
It is obvious that P is not fixed, but increases with t because M moves faster and faster with t.
Now take a look of his equation (10). By defining a con- stant figure of merit, he explicitly made P = FmF con- stant. This directly contradicts to the fact P = F at. No wonder he reached contradiction as shown by his equa- tion (15).


Your comment;

Quote
Completely false. When you say it only has to support the power in the co-moving frame, you are talking about a non-inertial reference frame. One second later, the object is moving at a different speed, so either your argument breaks down because you are no longer in a co-moving frame, you have made a mistake by changing reference frames while pretending you haven't, or you are using a non-inertial frame and leaving out all of the non-inertial effects. There is no mistake in the critique of Woodward's paper, and your attempt at claiming a mistake appears to be a complete strawman, because you are still using the term power while referring to a section of the critique that specifically calculated change in energy, not power. If you have any further complaints about that paper please reference the exact equation or statement that you have an issue with.

My co-moving frame is as valid a frame as staying in the initial rest frame. I'm watching the acceleration now from a frame in constant velocity which is just as valid. The reference is above. Thanks.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 11/17/2017 08:40 pm
Here is Tellmeagain's statements I'm responding to; it's all about power. And it's fundamentally flawed because he fundamentally misunderstands Woodward's paper in the first place. He claims Woodward is defining the figure of merit when in fact, Woodward is criticizing his critics for defining a figure of merit.

The power of F, denoted as P, can be obtained too,
P =d(Ef−Ei)/dt=Fat
It is obvious that P is not fixed, but increases with t because M moves faster and faster with t.
Now take a look of his equation (10). By defining a con- stant figure of merit, he explicitly made P = FmF con- stant. This directly contradicts to the fact P = F at. No wonder he reached contradiction as shown by his equa- tion (15).
First, you specifically were referring to the rocket that was discussed in the critique. That was in section III, but your quote is from section II. Stop trying to change what you said retroactively.

Second, all Woodward would have to do is show that equation 10 does not apply to his device, yet he never does so, and instead goes on to use equation 13 (which is directly derived from equation 10) in his final paragraph, despite having already shown that equation 10 is simply incompatible with the rest of physics. It is not a misunderstanding of Woodward's paper, but a fact that he does not actually reject equation 10.

Instead of denying equation 10, Woodward tries to claim that there is something wrong with the elementary school level of algebra that shows that equation 10 is inconsistent with the entire rest of physics. You are the one who does not appear to have understood Woodward's paper.

Quote
Completely false. When you say it only has to support the power in the co-moving frame, you are talking about a non-inertial reference frame. One second later, the object is moving at a different speed, so either your argument breaks down because you are no longer in a co-moving frame, you have made a mistake by changing reference frames while pretending you haven't, or you are using a non-inertial frame and leaving out all of the non-inertial effects. There is no mistake in the critique of Woodward's paper, and your attempt at claiming a mistake appears to be a complete strawman, because you are still using the term power while referring to a section of the critique that specifically calculated change in energy, not power. If you have any further complaints about that paper please reference the exact equation or statement that you have an issue with.

My co-moving frame is as valid a frame as staying in the initial rest frame. I'm watching the acceleration now from a frame in constant velocity which is just as valid. The reference is above. Thanks.
A co-moving frame with an accelerating object is by definition accelerating. If you actually define a single instant and stay with it (you still haven't picked one), then you just get the same results as in the critique, that Woodward's paper is wrong. The mistake that Woodward makes that you seem intent on ignoring is that he changes reference frames repeatedly without doing any frame change calculations.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 11/18/2017 04:58 pm
Here is Tellmeagain's statements I'm responding to; it's all about power. And it's fundamentally flawed because he fundamentally misunderstands Woodward's paper in the first place. He claims Woodward is defining the figure of merit when in fact, Woodward is criticizing his critics for defining a figure of merit.

The power of F, denoted as P, can be obtained too,
P =d(Ef−Ei)/dt=Fat
It is obvious that P is not fixed, but increases with t because M moves faster and faster with t.
Now take a look of his equation (10). By defining a con- stant figure of merit, he explicitly made P = FmF con- stant. This directly contradicts to the fact P = F at. No wonder he reached contradiction as shown by his equa- tion (15).
First, you specifically were referring to the rocket that was discussed in the critique. That was in section III, but your quote is from section II. Stop trying to change what you said retroactively.

Second, all Woodward would have to do is show that equation 10 does not apply to his device, yet he never does so, and instead goes on to use equation 13 (which is directly derived from equation 10) in his final paragraph, despite having already shown that equation 10 is simply incompatible with the rest of physics. It is not a misunderstanding of Woodward's paper, but a fact that he does not actually reject equation 10.

Instead of denying equation 10, Woodward tries to claim that there is something wrong with the elementary school level of algebra that shows that equation 10 is inconsistent with the entire rest of physics. You are the one who does not appear to have understood Woodward's paper.

Quote
Completely false. When you say it only has to support the power in the co-moving frame, you are talking about a non-inertial reference frame. One second later, the object is moving at a different speed, so either your argument breaks down because you are no longer in a co-moving frame, you have made a mistake by changing reference frames while pretending you haven't, or you are using a non-inertial frame and leaving out all of the non-inertial effects. There is no mistake in the critique of Woodward's paper, and your attempt at claiming a mistake appears to be a complete strawman, because you are still using the term power while referring to a section of the critique that specifically calculated change in energy, not power. If you have any further complaints about that paper please reference the exact equation or statement that you have an issue with.

My co-moving frame is as valid a frame as staying in the initial rest frame. I'm watching the acceleration now from a frame in constant velocity which is just as valid. The reference is above. Thanks.
A co-moving frame with an accelerating object is by definition accelerating. If you actually define a single instant and stay with it (you still haven't picked one), then you just get the same results as in the critique, that Woodward's paper is wrong. The mistake that Woodward makes that you seem intent on ignoring is that he changes reference frames repeatedly without doing any frame change calculations.

I was reacting to the quote I showed from section two and added a mention of rockets to make my point. The fact that the paper starts talking about rockets in section three is quite irrelevant. I agree "a co-moving frame with an accelerating object is by definition accelerating". You must have assumed I meant a continuous jump to a different co-moving frame each instant which I did not nor I believe does Woodward in that paper. He picks a new reference frame at certain time intervals for his argument which was certainly allowed and valid. I'm not necessarily agreeing with his argument nor do I have to in order to see the critique is still flawed.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/18/2017 06:19 pm
Version 4 of the shaker works far better than version 3.  ;D   I nearly quadrupled the shaker's mass and moved it to the same level as the torsional pendulum beam. So now there is a 40 gram stainless steel mass that I can vibrate at a range of frequencies.

As predicted the displacement was also increased. 1Hz had the greatest overall "thrust" but not by much. There were frequencies that did not produce any "thrust", namely 50Hz. But overall, it is now fairly trivial to produce a "thrust" signal using a vibrating mass on a torsional pendulum. The raw data is also included below in excel.

The blue On/Off signals are a little off because I was having to send those manually by ear and the low Hz was hard to hear.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 11/18/2017 07:09 pm
I was reacting to the quote I showed from section two and added a mention of rockets to make my point.
Your exact words were:
In Woodward's paper, the power is applied wrt the instantaneous rest frame co-moving with the device. That's makes a huge difference. It's just like the rocket you describe. The rocket does a burn of the same power irregardless of its current velocity wrt some observer.
There is no possible way I can interpret this except you talking about section 3 where the rocket is discussed, and maybe section 4 which discusses Woodward's abuse of reference frames. There is literally nothing there that would suggest you talking about section 2.

I agree "a co-moving frame with an accelerating object is by definition accelerating". You must have assumed I meant a continuous jump to a different co-moving frame each instant which I did not
You are going to have to clarify what you are saying here. You agree that a co-moving frame is accelerating, and then you claim that your co-moving frame you were discussing was not accelerating. You agreed with my definition of co-moving frame, and then immediately used it contrary to this definition.

nor I believe does Woodward in that paper. He picks a new reference frame at certain time intervals for his argument which was certainly allowed and valid.
Except he does no frame change calculations when he changes frames, so his calculations are not even remotely valid.


nor I believe I'm not necessarily agreeing with his argument
If you agree that Woodward's argument is wrong, then the original point that was made that Woodward failed at freshman level physics stands.

nor I believe nor do I have to in order to see the critique is still flawed.
Yet you cannot point to a single flaw in the critique. The only specific thing you have pointed to so far involved you claiming that Woodward's paper states the exact opposite of the nonsense that Woodward concluded.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 11/18/2017 10:37 pm
Version 4 of the shaker works far better than version 3.  ;D   I nearly quadrupled the shaker's mass and moved it to the same level as the torsional pendulum beam. So now there is a 40 gram stainless steel mass that I can vibrate at a range of frequencies.

As predicted the displacement was also increased. 1Hz had the greatest overall "thrust" but not by much. There were frequencies that did not produce any "thrust", namely 50Hz. But overall, it is now fairly trivial to produce a "thrust" signal using a vibrating mass on a torsional pendulum. The raw data is also included below in excel.

The blue On/Off signals are a little off because I was having to send those manually by ear and the low Hz was hard to hear.

Are you driving this with a sine wave or a pulse train?

If it's a pulse as I see on the images, then it's really not just 1Hz. There are a lot of frequencies in the sharp transitions On-Off and Off-On.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/18/2017 11:19 pm
Are you driving this with a sine wave or a pulse train?

If it's a pulse as I see on the images, then it's really not just 1Hz. There are a lot of frequencies in the sharp transitions On-Off and Off-On.
Right now it is a square wave. The next upgrade to the arduino will allow me to use sine, square, triangle, sawtooth, and more.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Rodal on 11/19/2017 09:14 pm
Are you driving this with a sine wave or a pulse train?

If it's a pulse as I see on the images, then it's really not just 1Hz. There are a lot of frequencies in the sharp transitions On-Off and Off-On.
Right now it is a square wave. The next upgrade to the arduino will allow me to use sine, square, triangle, sawtooth, and more.
Assuming you are inputting a voltage excitation, did you (or are you planning to) conduct tests to show what is the measured curve of force vs. voltage you get for this shaker test?

For the MEGA drive Fearn/Woodward report force ~ voltage^4
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 11/19/2017 09:56 pm
Version 4 of the shaker works far better than version 3.  ;D   I nearly quadrupled the shaker's mass and moved it to the same level as the torsional pendulum beam. So now there is a 40 gram stainless steel mass that I can vibrate at a range of frequencies.

As predicted the displacement was also increased. 1Hz had the greatest overall "thrust" but not by much. There were frequencies that did not produce any "thrust", namely 50Hz. But overall, it is now fairly trivial to produce a "thrust" signal using a vibrating mass on a torsional pendulum. The raw data is also included below in excel.

The blue On/Off signals are a little off because I was having to send those manually by ear and the low Hz was hard to hear.

I could be wrong but at 1Hz, what this one looks like to me is;

(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31037.0;attach=1461117;image)

When the very first pulse turns on, the displacement of the shaker displaces the pendulum arm in the opposite direction. The shaker has a very long displacement compare to a MEGA Drive. The length of that displacement plunger and the mass it displaces, also displaces the pendulum arm by a proportional amount.

zCM = (marm * z1 + mshaker * z2)/(marm + mshaker)

The value z2 - z1 between the two masses gets longer on the first pulse. After that, the slow response of the balance does not bring it back because the shaker displacement arm is holding it there "on average". The CM is not thrusting, it's just offset from where it was before the plunger arm was extended.

A test would be to force the shaker to keep the plunger extended and then see where the pendulum arm comes to rest.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/19/2017 10:09 pm
Assuming you are inputting a voltage excitation, did you (or are you planning to) conduct tests to show what is the measured curve of force vs. voltage you get for this shaker test?

For the MEGA drive Fearn/Woodward report force ~ voltage^4

Yes, and that is another upgrade I plan on making in the next couple of days. I have a spare Dataq ADC and a free USB port on the on-board PC. However, the data from the two separate ADCs will need to be combined later. I've never done that before, but I don't think it will be a problem so long as I keep the sample rates the same.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: aceshigh on 11/20/2017 01:31 am

Honestly, I don't care if you have personally lost interest. I am just pointing out that if you want to show that the experimental results are being incorrectly interpreted. You have to do way more than you have done so far, otherwise, all you have is a belief that the measured effect is something else.

Basically, I am asking for critics to do the same thing they ask others to do.  If a critic isn't willing to do that when the person/team proposing a new idea has done the work to show agreement with their theory so far. I have a hard time taking the critics seriously.

P.S. please also keep in mind that it looks like between estes park last year and the NIAC presentation a lot more experimental runs have been performed that continue to show strong agreement with the predicted scaling.

We direct our limited resources (time, brain capacity...) based on our own judgement. Calling it belief is not too inaccurate. Anyway, I am out of this MET business and it is my belief that it will not go too far.


maybe I misunderstood you at page 55?

I thought you meant that you would not make any effort to disprove the ME Thruster theory because you had no time to lose with it.

But it also seemed to me you would stop with your baseless criticism...
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 11/20/2017 01:49 am
Assuming you are inputting a voltage excitation, did you (or are you planning to) conduct tests to show what is the measured curve of force vs. voltage you get for this shaker test?

For the MEGA drive Fearn/Woodward report force ~ voltage^4

Jamie’s shakers are electromagnetic solenoid based. The force is determined by the gradient in the inductance as the armature moves, and is proportional to B2. But it is also ferromagnetic, so the response of the armature will be non-linear. Once the pulse is applied the armature is going to "jump" to the opposite position. Unfortunately, while I have the equation for the force, I don’t know the relationship between Voltage and Displacement of the armature and he’s not driving it with a sine wave. (yet)

Any ideas or suggestions on how we calculate the displacement as a function of voltage for a solenoid armature? Given that, we can answer your question.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 11/20/2017 11:00 am
Testing vibrating devices for thrust on a torsional pendulum is a fundamentally flawed experiment. I would recommend switching to a linear track where acceleration over a distance can be shown. That the device can cause a box attached to an arm to jiggle one way or the other is not very convincing in my opinion.

An idea could be building a small track (like a railway) placing the thruster over a ball bearings chariot and ensuring the track has a slight slope (just enough to keep the chariot down to starting position) so that the vibrator will need to push the chariot "up the rail" (and will go back to initial position when unpowered)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/20/2017 11:59 am
An idea could be building a small track (like a railway) placing the thruster over a ball bearings chariot and ensuring the track has a slight slope (just enough to keep the chariot down to starting position) so that the vibrator will need to push the chariot "up the rail" (and will go back to initial position when unpowered)

That would still have the same flaw as the torsional pendulum. There needs to be no resistance to its movement, friction, gravity, or torsional spring rate. I would build a frictionless linear track, whether an air track or something electromagnetic I am not sure. Then I would mount two thrusters pointing in opposite directions. Allow the thruster assembly to freely float and use one thruster at a time to change the direction at will. And if Woodward can then show an acceleration curve over a distance of a few cm, then that would be very convincing. I think a rotary platform would also satisfy this requirement.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 11/20/2017 12:30 pm
@Monomorphic

If you have time I'd suggest you to read the article by Millis I posted few pages ago.
In short, using an air track can give spurious signals too; according to him, the best way to check for an unambiguous thrust signal is to use a level pendulum by putting both the device and the auxiliary sistems connected to it on a platform.

Quote
Basics of a level pendulum test. A pendulum is a simple tool for measuring lateral force and a level pendulum keeps the test platform from tilting during operation. If a thrusting device can sustain a deflection of a level pendulum, then there is strong evidence toward the claim of net thrust. It is anticipated, however, that mechanical devices will instead oscillate the pendulum back and forth, with the average position being zero deflection.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 11/20/2017 07:33 pm
I was reacting to the quote I showed from section two and added a mention of rockets to make my point.
Your exact words were:
In Woodward's paper, the power is applied wrt the instantaneous rest frame co-moving with the device. That's makes a huge difference. It's just like the rocket you describe. The rocket does a burn of the same power irregardless of its current velocity wrt some observer.
There is no possible way I can interpret this except you talking about section 3 where the rocket is discussed, and maybe section 4 which discusses Woodward's abuse of reference frames. There is literally nothing there that would suggest you talking about section 2.

I agree "a co-moving frame with an accelerating object is by definition accelerating". You must have assumed I meant a continuous jump to a different co-moving frame each instant which I did not
You are going to have to clarify what you are saying here. You agree that a co-moving frame is accelerating, and then you claim that your co-moving frame you were discussing was not accelerating. You agreed with my definition of co-moving frame, and then immediately used it contrary to this definition.

nor I believe does Woodward in that paper. He picks a new reference frame at certain time intervals for his argument which was certainly allowed and valid.
Except he does no frame change calculations when he changes frames, so his calculations are not even remotely valid.


nor I believe I'm not necessarily agreeing with his argument
If you agree that Woodward's argument is wrong, then the original point that was made that Woodward failed at freshman level physics stands.

nor I believe nor do I have to in order to see the critique is still flawed.
Yet you cannot point to a single flaw in the critique. The only specific thing you have pointed to so far involved you claiming that Woodward's paper states the exact opposite of the nonsense that Woodward concluded.


Quote
Your exact words were

You'd make a great lawyer.  ;)

Quote
There is no possible way I can interpret this except you talking about section 3 where the rocket is discussed, and maybe section 4 which discusses Woodward's abuse of reference frames. There is literally nothing there that would suggest you talking about section 2.

I told you I was talking about the quote in section two. That should settle it.

I pointed to a major flaw in the critique. I'm not going to rehash.

Quote
You are going to have to clarify what you are saying here. You agree that a co-moving frame is accelerating, and then you claim that your co-moving frame you were discussing was not accelerating. You agreed with my definition of co-moving frame, and then immediately used it contrary to this definition.

I explained what I meant as does professor Woodward. Please reread the caveat with the word 'continuous'.

I suggest we move on. Thanks for the discussion. Have a nice Thanksgiving. :)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 11/20/2017 09:56 pm
I pointed to a major flaw in the critique. I'm not going to rehash.
Did you write it in invisible ink?

As I literally just said:
Yet you cannot point to a single flaw in the critique. The only specific thing you have pointed to so far involved you claiming that Woodward's paper states the exact opposite of the nonsense that Woodward concluded.
Either you did not read the post you were responding to, or you are making a false statement while knowing that you are wrong.

Quote
You are going to have to clarify what you are saying here. You agree that a co-moving frame is accelerating, and then you claim that your co-moving frame you were discussing was not accelerating. You agreed with my definition of co-moving frame, and then immediately used it contrary to this definition.

I explained what I meant as does professor Woodward. Please reread the caveat with the word 'continuous'.
For the phrase "a co-moving frame with an accelerating object is by definition accelerating" to be true (which you agreed) then "continuous" must be wrapped into the definition of co-moving. Your next sentence implied that co-moving did not mean continuous. I can only read this as a contradiction.

I told you I was talking about the quote in section two. That should settle it.
I agree that should settle it and I should just accept that you miscommunicated. However, this is in the same post where you claim that you pointed out a major flaw in the critique immediately after I just pointed out that the only specific thing you pointed to was actually correct and in claiming it was a flaw you misrepresented Woodward's conclusion. When you are already engaging in what appears to be blatant intellectual dishonesty, I have trouble accepting that this is what you really intended.

In a way it is as settled as it can be, because the only way you are going to convince me of this now is by demonstrating some honesty elsewhere, starting with acknowledging that I provided a complete counterargument to the supposed flaw you pointed to.

I suggest we move on. Thanks for the discussion. Have a nice Thanksgiving. :)
Not going to move on as long as you continue to slander another poster here by claiming a major flaw in their work while not actually pointing to any flaws.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 11/21/2017 12:17 am
I pointed to a major flaw in the critique. I'm not going to rehash.
Did you write it in invisible ink?

As I literally just said:
Yet you cannot point to a single flaw in the critique. The only specific thing you have pointed to so far involved you claiming that Woodward's paper states the exact opposite of the nonsense that Woodward concluded.
Either you did not read the post you were responding to, or you are making a false statement while knowing that you are wrong.

Quote
You are going to have to clarify what you are saying here. You agree that a co-moving frame is accelerating, and then you claim that your co-moving frame you were discussing was not accelerating. You agreed with my definition of co-moving frame, and then immediately used it contrary to this definition.

I explained what I meant as does professor Woodward. Please reread the caveat with the word 'continuous'.
For the phrase "a co-moving frame with an accelerating object is by definition accelerating" to be true (which you agreed) then "continuous" must be wrapped into the definition of co-moving. Your next sentence implied that co-moving did not mean continuous. I can only read this as a contradiction.

I told you I was talking about the quote in section two. That should settle it.
I agree that should settle it and I should just accept that you miscommunicated. However, this is in the same post where you claim that you pointed out a major flaw in the critique immediately after I just pointed out that the only specific thing you pointed to was actually correct and in claiming it was a flaw you misrepresented Woodward's conclusion. When you are already engaging in what appears to be blatant intellectual dishonesty, I have trouble accepting that this is what you really intended.

In a way it is as settled as it can be, because the only way you are going to convince me of this now is by demonstrating some honesty elsewhere, starting with acknowledging that I provided a complete counterargument to the supposed flaw you pointed to.

I suggest we move on. Thanks for the discussion. Have a nice Thanksgiving. :)
Not going to move on as long as you continue to slander another poster here by claiming a major flaw in their work while not actually pointing to any flaws.


Certainly I believe you think you provided a complete counter argument which I didn't accept but it seems to me that you actually require me to accept your counter argument in order to be intellectually honest. I hope that's not the case or there would be no point in discussing anything if one had to agree.

I think we obviously are having such serious miscommunications so why insist on untangling a web of misunderstandings? I really don't wish to argue about the debate instead of debating about the ideas. If one can't say a paper, theory or idea is wrong or flawed without being accused of 'slander' we might as well shut down this group. This isn't the 16th century where people took debates personal and dueled over scientific disagreements. I'll ask again, let's please move on and enjoy a nice Thanksgiving. Thanks.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 11/21/2017 01:58 am
Certainly I believe you think you provided a complete counter argument which I didn't accept but it seems to me that you actually require me to accept your counter argument in order to be intellectually honest. I hope that's not the case or there would be no point in discussing anything if one had to agree.
Until this post you never so much as acknowledged that I had made a counterargument, while still insisting that you had found a "major flaw," as if my counterargument didn't even exist. That is dishonest.

I think we obviously are having such serious miscommunications so why insist on untangling a web of misunderstandings?
How are we supposed to communicate if we don't clarify misunderstandings?

I really don't wish to argue about the debate instead of debating about the ideas.
Actions speak louder than words. You have made 3 responses to me since the first post where I presented the counterargument to your point, yet this is the first post you have acknowledged that the counterargument exists, and you still haven't said a word about the content of the counterargument. Based on this evidence it seems that you have no interest in debating about the ideas. Please, prove me wrong. It is easy, you just have to actually respond to the content of what I wrote, none of the rest of this post is relevant since it is just meta-discussion that no longer matters if you actually discuss the ideas. I'll even repeat my counterargument here for convenience:
Second, all Woodward would have to do is show that equation 10 does not apply to his device, yet he never does so, and instead goes on to use equation 13 (which is directly derived from equation 10) in his final paragraph, despite having already shown that equation 10 is simply incompatible with the rest of physics. It is not a misunderstanding of Woodward's paper, but a fact that he does not actually reject equation 10.

If one can't say a paper, theory or idea is wrong or flawed without being accused of 'slander' we might as well shut down this group. This isn't the 16th century where people took debates personal and dueled over scientific disagreements. I'll ask again, let's please move on and enjoy a nice Thanksgiving. Thanks.
It becomes slander when you repeatedly act as if no counterargument has been made, and present no new evidence.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 11/21/2017 06:15 am
Meberbs, Bob012345

Guys, your discussion has become so meta that it is useless. You are arguing about arguing about arguing...

Get back to the source material. I think the entire Woodward paper is essentially contained in the final paragraph.

To wrap this up, we ask: is it possible to do a correct calculation of the sort that
critics did that does not lead to wrong predictions of the violation of energy conservation?
By paying attention to the physics of the situation, yes, such a calculation is possible.
We take Equations (9) and (13) as the integrations for the constant force work equation and
the figure of merit equation respectively.  We know that, starting from t= 0, if we let the
integration interval t get very large, the work equation integral will first equal and then
exceed the energy calculated by the figure of merit equation.  So we require that t be
sufficiently small that this obvious violation of energy conservation does not happen. 
Should all of the input power be transformed into kinetic energy, we would choose the
positive root of the solution of Equation (15).  If some of the power ends up as, for
example, heat, then a smaller value of t would obtain.  We then choose the
value of t for the time differential that for all intervals to be summed to get the energies for the two
methods.  That is, we note what should be obvious physics for this situation: the energies added to the two sums in every differential time interval are always in the same ratio as
they are in the very first interval because the only invariant velocity that exists in this
case is the one of instantaneous rest at the outset of each interval. If this prescription
– the only one that makes physical sense in the circumstances – is followed, no energy
conservation violation follows from the calculation.  And elementary mechanics is not
threatened by an obviously wrong calculation


I think this paragraph is the whole point and result of the paper. Now if both of you can explain exactly what Woodward is saying here and explain why it does or does not violate entry level physics. Don't even worry about the math for now. Just show that you understand what is being said.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 11/21/2017 01:37 pm
Referring again to PotomacNeuron's last comment:

Indeed mistakes like these don't give a good image of their work and I feel that, since Woodward has apparently changed (again) his mind on this matter he should either rewrite that document or at least ask SSI administrator to remove it.


Regarding the quality of his theory, it seems that no one here is qualified enough to assess it.
Still, the fact that the papers detailing it have been sitting on a serious peer-review journal starting from 1990 can't be ignored. (Foundations of Physics Letters, now absorbed into Foundations of Physics).
It means, at least, that there shouldn't be any obvious fundamental mistake within these papers, like the one discussed here.

Critics in most cases don't even try reading any of his papers, considering his work as "crackpottery".
When asked where is the error they point to "local conservation laws violation", bypassing the actual question to point out where exactly Woodward goes wrong, since these apparent violations are deduced consequences, but they are not assumptions contained in his work, or chances are his papers wouldn't have last that long in a scientific journal.

I think this is a legitimate and reasonable request to critics. Without any detailed discussion like this I find hard to not be at least positively skeptic. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: missinglink on 11/21/2017 06:14 pm
A glance at http://retractionwatch.com/ shows that publication in a peer-reviewed journal isn't necessarily a strong indicator of quality.

Number of citations is better, but there have been examples of "gaming the system" here, too.

Some retracted papers actually have more citations post retraction than before!

In any case, to an outsider peer review and citations are merely indirect indicators. Another indirect indicator is observing how people argue.

I must confess that I am irritated by how little support forum member meberbs is getting from the moderators. More than once, advocates of one hypothesis/theory or another violate the bounds of decorum by engaging in stalling, misdirection, pretend misunderstanding and other rhetorical tricks while meberbs stays scrupulously on topic.

Would be nice to see forum moderation drop "evenhandedness" in favor of evaluating actual conduct.

(None of the above should be taken as casting aspersions of any kind on Professor Woodward.)

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 11/21/2017 09:39 pm
@ missinglink

Of course, I'm not claiming it to be a strong indicator or quality. Skepticism is always encouraged.
But again, if the peer-review process was conducted properly, one should reasonably conclude (at the very least) that a team of experts didn't find anything fundamentally and obviously wrong in Woodward hypothesis.
Considering what this hypothesis is about, that's a quite remarkable achievement already.


In general, I agree with you about the number of citations and looking on how people argue about, though in certain cases this could be unhelpful, even in the absence of people cheating the system.

In many fields there is just a handful of leading specialists around the world who both produce original work themselves and also peer review each other’s work.
Certain specific field of research get a quite low number of citations simply because they are "unfashionable" or controversial, and not many people are working on it, let alone arguing about it.
People might think a certain research is not important because it is not highly cited but it is not highly cited because people think it is unimportant (since otherwise it would be highly cited)
 
Works about Mach's principle and origin of inertia fall right into this category.
There was a recent nice article on American Scientist about it, and its conclusion is similar

https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-forgotten-mystery-of-inertia# (https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-forgotten-mystery-of-inertia#)



On a different note, I knew before (and your link sort of confirms it) that the most severe misconducts in peer review publication seem to happen in the biology/medicine field. Similar events seem to be much rarer in physical sciences.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 11/22/2017 04:43 pm
How to push on the Vacuum, or create friction with the Vacuum using Radiation Reaction.

I think the Woodward effect can be modeled this way, but please note that this is a work in progress. Not a paper for review. I'm hoping to give us something to discuss and make the conversation a little more productive.  8)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 11/27/2017 12:02 am
How to push on the Vacuum, or create friction with the Vacuum using Radiation Reaction.

I think the Woodward effect can be modeled this way, but please note that this is a work in progress. Not a paper for review. I'm hoping to give us something to discuss and make the conversation a little more productive.  8)

So a rocket needs propellant.  What do you suspect might be being displaced?  Is this something being displaced similar to what seems to be a change in the velocity of c around a rotating object via the frame dragging effect?  Could it be related to length contraction such as what happens when accelerating inducing a change in ones acceleration to ensure they do not surpass c.  That is under acceleration the contraction of space time being a flow of something? 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 11/27/2017 02:01 am
How to push on the Vacuum, or create friction with the Vacuum using Radiation Reaction.

I think the Woodward effect can be modeled this way, but please note that this is a work in progress. Not a paper for review. I'm hoping to give us something to discuss and make the conversation a little more productive.  8)

So a rocket needs propellant.  What do you suspect might be being displaced?  Is this something being displaced similar to what seems to be a change in the velocity of c around a rotating object via the frame dragging effect?  Could it be related to length contraction such as what happens when accelerating inducing a change in ones acceleration to ensure they do not surpass c.  That is under acceleration the contraction of space time being a flow of something?

The damping coefficient shows the vacuum photons act like "friction", working against an atom when its da/dt =/= 0. So unequal masses on a spring will have unequal friction.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 11/27/2017 03:24 am
How to push on the Vacuum, or create friction with the Vacuum using Radiation Reaction.

I think the Woodward effect can be modeled this way, but please note that this is a work in progress. Not a paper for review. I'm hoping to give us something to discuss and make the conversation a little more productive.  8)

So a rocket needs propellant.  What do you suspect might be being displaced?  Is this something being displaced similar to what seems to be a change in the velocity of c around a rotating object via the frame dragging effect?  Could it be related to length contraction such as what happens when accelerating inducing a change in ones acceleration to ensure they do not surpass c.  That is under acceleration the contraction of space time being a flow of something?

The damping coefficient shows the vacuum photons act like "friction", working against an atom when its da/dt =/= 0. So unequal masses on a spring will have unequal friction.

Doesn't there need to be some change in effective mass between the push and pull to get effective thrust?  Your suggesting the heavier mass is pushed and the lighter mass is pulled?  Effectively showing more friction when the mass is heavier?  The result being a thrust effect via some coupling to something that effectively changes the mass?  Or am I mistaken in how I am taking this. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 11/27/2017 03:38 am
How to push on the Vacuum, or create friction with the Vacuum using Radiation Reaction.

I think the Woodward effect can be modeled this way, but please note that this is a work in progress. Not a paper for review. I'm hoping to give us something to discuss and make the conversation a little more productive.  8)

So a rocket needs propellant.  What do you suspect might be being displaced?  Is this something being displaced similar to what seems to be a change in the velocity of c around a rotating object via the frame dragging effect?  Could it be related to length contraction such as what happens when accelerating inducing a change in ones acceleration to ensure they do not surpass c.  That is under acceleration the contraction of space time being a flow of something?

The damping coefficient shows the vacuum photons act like "friction", working against an atom when its da/dt =/= 0. So unequal masses on a spring will have unequal friction.

Doesn't there need to be some change in effective mass between the push and pull to get effective thrust?  Your suggesting the heavier mass is pushed and the lighter mass is pulled?  Effectively showing more friction when the mass is heavier?  The result being a thrust effect via some coupling to something that effectively changes the mass?  Or am I mistaken in how I am taking this.

Take this with a grain of salt, but the RR Force apparently depends on da/dt, not a mass fluctuation. So I would guess it depends on da/dt and the number of atoms that are oscillating. Therefore, a light metal like Aluminum will have more atoms/kg of mass, as per Appendix B in Milonni's book.

The PZT stack does not have a symmetrical response. Piezoelectric effect and Electrostriction operate at frequencies w and 2w respectively. So the displacement of the stack when expanding from its "zero position" is different than the displacement when it's contracting from that position.

Suggestions are welcome, but per Jose's 2016 presentation, the force we want to amplify is toward the small aluminum mass, not the big brass mass. That would seem to imply a frame dragging effect.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 11/27/2017 04:07 am
How to push on the Vacuum, or create friction with the Vacuum using Radiation Reaction.

I think the Woodward effect can be modeled this way, but please note that this is a work in progress. Not a paper for review. I'm hoping to give us something to discuss and make the conversation a little more productive.  8)

So a rocket needs propellant.  What do you suspect might be being displaced?  Is this something being displaced similar to what seems to be a change in the velocity of c around a rotating object via the frame dragging effect?  Could it be related to length contraction such as what happens when accelerating inducing a change in ones acceleration to ensure they do not surpass c.  That is under acceleration the contraction of space time being a flow of something?

The damping coefficient shows the vacuum photons act like "friction", working against an atom when its da/dt =/= 0. So unequal masses on a spring will have unequal friction.

Doesn't there need to be some change in effective mass between the push and pull to get effective thrust?  Your suggesting the heavier mass is pushed and the lighter mass is pulled?  Effectively showing more friction when the mass is heavier?  The result being a thrust effect via some coupling to something that effectively changes the mass?  Or am I mistaken in how I am taking this.

Take this with a grain of salt, but the RR Force apparently depends on da/dt, not a mass fluctuation. So I would guess it depends on da/dt and the number of atoms that are oscillating. Therefore, a light metal like Aluminum will have more atoms/kg of mass, as per Appendix B in Milonni's book.

The PZT stack does not have a symmetrical response. Piezoelectric effect and Electrostriction operate at frequencies w and 2w respectively. So the displacement of the stack when expanding from its "zero position" is different than the displacement when it's contracting from that position.

Suggestions are welcome, but per Jose's 2016 presentation, the force we want to amplify is toward the small aluminum mass, not the big brass mass. That would seem to imply a frame dragging effect.

I see so your suggesting the change in effective mass has something to do with change in rate of acceleration.  So a larger rate of change in acceleration for the mass moving away and then a slower rate of change in acceleration of the mass towards gives an un-equal effect.  This change in effect suggests da/dt as a coupling mechanism. 

Something else I have been pondering is David Waite's general relativistic derivation of some negative mass associated with a particular charge.  I was pondering accelerating one charge away swapping charges so the other charge is stationary, then accelerating the other charge back.  This would provide some effective change in mass but it seems to be a different concept than the da/dt effect.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 11/27/2017 07:09 pm
Something related to WarpTech's equations above

How to push on the Vacuum, or create friction with the Vacuum using Radiation Reaction.

I think the Woodward effect can be modeled this way, but please note that this is a work in progress. Not a paper for review. I'm hoping to give us something to discuss and make the conversation a little more productive.  8)
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31037.0;attach=1461583;image)

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31037.0;attach=1461621;image)



I realized this morning is that Puthoff's equations for the polarizable vacuum suggest a changing mass per change in acceleration also. 
That is
Quote from: https://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/9909/9909037.pdf
Polarizable-Vacuum (PV) representation of general relativity
H. E. Puthoff
m(K) = m_o*K^(3/2)
so as an object falls into a gravity well undergoing a change in acceleration is mass changes also. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 12/01/2017 10:20 pm
I was able to upgrade the arduino setup to be able to send sine, square, sawtooth, chirps, plucks, and other wave signals to the asymmetric shaker. It was not easy!  I had to add a SD card to save the large number of WAV files used to store the signals being tested. Also seen below is the spare DATAQ ADC I added to monitor the voltage. Works great, but is only 240 Hz.  ???

I also created a physics-based simulation to better illustrate the effect.  I have greatly exaggerated the vibrating so the effect can be clearly seen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atnlRs-oKG8
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 12/02/2017 03:06 pm
I also simulated the "null test device" referenced in Experimental Null test of a Mach Effect Thruster. As expected, there was no displacement of the torsional pendulum due to the symmetric movement of the masses. If you continue watching, I show how varying the masses of different components affects the movement of the device.

https://youtu.be/2LeCvMcEjIk
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 12/02/2017 03:51 pm
@ Monomorphic

Thank you for doing these simulations.

It appears that the displacement you obtain in the asymmetric case is in the opposite direction of the displacement claimed by Woodward. That is, in his case the thrust is directed toward the thick brass mass, and with the device positioned like in your simulation the balance arm rotates clockwise when seen from above, while in your case the rotation is anticlockwise.

Aside from that, I don't know if you also simulated some non-linear behaviour, but without it should be impossible to get spurious thrust signal ( in the form of non zero average balance arm displacement).

If possible it would be interesting to simulate it along with the omega+2omega signal Woodward uses for his devices.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 12/02/2017 05:07 pm
It appears that the displacement you obtain in the asymmetric case is in the opposite direction of the displacement claimed by Woodward.

The direction of the displacement is the same as claimed by Woodward. It is easier to understand if I label everything properly.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 12/02/2017 05:34 pm
Quote
The direction of the displacement is the same as claimed by Woodward

I'm completely open to be disproved, but I'm afraid this is incorrect.
He claims that the "push when heavy / pull when light" action produces an actual force like the one drawn in the second diagram you posted. Such force creates a torque that rotates the balance arms accordingly. His explanation wouldn't make sense if the torque had the direction you show in your simulation.

I know that Tajmar has built a slightly different set up, but he seems to expect an actual displacement like the one I'm describing. (Picture from "Revolutionary Propulsion Research at TU Dresden)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 12/02/2017 06:01 pm
Quote
The direction of the displacement is the same as claimed by Woodward

I'm completely open to be disproved, but I'm afraid this is incorrect.
He claims that the "push when heavy / pull when light" action produces an actual force like the one drawn in the second diagram you posted. Such force creates a torque that rotates the balance arms accordingly. His explanation wouldn't make sense if the torque had the direction you show in your simulation.

I know that Tajmar has built a slightly different set up, but he seems to expect an actual displacement like the one I'm describing. (Picture from "Revolutionary Propulsion Research at TU Dresden)

Other sources I have seen show the thrust towards the brass mass.   Here is another from 2009 showing the thrust in the same direction. 

Flipping the simulated device 180 degrees also reverses the direction of the displacement.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 12/02/2017 06:04 pm
Something related to WarpTech's equations above

How to push on the Vacuum, or create friction with the Vacuum using Radiation Reaction.

I think the Woodward effect can be modeled this way, but please note that this is a work in progress. Not a paper for review. I'm hoping to give us something to discuss and make the conversation a little more productive.  8)
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31037.0;attach=1461583;image)

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31037.0;attach=1461621;image)



I realized this morning is that Puthoff's equations for the polarizable vacuum suggest a changing mass per change in acceleration also. 
That is
Quote from: https://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/9909/9909037.pdf
Polarizable-Vacuum (PV) representation of general relativity
H. E. Puthoff
m(K) = m_o*K^(3/2)
so as an object falls into a gravity well undergoing a change in acceleration is mass changes also.

Thanks WarpTech.

I suspect I may have connected the dots that describe how the EM drive is related to the Woodward effect.  The magnetic field at the tip of the frustum, being up, is of greater magnitude than the magnetic field at the lower portion of the frustum, down.  There is a dynamic effect that occurs when this happens.  The magnetic fields in the EM drive when created may initially be at equilibrium but as energy rapidly builds in the frustum the equilibrium may shift to compress the magnetic field below as in the crushing of a spring. 

This rapid build up in energy causes a rapid jerk or change in acceleration of the circulating current in the cavity toward the large end as the large end magnetic field is compressed. 

The trick to maximize the Woodward effect in the EM drive may be to maximize the amount of this current being displaced by this effect, maximize the change in energy in the input phase (bust pulse), allow gradual loss of energy in the dissipation phase to minimize jerk back (Quality effect). 

The greater change in acceleration of charge toward the large end (smaller da/dt toward the small end) suggest pushing the vacuum toward the large end (Thrust) and the resulting thrust force is toward the small end. 

I am still considering if this change in mass of the charges is akin to a change in mass of the light upon reflection and if it could lead to a 2nd order Doppler effect.  I.E. Absorption of energy by the vacuum. 

The trick now should be to get an estimate on the magnitude for such an effect.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 12/02/2017 06:18 pm
Quote
Other sources I have seen show the thrust towards the brass mass.   Here is another from 2009 showing the thrust in the same direction.

Yes, that's always how they draw it, because that's the direction they expect the thrust to be produced, and the balance arm displacement direction they get confirms that, it seems.
However in your simulation the displacement of the balance arm is in the opposite direction from the one you would expect from a genuine thrust signal (one directed toward the brass mass).
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 12/02/2017 06:25 pm
It appears that the displacement you obtain in the asymmetric case is in the opposite direction of the displacement claimed by Woodward.

The direction of the displacement is the same as claimed by Woodward. It is easier to understand if I label everything properly.

Uhuh.

Now please try the checks against false signals Woodward has documented, and run it in a vacuum as he has.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 12/02/2017 06:43 pm
Quote
Check this image again. The displacement in the center is better indicated now. It is in the direction one would expect from thrust coming out the left side.  Unless you have a better source, then I am inclined to go with what I have seen in the public domain.

I'd argue it is actually opposite. Using the notation of the scheme device you posted, the displacement you highlighted is in the positive x verse, while the thrust expected is in the negative x verse.

Imagine the thruster enclosed in a "black box" for simplicity, leaving the (supposedly real) thrust "coming out" the brass mass, in the same position on the balance of your first simulation. If you put this box on a balance like the one you simulated it will swing clockwise, not anticlockwise.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 12/02/2017 06:48 pm
Quote
Check this image again. The displacement in the center is better indicated now. It is in the direction one would expect from thrust coming out the left side.  Unless you have a better source, then I am inclined to go with what I have seen in the public domain.

I'd argue it is actually opposite. Using the notation of the scheme device you posted, the displacement you highlighted is in the positive x verse, while the thrust expected is in the negative x verse.

Imagine the thruster enclosed in a "black box" for simplicity, leaving the (supposedly real) thrust "coming out" the brass mass, in the same position on the balance of your first simulation. If you put this box on a balance like the one you simulated it will swing clockwise, not anticlockwise.

Povel,

You and Monomorphic are not using the word "Thrust" in the same sense. You are arguing the thrust is in the direction of movement. Monomorphic's diagram is indicating the thrust is out the back and its movement is in the opposite direction.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 12/02/2017 06:55 pm
Quote
Povel,

You and Monomorphic are not using the word "Thrust" in the same sense. You are arguing the thrust is in the direction of movement. Monomorphic's diagram is indicating the thrust is out the back and its movement is in the opposite direction.

I see, thank you for clarification WarpTech.
It seems incorrect to me, like for example I've never seen a rocket diagram with the thrust vector pointed away from the engines to be honest (that would be the drag direction at best). I'm pretty sure Woodward claims the device moves in the direction of the brass mass, so its thrust is directed in the same way.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 12/02/2017 06:55 pm
I'd argue it is actually opposite. Using the notation of the scheme device you posted, the displacement you highlighted is in the positive x verse, while the thrust expected is in the negative x verse.

Sorry, I think you are right and I have my labels for PZT and rubber backwards. This image is probably more accurate than the first.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 12/02/2017 06:58 pm
You and Monomorphic are not using the word "Thrust" in the same sense. You are arguing the thrust is in the direction of movement. Monomorphic's diagram is indicating the thrust is out the back and its movement is in the opposite direction.

Thanks, I was noticing that too. If used per these images, the second corrected diagram is more pricise I think.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 12/02/2017 07:36 pm
Quote
Sorry, I think you are right and I have my labels for PZT and rubber backwards. This image is probably more accurate than the first.

No problem.

So correct me if I'm wrong, but to mimic a (presumably on average zero) thrust signal this simulation shows that you basically need a quite thick rubber pad with very low damping.

It has been said in this thread that the purpose of these pads is to reduce the stress/act like dampers, so they would need to act in the exact opposite way for the sistem to act like in the simulation. It somehow sound strange to me.

It is well known though that rubber is a non-linear material, so its response might be not so easy to predict. It would be nice to have a more accurate simulation that includes this non-linear behaviour I think, as well as being able to show how friction/stiction can lead to false positives not averaging to zero.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 12/02/2017 07:36 pm
I'd argue it is actually opposite. Using the notation of the scheme device you posted, the displacement you highlighted is in the positive x verse, while the thrust expected is in the negative x verse.

Sorry, I think you are right and I have my labels for PZT and rubber backwards. This image is probably more accurate than the first.

Shawyer makes the same mistakes in his diagrams and I've seen it confuse a lot of people in the past few years. You need to be careful to use the term consistently with the Aerospace industry, not Shawyer.

I don't think you had rubber and PZT backwards. Your other diagram was correct. The rubber is a thin sheet, between the brass mass and the mounting bracket. The aluminum on the left is the mounting bracket, not the end cap. The aluminum on the right is the end cap, and the Thrust is toward that side.

Povel,

In the latest experiments and per Dr. Rodal's exact solution, the thrust is toward the aluminium end cap at the light-mass end of the stack.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 12/02/2017 07:53 pm
Quote
I don't think you had rubber and PZT backwards. Your other diagram was correct. The rubber is a thin sheet, between the brass mass and the mounting bracket. The aluminum on the left is the mounting bracket, not the end cap. The aluminum on the right is the end cap, and the Thrust is toward that side.

Since he's trying to model the device in the most "simple" regime tested by Woodward, the "thrust" direction in the first diagram is definitely wrong.


Quote
Povel,

In the latest experiments and per Dr. Rodal's exact solution, the thrust is toward the aluminium end cap at the light-mass end of the stack.


Are you referring to this? (From Estes Park Proceedings)

Quote
As the first fundamental frequency due to piezoelectricity is approached from lower or higher frequencies that
are more than the (dimensionless) damping ratio (the ratio of the actual damping to the critical value of
damping) away from the resonant frequency peak,  the Mach effect force response is directed towards the
tail  (brass)  big  mass,  in  agreement  with  the  experiments  of  Woodward  and  Fearn
.   Inside  a  bandwidth
enveloped by the damping ratio, the Mach effect force response changes direction and is instead directed in
the opposite direction, towards the front (aluminum) small mass, reaching a peak value at the piezoelectric
natural frequency that is seven times greater than the peak value reached in the direction towards the tail
mass

I don't claim that the thrust cannot change sign in other regimes, just that in the one Woodward conducted much of his work (and the one Monomorphic is trying to imitate with his shakers/simulation) the thrust should be in the direction of the brass mass, like Rodal says here.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 12/02/2017 08:08 pm
So correct me if I'm wrong, but to mimic a (presumably on average zero) thrust signal this simulation shows that you basically need a quite thick rubber pad with very low damping.

The end-cap positions make no difference to the final simulation. I spaced them equally wide here so the brass mass can move a large distance and be easily seen for illustrative purposes.  I could more accurately model the relative spacing of components, but it would only make the effect smaller and harder to see. 

Perhaps a program like Autodesk Inventor would be a good candidate for simulating the various material properties.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 12/03/2017 12:27 pm
In the latest experiments and per Dr. Rodal's exact solution, the thrust is toward the aluminium end cap at the light-mass end of the stack.

The thrust is dependent on the phase relationship of the mechanical vibrations and imposed voltages.  By moving them through 180 degrees, it can be nullified and reversed.  Of course none of it means anything until tested in a vacuum, and with the other tests in Woodward's protocol...

...Also many orders of magnitude more difficult to detect any signal produced by 250Hz, the effect is frequency dependent.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 12/04/2017 03:02 pm
In the latest experiments and per Dr. Rodal's exact solution, the thrust is toward the aluminium end cap at the light-mass end of the stack.

The thrust is dependent on the phase relationship of the mechanical vibrations and imposed voltages.  By moving them through 180 degrees, it can be nullified and reversed.  Of course none of it means anything until tested in a vacuum, and with the other tests in Woodward's protocol...

...Also many orders of magnitude more difficult to detect any signal produced by 250Hz, the effect is frequency dependent.

So as I have said, the best way for a skeptic to test Woodward's experiments might be to grab their devices, seal them in a box, and hang the box on the torsion balance. Otherwise what ever the skeptic could have done, people would point out their differences from Woodward's experiments and do not take them seriously.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 12/04/2017 05:58 pm
In the latest experiments and per Dr. Rodal's exact solution, the thrust is toward the aluminium end cap at the light-mass end of the stack.

The thrust is dependent on the phase relationship of the mechanical vibrations and imposed voltages.  By moving them through 180 degrees, it can be nullified and reversed.  Of course none of it means anything until tested in a vacuum, and with the other tests in Woodward's protocol...

...Also many orders of magnitude more difficult to detect any signal produced by 250Hz, the effect is frequency dependent.

So as I have said, the best way for a skeptic to test Woodward's experiments might be to grab their devices, seal them in a box, and hang the box on the torsion balance. Otherwise what ever the skeptic could have done, people would point out their differences from Woodward's experiments and do not take them seriously.

You realize not operating the devices on something like a torsion balance while in a vacuum does fail to exclude confounding false positives or negatives from reaction with the air, right?

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 12/04/2017 06:14 pm
You realize not operating the devices on something like a torsion balance while in a vacuum does fail to exclude confounding false positives or negatives from reaction with the air, right?

If the magnitude of the vibrations is high enough (large stroke with large mass), then the contribution of the air is negligible. Certainly not enough to cast the amount of doubt you are claiming. The air is simply pushed out of the way.

And the simulations I am running are performed in a "simulated" vacuum. Air is not a contributing factor there.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 12/04/2017 06:52 pm
In the latest experiments and per Dr. Rodal's exact solution, the thrust is toward the aluminium end cap at the light-mass end of the stack.

The thrust is dependent on the phase relationship of the mechanical vibrations and imposed voltages.  By moving them through 180 degrees, it can be nullified and reversed.  Of course none of it means anything until tested in a vacuum, and with the other tests in Woodward's protocol...

...Also many orders of magnitude more difficult to detect any signal produced by 250Hz, the effect is frequency dependent.

So as I have said, the best way for a skeptic to test Woodward's experiments might be to grab their devices, seal them in a box, and hang the box on the torsion balance. Otherwise what ever the skeptic could have done, people would point out their differences from Woodward's experiments and do not take them seriously.

You realize not operating the devices on something like a torsion balance while in a vacuum does fail to exclude confounding false positives or negatives from reaction with the air, right?

Air might be a confounding factor if there is movement/"thrust". However, it is not a confounding factor if there is no movement. So no, for my proposed experiment, it is not. That is the beauty of the experiment. Now the question is whether "they" are willing to lend their devices out.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 12/05/2017 12:18 am
In the latest experiments and per Dr. Rodal's exact solution, the thrust is toward the aluminium end cap at the light-mass end of the stack.

The thrust is dependent on the phase relationship of the mechanical vibrations and imposed voltages.  By moving them through 180 degrees, it can be nullified and reversed.  Of course none of it means anything until tested in a vacuum, and with the other tests in Woodward's protocol...

...Also many orders of magnitude more difficult to detect any signal produced by 250Hz, the effect is frequency dependent.

So as I have said, the best way for a skeptic to test Woodward's experiments might be to grab their devices, seal them in a box, and hang the box on the torsion balance. Otherwise what ever the skeptic could have done, people would point out their differences from Woodward's experiments and do not take them seriously.

You realize not operating the devices on something like a torsion balance while in a vacuum does fail to exclude confounding false positives or negatives from reaction with the air, right?

Air might be a confounding factor if there is movement/"thrust". However, it is not a confounding factor if there is no movement. So no, for my proposed experiment, it is not. That is the beauty of the experiment. Now the question is whether "they" are willing to lend their devices out.

Uhuh.  Why can't you build you own per their specs?  Like the other people replicating their work did?  For that matter, what is the difference between operating the device in an evacuated box on a torsion balance, and putting the whole thing in the vacuum?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 12/05/2017 02:15 am

Uhuh.  Why can't you build you own per their specs?  Like the other people replicating their work did?  For that matter, what is the difference between operating the device in an evacuated box on a torsion balance, and putting the whole thing in the vacuum?

Because I expect to see no thrust if I correctly control for the Bull's effect. Then you will say that's because my build is different and it can not be used to invalidate Woodward's experiment. That's why.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 12/05/2017 03:02 am

Uhuh.  Why can't you build you own per their specs?  Like the other people replicating their work did?  For that matter, what is the difference between operating the device in an evacuated box on a torsion balance, and putting the whole thing in the vacuum?

Because I expect to see no thrust if I correctly control for the Bull's effect. Then you will say that's because my build is different and it can not be used to invalidate Woodward's experiment. That's why.

That critique is only valid if your build deviate from the specs. If it doesnt then the critique is invalid. As a supporter of the work without the resources to do such a test myself I would love to see someone else do the test if they have the ability and resources. As long as they are going to be open about their build and willing to answer questions. I think if you did do a perfect build and got negative results I would want to know if the PZT stack is good.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 12/05/2017 03:26 am

Uhuh.  Why can't you build you own per their specs?  Like the other people replicating their work did?  For that matter, what is the difference between operating the device in an evacuated box on a torsion balance, and putting the whole thing in the vacuum?

Because I expect to see no thrust if I correctly control for the Bull's effect. Then you will say that's because my build is different and it can not be used to invalidate Woodward's experiment. That's why.

That critique is only valid if your build deviate from the specs. If it doesnt then the critique is invalid. As a supporter of the work without the resources to do such a test myself I would love to see someone else do the test if they have the ability and resources. As long as they are going to be open about their build and willing to answer questions. I think if you did do a perfect build and got negative results I would want to know if the PZT stack is good.

Agree. I was talking about if it were me how I would do it. I will not do the experiment for reasons presented on page 55. I'd like to see somebody to do the experiment. Monomorphic's experiment, however, as expected, drew critiques of being different.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 12/05/2017 01:12 pm
Agree. I was talking about if it were me how I would do it. I will not do the experiment for reasons presented on page 55. I'd like to see somebody to do the experiment. Monomorphic's experiment, however, as expected, drew critiques of being different.

My prediction is Woodward's MET wouldn't work as well on my torsional pendulum due to the mechanical differences between the two systems. Mine is much longer to accommodate a laser displacement sensor (LDS) with 3um resolution vs Woodward's 0.25um. A shorter stroke, as what is produced by the PZT, would be harder for me to detect. It may even fall below the resolution of my laser displacement sensors.   :-\

The most economical way for me to proceed is to complete this last series of physical tests with the asymmetric shaker, but then concentrate on producing a more accurate physics-based simulation. If the same effect can be produced with simple known physics via simulation, then there shouldn't be the need for anything else.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birchoff on 12/05/2017 02:29 pm
Agree. I was talking about if it were me how I would do it. I will not do the experiment for reasons presented on page 55. I'd like to see somebody to do the experiment. Monomorphic's experiment, however, as expected, drew critiques of being different.

My prediction is Woodward's MET wouldn't work as well on my torsional pendulum due to the mechanical differences between the two systems. Mine is much longer to accommodate a laser displacement sensor (LDS) with 3um resolution vs Woodward's 0.25um. A shorter stroke, as what is produced by the PZT, would be harder for me to detect. It may even fall below the resolution of my laser displacement sensors.   :-\

The most economical way for me to proceed is to complete this last series of physical tests with the asymmetric shaker, but then concentrate on producing a more accurate physics-based simulation. If the same effect can be produced with simple known physics via simulation, then there shouldn't be the need for anything else.

Was this done in a vaccum chamber?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 12/05/2017 03:16 pm
Was this done in a vaccum chamber?

No, as it was not necessary. The mass of air displaced during tests is very small <0.1g (1.225 x10−3 g/cm3). The amount of stainless steel is 40g (7.8 g/cm3). The first two shakers did not produce vibrations of sufficient magnitude, but version 3 and especially version 4 did. I would be willing to wager that Woodward's device "works" in air due to the large mass of the brass end-cap, but a vacuum is used so that the experiment is taken to be more rigorous. At any rate, it is better to create a more accurate simulation so I am not out the expense of more equipment. If the effect can be produced with simple rigid and soft body physics via simulation, then that is enough for me.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 12/07/2017 06:29 pm
Quote
I would be willing to wager that Woodward's device "works" in air due to the large mass of the brass end-cap, but a vacuum is used so that the experiment is taken to be more rigorous.

What do you mean by this? In his book there's a section dedicated to assessing the effect of air by testing the device at different atmospheric pressure. The result is that the presence of air doesn't seem to change that much the signals magnitude and shape.

Beside all the differences due to the different set up, I noticed that the "thrusts" signals you obtained (reply #1142, third figure) are all different both in magnitude and shape. I don't see the same level on consistency between the input and the output compared to those obtained by Woodward, Tajmar and Buldrini.

As for the simulations, it seems to me that the asymmetric shaker mounted on an ideal thrust/torsion balance can only produce constant oscillations at the same frequency of the shaker.
Without invoking some non-ideality causing Dean drive effects there's no way to get a steady deflection, since at the end of each cycle it would go to zero.




By the way, have there been any new developments? 
NIAC Phase I 9 months research-grant ends in January from what I know. Is there any possibility for Fearn&co to apply for Phase II?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 12/08/2017 12:43 pm
The result is that the presence of air doesn't seem to change that much the signals magnitude and shape.

That is exactly what I meant.

Beside all the differences due to the different set up, I noticed that the "thrusts" signals you obtained (reply #1142, third figure) are all different both in magnitude and shape. I don't see the same level on consistency between the input and the output compared to those obtained by Woodward, Tajmar and Buldrini.

See image below. V3 of the shaker showed results very similar to woodward effect traces. I've not yet tried to make the traces look similar with V4. I suspect I will need to use chirps.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 12/08/2017 02:53 pm
Quote
That is exactly what I meant

Sorry, I didn't get it.

Quote
See image below. V3 of the shaker showed results very similar to woodward effect traces. I've not yet tried to make the traces look similar with V4. I suspect I will need to use chirps

They look similar in shape, but not in duration. Each one of those chirped pulses lasts for almost 10 seconds each, which might or might not be due to the calibration of the balance. In your case the frequency of the pulses seems to be much closer to the driving frequency of the shaker (like one would expect).

When I'm referring to the output obtained by Woodward and others I'm thinking about these traces down here. As you can see they are characterized by the presence of transients and by a quite steady signal in the middle.
While the magnitude of the thrust signal seems to vary in different tests, its main features don't.
The steady signal in the middle is what I find most interesting.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 12/08/2017 04:36 pm
They look similar in shape, but not in duration. Each one of those chirped pulses lasts for almost 10 seconds each, which might or might not be due to the calibration of the balance. In your case the frequency of the pulses seems to be much closer to the driving frequency of the shaker (like one would expect).

When I'm referring to the output obtained by Woodward and others I'm thinking about these traces down here. As you can see they are characterized by the presence of transients and by a quite steady signal in the middle.
While the magnitude of the thrust signal seems to vary in different tests, its main features don't.
The steady signal in the middle is what I find most interesting.

I definitely think I will need to use long duration chirps in order to obtain a more similar trace. As for the switching transients, those would be practically non-existent in the shaker because of the lower voltages and currents used. But I did notice ending transients on most of the runs above 30Hz.  Woodward would likely be pleased to see no transients as he has spent considerable effort trying to eliminate them.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 12/08/2017 06:18 pm
They look similar in shape, but not in duration. Each one of those chirped pulses lasts for almost 10 seconds each, which might or might not be due to the calibration of the balance. In your case the frequency of the pulses seems to be much closer to the driving frequency of the shaker (like one would expect).

When I'm referring to the output obtained by Woodward and others I'm thinking about these traces down here. As you can see they are characterized by the presence of transients and by a quite steady signal in the middle.
While the magnitude of the thrust signal seems to vary in different tests, its main features don't.
The steady signal in the middle is what I find most interesting.

I definitely think I will need to use long duration chirps in order to obtain a more similar trace. As for the switching transients, those would be practically non-existent in the shaker because of the lower voltages and currents used. But I did notice ending transients on most of the runs above 30Hz.  Woodward would likely be pleased to see no transients as he has spent considerable effort trying to eliminate them.

Chirping a magnetic solenoid probably won't work. From experience, I know that the hysteresis of a solenoid will cause it to "buzz" if there is not enough voltage for it to fully engage. Chirping the input signal I would expect to cause a buzz too, until the voltage reaches the threshold where it overcomes the hysteresis and the armature slams to the other side. It's a very different effect with the PZT disks.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 12/08/2017 06:46 pm
Chirping a magnetic solenoid probably won't work.

I'm using a Voice Coil Actuator (VCA), not a magnetic solenoid.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 12/08/2017 11:49 pm
As for the simulations, it seems to me that the asymmetric shaker mounted on an ideal thrust/torsion balance can only produce constant oscillations at the same frequency of the shaker.
Without invoking some non-ideality causing Dean drive effects there's no way to get a steady deflection, since at the end of each cycle it would go to zero.

Exactly.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 12/09/2017 12:06 pm
As for the simulations, it seems to me that the asymmetric shaker mounted on an ideal thrust/torsion balance can only produce constant oscillations at the same frequency of the shaker.
Without invoking some non-ideality causing Dean drive effects there's no way to get a steady deflection, since at the end of each cycle it would go to zero.

Exactly.

I've already concluded that I will need to do a more thorough simulation in order to closely simulate Woodward's trace. The previous simulations have been extremely simplified. Once I include the rubber, the expansion and contraction of the PZT stack, as well as stress deformation of the aluminum beam, I think we will get a very similar effect. Fortunately, Autodesk is very generous with their learner edition/non-commercial licenses. I was able to get a 3-year learner license for the full edition of Autodesk Inventor Professional 2018 just last night for free.  This should allow us to do a full dynamic simulation of all components, including the material properties of the rubber and PZT, and Finite Element Analysis (FEA).  But it will take me a little time to get up-to-speed with another Autodesk application.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 12/14/2017 04:47 pm
Updated Equations

Here I relate the mass fluctuation formula to the quantum mechanical radiation reaction force and the temperature of the thermal vacuum field.

Comments?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob Woods on 12/15/2017 04:06 am
Updated Equations

Todd, I'm the last person qualified to review your math, but I'm glad to see you pushing the edge.
Keep it up.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 12/15/2017 07:01 pm
Updated Equations

Here I relate the mass fluctuation formula to the quantum mechanical radiation reaction force and the temperature of the thermal vacuum field.

Comments?

I'm still hoping to find simpler ways to do the mass fluctuations with conventional off the shelf components. What I lack is a decent comprehension of what constitutes the right kind of energy variations that could in principle work. We know originally professor Woodward used capacitors. What about micro-mechanical oscillators? Any ideas? Thanks.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 12/15/2017 07:15 pm
Updated Equations

Here I relate the mass fluctuation formula to the quantum mechanical radiation reaction force and the temperature of the thermal vacuum field.

Comments?

I'm still hoping to find simpler ways to do the mass fluctuations with conventional off the shelf components. What I lack is a decent comprehension of what constitutes the right kind of energy variations that could in principle work. We know originally professor Woodward used capacitors. What about micro-mechanical oscillators? Any ideas? Thanks.

Lots of ideas. Just not enough time to put numbers to them and get a quantitative prediction. My concern is, my first shot at putting numbers to it resulted in forces 8 orders of magnitude smaller than what is being measured, based entirely on the charge stored on the capacitance and the above equation for FRR. Now I have some other ideas that need to be explored.

My 3rd equation above which equates Woodward's power equation to the mean square acceleration is the key, because for me anyway, it is easier to understand than the power equation.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: sanman on 12/16/2017 12:32 pm
I'm still hoping to find simpler ways to do the mass fluctuations with conventional off the shelf components. What I lack is a decent comprehension of what constitutes the right kind of energy variations that could in principle work. We know originally professor Woodward used capacitors. What about micro-mechanical oscillators? Any ideas? Thanks.

How about focusing first on achieving a "mass fluctuation"? Moving/wiggling something back and forth along an axis is a pretty ordinary conventional well-known thing. But the idea of fluctuating mass is what's rather unconventional, since we've always been taught that mass cannot be created or destroyed. So once you get the mass fluctuation part figured out, then taking that mass/object and wiggling it along some axis would be the relatively easier part.

So we're told that increasing the internal potential energy of some object also increases its mass in some very tiny miniscule amount (since that increased energy amounts to some tiny mass).
Why not then just worry about how to achieve the most internal potential energy increase you can, using conventional off-the-shelf means?

What are the possible ways to achieve an internal energy increase? How about a chemical reaction? Aren't chemical bonds supposed to be the densest possible way to store energy? That's why we use chemical fuel for rockets, isn't it?

Is it possible to do the Mach Effect using some easily reversible chemical reaction for the internal energy / mass fluctuation part?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 12/22/2017 04:31 am
Assembly #1 complete.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 12/22/2017 11:39 am
Assembly #1 complete.

Can you share any details such as the PZT disks used and how many, size of the brass mass, will you use rubber gasket(?), and how you plan on mounting the device?  Looks nice and clean!

I noticed your screws are set into the brass mass. Don't woodward's screws pass through the brass mass and attach to an aluminum mounting bracket?

EDIT: I think I see what you have done. You pass through the aluminum and have rubber washer/gasket on each bolt?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 12/22/2017 05:07 pm
Assembly #1 complete.

Can you share any details such as the PZT disks used and how many, size of the brass mass, will you use rubber gasket(?), and how you plan on mounting the device?  Looks nice and clean!

I noticed your screws are set into the brass mass. Don't woodward's screws pass through the brass mass and attach to an aluminum mounting bracket?

EDIT: I think I see what you have done. You pass through the aluminum and have rubber washer/gasket on each bolt?

1. I used SM-111 disks, thickness modulation, 50mm x 2.1mm "S" type.
2. I used conductive adhesive copper tape to put electrodes on the disks. Not so good since it's very easy to tear. I wrapped them in Kapton tape but thicker copper would be better.
3. I used carbon conductive grease between the disks, not epoxy, to minimize the thickness and maximize thermal transfer to the copper. This unfortunately allows the middle disks to slip before compression is applied, so I wrapped them in Kapton tape to hold them until it's tight.
4. There are currently 4 disks in the stack. Back to back neg, back to back pos, back to back neg, so that the end caps  and the center of the stack are positive. The two negative electrodes will allow me to test different frequencies w & 2w applied to each stack separately.
4b. Those are spring-steel cup washers under the head of the screws, not rubber. They will provide the spring-back pressure on the stack for compressive strain.
5. The objective of a shorter stack is that the thrust goes with w4 but only as dx2. So a higher frequency is better than more displacement.
6. The issue with higher frequency is that the applied power requirements also go up as w4. So a 200W audio amplifier is not going to provide enough juice. That is why I'm designing a high power pulsed source, that will ring the device to resonance, like a bell clanger.

My idea at present is to rest this device, copper side down, on one or more PZT disks, using them as a scale to weigh it. I will look for transient weight fluctuations and optimize my driver circuit. Once that's ready, I'm sure I can find someone with a precision balance to do the real tests.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 12/22/2017 06:42 pm
@WarpTech

Truly a remarkable job!
Have you received any supervision/advice from Woodward & co. on the structure and on how to drive this? I ask because the copper reaction mass was one of the suggestions provided by Rodal, if I'm not mistaken.


@sanman

Quote
So we're told that increasing the internal potential energy of some object also increases its mass in some very tiny miniscule amount (since that increased energy amounts to some tiny mass)

Not sure if this is what you are implying, but from your wording it seems you are referring to a static mass increase given by special relativity (E=m/c^2).

Woodward/Mach effect is supposedly a complete different thing, a transient mass fluctuation that arises only when a non rigid object is accelerated while having its internal energy changing (this last point has been recently challenged by Tajmar, who showed that the data better agree with the model if one considers only the mechanical energy in PZT stack, not the energy stored in the electric field).

Quote
Is it possible to do the Mach Effect using some easily reversible chemical reaction for the internal energy / mass fluctuation part?

Regardless from the correctness of Tajmar's argument, I think the problem in using reversible chemical reactions is that you would get a quite noisy environment, at least if you use chemical reactions in a liquid solution (chemical reactions in solids tend to be pretty slow, and the ability to have rapid consecutive variations of internal energy is crucial for detecting the effect).
Using a fluid fluctuating mass could also produce further complications when dealing with the requirement of acceleration.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 12/22/2017 07:15 pm
@WarpTech

Truly a remarkable job!
Have you received any supervision/advice from Woodward & co. on the structure and on how to drive this? I ask because the copper reaction mass was one of the suggestions provided by Rodal, if I'm not mistaken.


@sanman

Quote
So we're told that increasing the internal potential energy of some object also increases its mass in some very tiny miniscule amount (since that increased energy amounts to some tiny mass)

Not sure if this is what you are implying, but from your wording it seems you are referring to a static mass increase given by special relativity (E=m/c^2).

Woodward/Mach effect is supposedly a complete different thing, a transient mass fluctuation that arises only when a non rigid object is accelerated while having its internal energy changing (this last point has been recently challenged by Tajmar, who showed that the data better agree with the model if one considers only the mechanical energy in PZT stack, not the energy stored in the electric field).

Quote
Is it possible to do the Mach Effect using some easily reversible chemical reaction for the internal energy / mass fluctuation part?

Regardless from the correctness of Tajmar's argument, I think the problem in using reversible chemical reactions is that you would get a quite noisy environment, at least if you use chemical reactions in a liquid solution (chemical reactions in solids tend to be pretty slow, and the ability to have rapid consecutive variations of internal energy is crucial for detecting the effect).
Using a fluid fluctuating mass could also produce further complications when dealing with the requirement of acceleration.

I took Dr. Rodal's advice and used copper instead of brass. I'm also using the same SM-111 material as Prof. Woodward. Other than that, the design is my own and the driver circuit will be my own design. First, I need to do some tests on the device to see where the resonances are, define its impedance function and see how the pre-loading affects this.

Regarding theory, I'm basically testing Woodward's theory and my own quantum theory. More on that later...
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: sanman on 12/22/2017 07:40 pm
@WarpTech

Truly a remarkable job!
Have you received any supervision/advice from Woodward & co. on the structure and on how to drive this? I ask because the copper reaction mass was one of the suggestions provided by Rodal, if I'm not mistaken.


@sanman

Quote
So we're told that increasing the internal potential energy of some object also increases its mass in some very tiny miniscule amount (since that increased energy amounts to some tiny mass)

Not sure if this is what you are implying, but from your wording it seems you are referring to a static mass increase given by special relativity (E=m/c^2).

Woodward/Mach effect is supposedly a complete different thing, a transient mass fluctuation that arises only when a non rigid object is accelerated while having its internal energy changing (this last point has been recently challenged by Tajmar, who showed that the data better agree with the model if one considers only the mechanical energy in PZT stack, not the energy stored in the electric field).


As I understand it, Woodward/Mach effect is the alleged propulsive effect that arises from selectively varying a mass while linearly oscillating it. So the mass is higher in value on the upstroke and lower in value on the downstroke. I was just trying to dissect the situation by breaking this up into 2 things: the mass fluctuation and the linear oscillation. My point was the linear oscillation part is a fairly conventional known concept, which is the less interesting part - and meanwhile the mass fluctuation idea is the more interesting part that deserves special focus.


Quote
Quote
Is it possible to do the Mach Effect using some easily reversible chemical reaction for the internal energy / mass fluctuation part?

Regardless from the correctness of Tajmar's argument, I think the problem in using reversible chemical reactions is that you would get a quite noisy environment, at least if you use chemical reactions in a liquid solution (chemical reactions in solids tend to be pretty slow, and the ability to have rapid consecutive variations of internal energy is crucial for detecting the effect).
Using a fluid fluctuating mass could also produce further complications when dealing with the requirement of acceleration.

Okay, fair enough - so perhaps a conventional chemical reaction isn't the best candidate - but has anyone comparatively looked at all the possible candidates for physical changes that correspond to change in internal energy? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the first candidate was the electricity flow in and out of a capacitor, and then later it was purely about mechanical oscillation through piezos.

Why not make a list of all possible reversible state-changes associated with change in internal energy, and see their pro's and cons to decide which one might be the best? Are we sure that mechanical oscillation is the best way to achieve internal energy fluctuation (aka. mass fluctuation) for Mach Effect purposes?


I would also look at exploiting orthogonality of dimensions here:   imagine your idealized system is linearly oscillating along the Y-axis, then imagine the mass being oscillated is being subjected to change in internal energy via some effect occurring purely in the X-axis. This internal energy change imposed purely via the X-axis should then have no "cross-contamination" into the Y-axis, except via the associated miniscule mass fluctuation.
Do you see what I'm saying?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 12/22/2017 10:56 pm
4b. Those are spring-steel cup washers under the head of the screws, not rubber. They will provide the spring-back pressure on the stack for compressive strain.
5. The objective of a shorter stack is that the thrust goes with w4 but only as dx2. So a higher frequency is better than more displacement.
6. The issue with higher frequency is that the applied power requirements also go up as w4. So a 200W audio amplifier is not going to provide enough juice. That is why I'm designing a high power pulsed source, that will ring the device to resonance, like a bell clanger.

Thanks for the details and clarifications. It will be interesting to see your results.  Based on my experiments reaction mass, displacement, and mounted radius of the device are the primary influence.

I completed version 5 of the asymmetric shaker just a couple of days ago to test this. The reaction mass was more than doubled from 40g to 100g and the Voice Coil Actuator (VCA) was upgraded from 3W to 20W. This 20W VCA should also have a larger displacement, but I have not measured it yet.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 12/22/2017 10:59 pm
@WarpTech

I see.
I think Woodward, Fearn at al. will be interested in your findings, since your design has some improvements they wanted to implement.



@sanman

Quote
As I understand it, Woodward/Mach effect is the alleged propulsive effect that arises from selectively varying a mass while linearly oscillating it. So the mass is higher in value on the upstroke and lower in value on the downstroke.

From the infos I have available (book, papers, etc.) that's not quite accurate. Wikipedia page definition seems consistent with what I found in the other sources:

Quote
The hypothesis states that transient mass fluctuations arise in any object that absorbs internal energy while undergoing a proper acceleration.

So technically one can have a Woodward/Mach effect without any generation of thrust.
Simply accelerating an object while changing its internal energy produces a transient fluctuation, but if you don't push and pull at the right moment there's no "momentum flux" and the center of mass stays put.
That's the reason why Woodward uses two frequencies for driving the device, one for generating the mass fluctuation by accelerating and changing the internal energy at the same time and the other, double of the first one, for pushing and pulling.


Quote
Okay, fair enough - so perhaps a conventional chemical reaction isn't the best candidate - but has anyone comparatively looked at all the possible candidates for physical changes that correspond to change in internal energy? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the first candidate was the electricity flow in and out of a capacitor, and then later it was purely about mechanical oscillation through piezos.

In Woodward's book it is said that at first the importance of the requirement of "bulk acceleration" was not understood, so initially part of trials consisted in simply charging and discharging a capacitor while pushing and pulling it, or using schemes such as the MLT (Mach-Lorentz thruster). These test often resulted in dubious or inconclusive results.

When this requirement was acknowledged it was determined that the best design between those tried before was the piezoelectric disk type.
These disks provide the acceleration and, when stacked, they also behave like capacitors, so that their internal energy can be changed. So in a way it was never about "pure" mechanical oscillation.

Tajmar paper, posted some pages ago, claims that the "internal energy" that appears in Woodward's equation is actually only the internal mechanical energy of the excited pzt stacks. In this way the predicted thrust seems to fit the data point obtained much better than the previous models.

I'm only aware of one other test using a device with a different concept.
It was suggested by Buldrini in 2011, and it consisted of a ferromagnetic mass that was accelerated through a magnetic field, kinda like in a coilgun, while its internal energy was changing due to the induced magnetostrictive stresses.
Any mass fluctuation would have resulted in a difference between the predicted and measured final displacement or velocity.

I'm not completely sure this test was actually performed. If so, the results seems to have never been published anywhere.
Here's the paper detailing the proposal.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187538921100575X (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187538921100575X) 


Quote
Are we sure that mechanical oscillation is the best way to achieve internal energy fluctuation (aka. mass fluctuation) for Mach Effect purposes?

See above, in the context of this effect fluctuating the internal energy alone (like charging and discharging a capacitor) doesn't cause the sought transient mass fluctuation.
Beside this, the problem is really what this "internal energy" means here. If only the internal mechanical energy (causally linked with the force responsible for the acceleration) is the "right" internal energy then a lot of alternatives won't work.

Quote
Do you see what I'm saying?

Maybe, but I'm not sure why you think that "cross-section contamination" is a problem here.
If you are still referring to mass fluctuation as the effect that comes out of m=E/c^2 then there is no way to use this in a isolated system for propulsion.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 12/24/2017 02:23 pm
Dr. Fearn stated that damping is critical to making the mass fluctuations not just energy oscillations.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 12/24/2017 08:02 pm
@WarpTech

I see.
I think Woodward, Fearn at al. will be interested in your findings, since your design has some improvements they wanted to implement.



@sanman

Quote
As I understand it, Woodward/Mach effect is the alleged propulsive effect that arises from selectively varying a mass while linearly oscillating it. So the mass is higher in value on the upstroke and lower in value on the downstroke.

From the infos I have available (book, papers, etc.) that's not quite accurate. Wikipedia page definition seems consistent with what I found in the other sources:

Quote
The hypothesis states that transient mass fluctuations arise in any object that absorbs internal energy while undergoing a proper acceleration.

So technically one can have a Woodward/Mach effect without any generation of thrust.
Simply accelerating an object while changing its internal energy produces a transient fluctuation, but if you don't push and pull at the right moment there's no "momentum flux" and the center of mass stays put.
That's the reason why Woodward uses two frequencies for driving the device, one for generating the mass fluctuation by accelerating and changing the internal energy at the same time and the other, double of the first one, for pushing and pulling.


Quote
Okay, fair enough - so perhaps a conventional chemical reaction isn't the best candidate - but has anyone comparatively looked at all the possible candidates for physical changes that correspond to change in internal energy? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the first candidate was the electricity flow in and out of a capacitor, and then later it was purely about mechanical oscillation through piezos.

In Woodward's book it is said that at first the importance of the requirement of "bulk acceleration" was not understood, so initially part of trials consisted in simply charging and discharging a capacitor while pushing and pulling it, or using schemes such as the MLT (Mach-Lorentz thruster). These test often resulted in dubious or inconclusive results.

When this requirement was acknowledged it was determined that the best design between those tried before was the piezoelectric disk type.
These disks provide the acceleration and, when stacked, they also behave like capacitors, so that their internal energy can be changed. So in a way it was never about "pure" mechanical oscillation.

Tajmar paper, posted some pages ago, claims that the "internal energy" that appears in Woodward's equation is actually only the internal mechanical energy of the excited pzt stacks. In this way the predicted thrust seems to fit the data point obtained much better than the previous models.

I'm only aware of one other test using a device with a different concept.
It was suggested by Buldrini in 2011, and it consisted of a ferromagnetic mass that was accelerated through a magnetic field, kinda like in a coilgun, while its internal energy was changing due to the induced magnetostrictive stresses.
Any mass fluctuation would have resulted in a difference between the predicted and measured final displacement or velocity.

I'm not completely sure this test was actually performed. If so, the results seems to have never been published anywhere.
Here's the paper detailing the proposal.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187538921100575X (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187538921100575X) 


Quote
Are we sure that mechanical oscillation is the best way to achieve internal energy fluctuation (aka. mass fluctuation) for Mach Effect purposes?

See above, in the context of this effect fluctuating the internal energy alone (like charging and discharging a capacitor) doesn't cause the sought transient mass fluctuation.
Beside this, the problem is really what this "internal energy" means here. If only the internal mechanical energy (causally linked with the force responsible for the acceleration) is the "right" internal energy then a lot of alternatives won't work.

Quote
Do you see what I'm saying?

Maybe, but I'm not sure why you think that "cross-section contamination" is a problem here.
If you are still referring to mass fluctuation as the effect that comes out of m=E/c^2 then there is no way to use this in a isolated system for propulsion.

How to push on the Vacuum, or create friction with the Vacuum using Radiation Reaction.

I think the Woodward effect can be modeled this way, but please note that this is a work in progress. Not a paper for review. I'm hoping to give us something to discuss and make the conversation a little more productive.  8)

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31037.0;attach=1461583;image)

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31037.0;attach=1461621;image)


Edit: pardon my earlier mistake of thinking it was a saw tooth wave form.  Just realized this isn't the case.  I think an actual saw form would give a null result.

If I understand it right, using WarpTech's equation relating rate of change in acceleration to change in mass then at some set acceleration there is some set effective mass.  This acceleration sets the devices effective mass via coupling with the vacuum giving damping to acceleration, pulling the vacuum in the direction of acceleration and pushing the object in the opposite direction (conservation of momentum).  The change in mass being related to going from zero acceleration to max acceleration at the peak to zero acceleration again.  After this you want a different rate of acceleration in the opposite direction to change direction, taking more time.  The larger acceleration results in more change in mass. 

The mention of 2 frequencies reminds me of a Fourier transform.  I suspect that as a result it's possible to include 3 or more frequencies.  The objective being to give two rates of acceleration at opposite ends.  See attached image. 

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

I think this rate of change in acceleration giving a change in mass is just a consideration of the mechanical acceleration.  Something similar happens to the effective mass of objects immersed in gravitational fields via an external viewer. 

The mach effects using magnetism article is interesting.  I haven't quite digested it. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 12/25/2017 03:26 am
Merry Christmas!
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 12/25/2017 04:29 pm
Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas to you also!

I'm not sure what you are saying here. The accelerated objects in Woodward's formula are bulk objects and have no net charge.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 12/25/2017 06:28 pm
Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas to you also!

I'm not sure what you are saying here. The accelerated objects in Woodward's formula are bulk objects and have no net charge.

Since the charge is squared, I am assuming Free charge, not NET charge. If I assume 1 free electron per atom, the result is at the same order of magnitude, to what is measured by Fearn & Woodward. Classically, radiation reaction is modelled as the charged particle interfering with itself. We assume it is interfering with the fields of everything else in the universe.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 12/26/2017 05:02 pm
Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas to you also!

I'm not sure what you are saying here. The accelerated objects in Woodward's formula are bulk objects and have no net charge.

Since the charge is squared, I am assuming Free charge, not NET charge. If I assume 1 free electron per atom, the result is at the same order of magnitude, to what is measured by Fearn & Woodward. Classically, radiation reaction is modelled as the charged particle interfering with itself. We assume it is interfering with the fields of everything else in the universe.

Thanks. But aren't you essentially saying that in your model the Mach effect is a missing part of EM theory (or a bridge between EM and Gravity)? If that were true then a clever redesign of some electrical machines would greatly enhance our current technology. Or is that going a bit too far?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 12/26/2017 05:46 pm
Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas to you also!

I'm not sure what you are saying here. The accelerated objects in Woodward's formula are bulk objects and have no net charge.

Since the charge is squared, I am assuming Free charge, not NET charge. If I assume 1 free electron per atom, the result is at the same order of magnitude, to what is measured by Fearn & Woodward. Classically, radiation reaction is modelled as the charged particle interfering with itself. We assume it is interfering with the fields of everything else in the universe.

Thanks. But aren't you essentially saying that in your model the Mach effect is a missing part of EM theory (or a bridge between EM and Gravity)? If that were true then a clever redesign of some electrical machines would greatly enhance our current technology. Or is that going a bit too far?

Not missing. Misinterpreted or misunderstood would be a better description. Hard to tell yet if there is a significant advantage or not. These equations imply the resulting force is no better than a photon rocket. It's simply a matter of numbers, that if all atoms take part in the process, such as; stimulated emission due to vibration, then it's still just a photon rocket. This is an electromagnetic process, not a gravitaitonal one. I'm still trying to comprehend the gravitational effect and determine if it is stronger or weaker than the EM effect described above.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 12/26/2017 06:01 pm
Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas to you also!

I'm not sure what you are saying here. The accelerated objects in Woodward's formula are bulk objects and have no net charge.

Since the charge is squared, I am assuming Free charge, not NET charge. If I assume 1 free electron per atom, the result is at the same order of magnitude, to what is measured by Fearn & Woodward. Classically, radiation reaction is modelled as the charged particle interfering with itself. We assume it is interfering with the fields of everything else in the universe.

Thanks. But aren't you essentially saying that in your model the Mach effect is a missing part of EM theory (or a bridge between EM and Gravity)? If that were true then a clever redesign of some electrical machines would greatly enhance our current technology. Or is that going a bit too far?

Not missing. Misinterpreted or misunderstood would be a better description. Hard to tell yet if there is a significant advantage or not. These equations imply the resulting force is no better than a photon rocket. It's simply a matter of numbers, that if all atoms take part in the process, such as; stimulated emission due to vibration, then it's still just a photon rocket. This is an electromagnetic process, not a gravitaitonal one. I'm still trying to comprehend the gravitational effect and determine if it is stronger or weaker than the EM effect described above.

??????The reported thrust from the Woodward team under development is already far beyond a photon rocket and projected to be a lot larger still. If your model only gives a photon rocket why bother with the complexity when you can just use a laser?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 12/26/2017 06:15 pm
Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas to you also!

I'm not sure what you are saying here. The accelerated objects in Woodward's formula are bulk objects and have no net charge.

Since the charge is squared, I am assuming Free charge, not NET charge. If I assume 1 free electron per atom, the result is at the same order of magnitude, to what is measured by Fearn & Woodward. Classically, radiation reaction is modelled as the charged particle interfering with itself. We assume it is interfering with the fields of everything else in the universe.

Thanks. But aren't you essentially saying that in your model the Mach effect is a missing part of EM theory (or a bridge between EM and Gravity)? If that were true then a clever redesign of some electrical machines would greatly enhance our current technology. Or is that going a bit too far?

Not missing. Misinterpreted or misunderstood would be a better description. Hard to tell yet if there is a significant advantage or not. These equations imply the resulting force is no better than a photon rocket. It's simply a matter of numbers, that if all atoms take part in the process, such as; stimulated emission due to vibration, then it's still just a photon rocket. This is an electromagnetic process, not a gravitaitonal one. I'm still trying to comprehend the gravitational effect and determine if it is stronger or weaker than the EM effect described above.

??????The reported thrust from the Woodward team under development is already far beyond a photon rocket and projected to be a lot larger still. If your model only gives a photon rocket why bother with the complexity when you can just use a laser?

The latest data demonstraighting V4 scaling, only shows results that are 4X to 7X better than a photon rocket. That's not even 1 order of magnitude. It is better than a photon rocket but not what I would call "far beyond", and this is why I'm still contemplating the gravitational aspects of this device.

IMO however, the device is dirt-simple compared to designing a laser of equal power and efficiency, on a large scale.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 12/31/2017 04:06 am
My "lab" is coming along nicely. I have 2 MEGA's. MEGA-2 has all 4 disks “electrically" in parallel, stacked in series. MEGA-1 has 2 disks electrically in series and the two pairs in parallel.

MEGA-1:  + - + - - + - +
MEGA-2:  + - - + + - - +

I just got the dual 400W amplifier that operates on 12VDC, but I have not finished hooking it up yet. So far, what I've done is learn how to use my O'scope as a cheap VNA. :)

The plots are from 0 to 700kHz, 50kHz/Div.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 01/01/2018 11:25 am
Happy new year everyone!

Quote
Are we sure that mechanical oscillation is the best way to achieve internal energy fluctuation (aka. mass fluctuation) for Mach Effect purposes?

See above, in the context of this effect fluctuating the internal energy alone (like charging and discharging a capacitor) doesn't cause the sought transient mass fluctuation.
Beside this, the problem is really what this "internal energy" means here. If only the internal mechanical energy (causally linked with the force responsible for the acceleration) is the "right" internal energy then a lot of alternatives won't work.

This is Nembo Buldrini's Bulk Acceleration Conjecture:

Quote from:  James F. Woodward (in Making Starship and Stargates, page 132)
What [Nembo Buldrini] pointed out was that given the way the transient terms of the Mach effect equation are written – in terms of the time-derivatives of the proper energy density – it is easy to lose sight of the requirement in the derivation that the object in which the mass fluctuations occur must be accelerating at the same time. In some of the experimental cases, no provision for such "bulk" acceleration was made.15 As an example, the capacitors affixed to the tines of the tuning fork in the Cramer and the students' experiments made no provision for such an acceleration. Had the tuning fork been separately excited and an electric field applied to the capacitor(s) been properly phased, an effect might have been seen. But to simply apply a voltage to the capacitors and then look for a response in the tuning fork should not have been expected to produce a compelling result.

Other examples could be cited and discussed. Suffice it to say, though, that after Nembo focused attention in the issue of bulk accelerations in the production of Mach effects, the design and execution of experiments changed. The transition to that work, and recent results of experiments presently in progress, are addressed in the next chapter.

15 By "bulk" acceleration we are referring to the fact that the conditions of the derivation include that the object be both accelerated and experience internal energy changes. The acceleration of ions in the material of a capacitor, for example, does not meet this condition. The capacitor as a whole must be accelerated in bulk while it is being polarized.

This would discard prior designs based on an electromagnetic coil (instead of vibrating PZT discs). Unlike METs (Mach Effect Thrusters, now called MEGA drives), MLTs (Mach-Lorentz Thrusters) didn't used any mechanical motion. In an MLT, a Lorentz force, cross product between an electric field and the magnetic field produced by a coil, appears and acts upon the ions inside the capacitor dielectric. According to Buldrini, there is no bulk acceleration in this kind of device, which cannot work. Woodward agrees with him.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Woodward_Effect_Device.png)
Woodward's 2006 MLT design

BTW, Sonny White's first QVPT (Quantum Vacuum Plasma Thruster, or Q-thruster) at Eagleworks was a shameless theft of the MLT design without crediting Woodward for the invention. Whereas the Woodward effect required AC and proper phase sync, White was pushing his own QFV conjecture instead of Mach effects so he was persuaded the device could work on HV DC like an MHD drive with a real ionized gas, except White thought his device could trigger a "virtual plasma" with e-p pairs quickly popping in and out of existence due to quantum vacuum fluctuations, and he thought he could push upon them with Lorentz forces. As it is now considered the MLT was a flawed design, it could not even run with AC, even less so with DC. White later dropped the MLT design and switched the embodiment of the QVTP (which is not a single design of a precise apparatus, rather some application of a theoretical concept) to the EmDrive. First QVPT based on the MLT (circa 2010-2012) below.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 01/03/2018 05:52 pm
My "lab" is coming along nicely. I have 2 MEGA's. MEGA-2 has all 4 disks “electrically" in parallel, stacked in series. MEGA-1 has 2 disks electrically in series and the two pairs in parallel.

MEGA-1:  + - + - - + - +
MEGA-2:  + - - + + - - +

I just got the dual 400W amplifier that operates on 12VDC, but I have not finished hooking it up yet. So far, what I've done is learn how to use my O'scope as a cheap VNA. :)

The plots are from 0 to 700kHz, 50kHz/Div.

On MEGA-2, I zoomed in and determined the 1st strong resonance is at 44kHz, and it has an impedance of 100 Ohms at this frequency. I also noticed that the PZT stack behaves like a capacitor, not an RLC circuit. Once charged, it doesn't ring and discharges very slowly. The impedance of a 1M-Ohm O'scope probe is enough to cause it to discharge, but without the probe attached, it stays charged for a relatively long time.

I have an idea to parallel an inductor with the stack, to cause it to ring, and tune the inductor so that it rings at 44kHz. Then if temperature causes the resonance to change due to capacitance change, the circuit should naturally track that change in frequency. I have some Ferrite cores and wire, but I need to lookup the specs and determine how many turns I need. I estimate 360uH will do it, but that size inductor may require a larger powdered iron core.

Regarding thrust. I've worked out the conservation of energy and momentum now. I can see why it "appears" to thrust better than a photon rocket, even though it is still just a photon rocket. The stack excited at a constant frequency w, will be damped by Larmor radiation emitted in both directions. It is proportional to acceleration squared, ~ a2, which oscillates at the highest amplitude at the light-weight end of the stack.

By applying a 2nd frequency at 2w, the emission in one direction is amplified, while emission in the other direction is suppressed. Having emission in one direction only, causes thrust in the opposite direction, conserving energy and momentum just like a photon rocket.

I see that the "peak" power radiated is much higher than the average power consumed because of the small duty-cycle. A slow response thrust balance cannot respond fast enough, so it acts like a "peak detector". It only measures the peak thrust as an impulse, and then does not relax fast enough to average it out. Therefore, it gives the appearance of being 5 or 6 times better performance than a photon rocket when it fact, it is just a photon rocket.

While the process occurring is similar to my model of quantum gravitation, there is no time dilation occurring, so it's not really gravity at all pulling it forward. I looked at the time dilation and relativistic doppler shift, but these are down by a factor 10-9, and as such are negligible effects.

As I see it, there is no external field required, and unless Larmor radiation is somehow controversial, I don't see any controversy on whether or not this should work. It doesn't require the quantum vacuum to push against, however the thrust can be modeled as an asymmetrical friction, due to an asymmetrical "velocity x jerk" product. Friction however, still results in simply emitting photons.

I'm about to the point where I can start a write-up of the theory of operation, but I'm still working on designing a MOSFET dual-driver circuit. I purchased a BOSS dual-channel audio amplifier and a 40A, 12V power supply (cheap) on Amazon. It is good for driving it the way Dr. Fearn and Prof. Woodward do, but the output voltage is too low for a 100 Ohm impedance. My MOSFET driver will not have this issue.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ThinkerX on 01/04/2018 01:24 am
Ok, Warp Tech.  I'm trying to wrap my mind around this:

Quote
On MEGA-2, I zoomed in and determined the 1st strong resonance is at 44kHz, and it has an impedance of 100 Ohms at this frequency. I also noticed that the PZT stack behaves like a capacitor, not an RLC circuit. Once charged, it doesn't ring and discharges very slowly. The impedance of a 1M-Ohm O'scope probe is enough to cause it to discharge, but without the probe attached, it stays charged for a relatively long time.

Are you saying that this device is like a 'turbo-charged' photon rocket because it's also a capacitor?

If so, wouldn't the 'extra thrust' gained during the discharge effect be lost while the device was charging?

And...heading out on a limb here...

way back in the first few EM Drive threads, repeated mention was made by electrical engineers that the EM Drive device was 'capacitor-like.'  Possibly your explanation applies to the EM Drive as well?  Or is the degree of thrust between this and the EM Drive too far apart?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 01/04/2018 02:27 am
Ok, Warp Tech.  I'm trying to wrap my mind around this:

Quote
On MEGA-2, I zoomed in and determined the 1st strong resonance is at 44kHz, and it has an impedance of 100 Ohms at this frequency. I also noticed that the PZT stack behaves like a capacitor, not an RLC circuit. Once charged, it doesn't ring and discharges very slowly. The impedance of a 1M-Ohm O'scope probe is enough to cause it to discharge, but without the probe attached, it stays charged for a relatively long time.

Are you saying that this device is like a 'turbo-charged' photon rocket because it's also a capacitor?

It is like a "turbo-charged photon rocket", but not because it's a capacitor. I'm just surprised that it behaves like a capacitor and not a resistor or inductor. It is an "open circuit" when there is nothing connected to it to complete the circuit, therefore it can store charge and stay charged over long times. Believe me, I got a helluva shock when I took the disks out of the oven and tried to pick one up after it sat there for over an hour, cooling.

If so, wouldn't the 'extra thrust' gained during the discharge effect be lost while the device was charging?
It charges from the amplifier and discharges into the vacuum. If there were only one frequency, it would radiate in both directions equally. But when the 2nd harmonic is added, the output is amplified and rectified, so that it only radiates out one side. The MEGA thrusts the other way to conserve momentum. Direction depends on phase.

And...heading out on a limb here...

way back in the first few EM Drive threads, repeated mention was made by electrical engineers that the EM Drive device was 'capacitor-like.'  Possibly your explanation applies to the EM Drive as well?  Or is the degree of thrust between this and the EM Drive too far apart?

I haven't found the connection to EM Drive yet. I haven't given it much thought, but if the EM Drive conserves momentum, it should be the same in principle.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: sanman on 01/05/2018 08:35 pm
Are you saying that this device is like a 'turbo-charged' photon rocket because it's also a capacitor?

It is like a "turbo-charged photon rocket", but not because it's a capacitor.


I really like your "turbo-charged" analogy, because a turbo-charger works by creating a higher-pressure equilibrium state (a zone of higher energy potential) to extract more energy from the combustion process. Likewise, analogously, the resonance cavity is creating a zone of higher energy potential with its traveling and standing waves, to perhaps facilitate more efficient momentum extraction from the resonant photons.

Your "capacitor" analogy touches on the idea that the resonant cavity is a well of elevated potential.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 01/08/2018 02:11 am
I have completely rebuilt my MEGA based on the mathematical model. I am still using the same SM-111 material, with the 50mm x 2.1mm disks. The diagram below shows the complete assembly. I have two stacks of 4 disks, that allow me to either combine them together into an 8 disk stack or keep them separated and apply 2 frequencies, as shown.  The last 2 disks are used to measure the displacement, it provides an output signal so I can quantitatively measure what is going on. Dr Woodward refers to this as an accelerometer, but it can only measure displacement.

The plots below have a center frequency at 45kHz, 5kHz/div, from 20kHz to 70kHz.

Compare images TOP3 to BOT3. The Bottom stack being the one resting on the copper reaction mass. The Top stack is the 4 disks in the middle, and the output in purple is measured at the output of the displacement sensor.

1. You can see how very different each of the 4 disk stacks behaves. I don't know why but this will need more investigation. Perhaps I need to buy a lot of disks and compare stacks and find two that are well matched.

2. From these two, I want to select the frequency to drive each stack, such that the two frequencies are the 1st and 2nd harmonics. I found several pairs of frequencies that work. 21.5/43kHz, 45/90kHz, 63/126kHz. Of the 3 pairs, the lowest frequency has the highest amplitude by a wide margin. The response is not there at high frequency, it will require much larger electric fields to drive the stacks at higher frequencies.

3. In the image BOTH3, both were combined into an 8 disk stack, driven by 1 source. Notice that around 21kHz, the purple trace is asymmetrical. This is how we can spot where the Electrostriction is occurring. Without applying the 2nd harmonic, at around 21.5kHz the stack will provide its own 2nd harmonic from the electrostriction effect of the stack. The problem is, the stack heats up rather quickly and as it does, the electrostriction goes away, or is no longer at the right phase relationship relative to the 1st harmonic.

4. When I apply 2 sources as shown in the diagram, heat doesn't cause it to drift as long as the driving frequency is in the bandwidth where the amplitude of the displacement sensor is large.

I still haven't started working on a driving circuit because first I need to quantify what is needed to drive it properly.


Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ThinkerX on 01/08/2018 03:13 am
Warp Tech, are you missing an image or three from your last post?  Or are they just unlabeled?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 01/10/2018 01:10 am
I have completely rebuilt my MEGA based on the mathematical model. I am still using the same SM-111 material, with the 50mm x 2.1mm disks. The diagram below shows the complete assembly. I have two stacks of 4 disks, that allow me to either combine them together into an 8 disk stack or keep them separated and apply 2 frequencies, as shown.  The last 2 disks are used to measure the displacement, it provides an output signal so I can quantitatively measure what is going on. Dr Woodward refers to this as an accelerometer, but it can only measure displacement.

The plots below have a center frequency at 45kHz, 5kHz/div, from 20kHz to 70kHz.

Compare images TOP3 to BOT3. The Bottom stack being the one resting on the copper reaction mass. The Top stack is the 4 disks in the middle, and the output in purple is measured at the output of the displacement sensor.

1. You can see how very different each of the 4 disk stacks behaves. I don't know why but this will need more investigation. Perhaps I need to buy a lot of disks and compare stacks and find two that are well matched.

2. From these two, I want to select the frequency to drive each stack, such that the two frequencies are the 1st and 2nd harmonics. I found several pairs of frequencies that work. 21.5/43kHz, 45/90kHz, 63/126kHz. Of the 3 pairs, the lowest frequency has the highest amplitude by a wide margin. The response is not there at high frequency, it will require much larger electric fields to drive the stacks at higher frequencies.

3. In the image BOTH3, both were combined into an 8 disk stack, driven by 1 source. Notice that around 21kHz, the purple trace is asymmetrical. This is how we can spot where the Electrostriction is occurring. Without applying the 2nd harmonic, at around 21.5kHz the stack will provide its own 2nd harmonic from the electrostriction effect of the stack. The problem is, the stack heats up rather quickly and as it does, the electrostriction goes away, or is no longer at the right phase relationship relative to the 1st harmonic.

4. When I apply 2 sources as shown in the diagram, heat doesn't cause it to drift as long as the driving frequency is in the bandwidth where the amplitude of the displacement sensor is large.

I still haven't started working on a driving circuit because first I need to quantify what is needed to drive it properly.
I am not sure this will help but I noticed your signal looked very similar to the displacement signal I was supposing might contribute to the mach effect.  I circled the signal in red and it is the purple signal. 

In the image of my plot (blue displacement signal) I added in the original signal but I have found if you modify the 2nd and successive signal terms, (here I use 5 signals) it amplifies displacement/acceleration at the top, and minimize deceleration/displacement below.  Successive terms seem to approach max 2 top and 1/2 bottom.  Probably some other series that would accomplish even more drastic effects.

The red plot is of a simple sin wave. 

Not really sure how useful this will be as it seems you suggest the material is responsible for the 2nd wave introduced via electrostriction.  Isn't maximizing electrostriction in a material maximizing its expansion on application of an electric field?  So the objective is to maximize displacement per applied electric field?  Am I wrong in suspecting the heavier mass provides an anchor mass that is less accelerated while the other mass is more accelerated?  The more accelerated (aluminum) mass takes the brunt of the effect of asymmetric acceleration providing the actual mach effect?

What would happen if you just introduced your own mix of frequencies for physical displacement via each individual disk (5 disks 5 separate frequencies).   - would you be combating the electrostriction effect or would there be a way to make it work?

with each signal being out of phase pi/2 or 90 degrees it some how seems familiar to a phased array but I don't quite see how. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 01/10/2018 03:02 am
I am not sure this will help but I noticed your signal looked very similar to the displacement signal I was supposing might contribute to the mach effect.  I circled the signal in red and it is the purple signal. 

In the image of my plot (blue displacement signal) I added in the original signal but I have found if you modify the 2nd and successive signal terms, (here I use 5 signals) it amplifies displacement/acceleration at the top, and minimize deceleration/displacement below.  Successive terms seem to approach max 2 top and 1/2 bottom.  Probably some other series that would accomplish even more drastic effects.

The red plot is of a simple sin wave. 

Not really sure how useful this will be as it seems you suggest the material is responsible for the 2nd wave introduced via electrostriction.  Isn't maximizing electrostriction in a material maximizing its expansion on application of an electric field?  So the objective is to maximize displacement per applied electric field?  Am I wrong in suspecting the heavier mass provides an anchor mass that is less accelerated while the other mass is more accelerated?  The more accelerated (aluminum) mass takes the brunt of the effect of asymmetric acceleration providing the actual mach effect?

What would happen if you just introduced your own mix of frequencies for physical displacement via each individual disk (5 disks 5 separate frequencies).   - would you be combating the electrostriction effect or would there be a way to make it work?

with each signal being out of phase pi/2 or 90 degrees it some how seems familiar to a phased array but I don't quite see how.

Your waveform is very interesting. That looks like the ideal "output" displacement, but I don't know that this is what we will get for output if that waveform was used as the input. In my oscillogram, the yellow trace is the input current. You can see the sinewave is collapsing at the top because my amplifier + transformer are maxed out. I have some heavier wire and a current sensor coming next week so I can maximize the power to the MEGA. In the end, I hope to apply nearly 800W of power.

You are correct, that the material is providing the 2nd harmonic. The electrostriction is depending on the electric field squared, E2, where the piezoelectric effect only depends on E. This makes the response of the PZT disk asymmetrical, as required for the Mach effect. The material is not going to provide all those other harmonics you are using.

Your other ideas are correct. The mass difference makes lightweight side dissipate more power. Power flow is asymmetrical.

IMO, applying multiple frequencies to multiple stacks probably has some advantages. The electrostriction effect seems to go away when it gets hot.




Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 01/10/2018 04:14 am
I am not sure this will help but I noticed your signal looked very similar to the displacement signal I was supposing might contribute to the mach effect.  I circled the signal in red and it is the purple signal. 

In the image of my plot (blue displacement signal) I added in the original signal but I have found if you modify the 2nd and successive signal terms, (here I use 5 signals) it amplifies displacement/acceleration at the top, and minimize deceleration/displacement below.  Successive terms seem to approach max 2 top and 1/2 bottom.  Probably some other series that would accomplish even more drastic effects.

The red plot is of a simple sin wave. 

Not really sure how useful this will be as it seems you suggest the material is responsible for the 2nd wave introduced via electrostriction.  Isn't maximizing electrostriction in a material maximizing its expansion on application of an electric field?  So the objective is to maximize displacement per applied electric field?  Am I wrong in suspecting the heavier mass provides an anchor mass that is less accelerated while the other mass is more accelerated?  The more accelerated (aluminum) mass takes the brunt of the effect of asymmetric acceleration providing the actual mach effect?

What would happen if you just introduced your own mix of frequencies for physical displacement via each individual disk (5 disks 5 separate frequencies).   - would you be combating the electrostriction effect or would there be a way to make it work?

with each signal being out of phase pi/2 or 90 degrees it some how seems familiar to a phased array but I don't quite see how.

Your waveform is very interesting. That looks like the ideal "output" displacement, but I don't know that this is what we will get for output if that waveform was used as the input. In my oscillogram, the yellow trace is the input current. You can see the sinewave is collapsing at the top because my amplifier + transformer are maxed out. I have some heavier wire and a current sensor coming next week so I can maximize the power to the MEGA. In the end, I hope to apply nearly 800W of power.

You are correct, that the material is providing the 2nd harmonic. The electrostriction is depending on the electric field squared, E2, where the piezoelectric effect only depends on E. This makes the response of the PZT disk asymmetrical, as required for the Mach effect. The material is not going to provide all those other harmonics you are using.

Your other ideas are correct. The mass difference makes lightweight side dissipate more power. Power flow is asymmetrical.

IMO, applying multiple frequencies to multiple stacks probably has some advantages. The electrostriction effect seems to go away when it gets hot.
If I understand your correctly, you tried 2 methods. 

method 1 is you apply a single sinusoidal voltage to the entire stack and the electrostriction provides the 2nd harmonic but you are encountering rapid heating which destroys the phase of the 2nd harmonic. 

method 2 or (4.) is you ignore the overheating of the electrostriction effect (let it heat up - go out of phase) and directly put in the 2 harmonic to force at 2f so that it has the desired displacement wave form, regardless of over heating. 

If this is true then when you get your 2nd frequency just right with the phase adjustment signal at 2f, if you introduce a 3rd harmonic frequency at about 3*f where f is the original frequency then the stack might provide the 4th frequency at 6f also?  (not sure this would work.)  might need a 4th signal at 6f to adjust the phase also. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 01/10/2018 04:33 am
I am not sure this will help but I noticed your signal looked very similar to the displacement signal I was supposing might contribute to the mach effect.  I circled the signal in red and it is the purple signal. 

In the image of my plot (blue displacement signal) I added in the original signal but I have found if you modify the 2nd and successive signal terms, (here I use 5 signals) it amplifies displacement/acceleration at the top, and minimize deceleration/displacement below.  Successive terms seem to approach max 2 top and 1/2 bottom.  Probably some other series that would accomplish even more drastic effects.

The red plot is of a simple sin wave. 

Not really sure how useful this will be as it seems you suggest the material is responsible for the 2nd wave introduced via electrostriction.  Isn't maximizing electrostriction in a material maximizing its expansion on application of an electric field?  So the objective is to maximize displacement per applied electric field?  Am I wrong in suspecting the heavier mass provides an anchor mass that is less accelerated while the other mass is more accelerated?  The more accelerated (aluminum) mass takes the brunt of the effect of asymmetric acceleration providing the actual mach effect?

What would happen if you just introduced your own mix of frequencies for physical displacement via each individual disk (5 disks 5 separate frequencies).   - would you be combating the electrostriction effect or would there be a way to make it work?

with each signal being out of phase pi/2 or 90 degrees it some how seems familiar to a phased array but I don't quite see how.

Your waveform is very interesting. That looks like the ideal "output" displacement, but I don't know that this is what we will get for output if that waveform was used as the input. In my oscillogram, the yellow trace is the input current. You can see the sinewave is collapsing at the top because my amplifier + transformer are maxed out. I have some heavier wire and a current sensor coming next week so I can maximize the power to the MEGA. In the end, I hope to apply nearly 800W of power.

You are correct, that the material is providing the 2nd harmonic. The electrostriction is depending on the electric field squared, E2, where the piezoelectric effect only depends on E. This makes the response of the PZT disk asymmetrical, as required for the Mach effect. The material is not going to provide all those other harmonics you are using.

Your other ideas are correct. The mass difference makes lightweight side dissipate more power. Power flow is asymmetrical.

IMO, applying multiple frequencies to multiple stacks probably has some advantages. The electrostriction effect seems to go away when it gets hot.
If I understand your correctly, you tried 2 methods. 

method 1 is you apply a single sinusoidal voltage to the entire stack and the electrostriction provides the 2nd harmonic but you are encountering rapid heating which destroys the phase of the 2nd harmonic. 

method 2 or (4.) is you ignore the overheating of the electrostriction effect (let it heat up - go out of phase) and directly put in the 2 harmonic to force at 2f so that it has the desired displacement wave form, regardless of over heating. 

If this is true then when you get your 2nd frequency just right with the phase adjustment signal at 2f, if you introduce a 3rd harmonic frequency at about 3*f where f is the original frequency then the stack might provide the 4th frequency at 6f also?  (not sure this would work.)  might need a 4th signal at 6f to adjust the phase also.

Correct, but I only have a 2 channel waveform generator, and as I'm working on my own portable driver circuit, having 2 channels is difficult enough. I suppose if someone knows how to program a DSP with multiple PWM's, it could be done with software. It's in the back of my mind as the next evolution.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 01/13/2018 06:09 am
I guess if you wanted to, you could inject 2 signals sin(x+phi) and +1/4*sin(3*(x-%pi/3+phi)) where x = w*t .  The material should generate 2*w and 6*w.  It would only work for as long as the material didn't over heat.  I attached an image below of the resulting displacement (not sure of the exact material response).  The input signal is below that.  phi=%pi/2 in the plots - not shown.

One possibility I was considering was signal mixers where you add say 20khz and 40khz and get 60.  Then add 60 and 20 to get 80 ect but that may be overly complicated with dividers filters and amplifiers ect.  Multipliers possibly?

I found a paper "Experimental Setup for a DSP Based Single-Phase PWM Inverter" Mehmet TÜMAY K.Çağatay BAYINDIR Mehmet Uğraş CUMA Ahmet TEKE  (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C26&q=experimental+setup+for+a+dsp+based+single-phased+pwm+inverter&btnG=)
I don't have much experience with them at the moment.  I keep thinking there is probably some simple software out there for programming in complicated wave functions for a DSP. 

Maybe this is one of them? https://sourceforge.net/projects/dsp-lab/?source=directory
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: francesco nicoli on 01/14/2018 02:31 pm
not sure whether this is the relevant forum, but Zubrin posted this today, which I believe has possible implications for warp-drive designs et similia.

https://www.sciencealert.com/negative-mass-quasi-particle-polaritons-low-energy-lasers
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 01/14/2018 04:35 pm
I just finished winding the 2 transformers. The resistors have arrived and the project box will be here tomorrow. The shielded cable will be here mid week. I also ordered 10 more disks. ($$) so I can build up the 2nd MEGA to match. I hope to start building the rotary test rig next weekend.

Here is the test setup. The amplifier is powered by an AC/DC power supply but can also be operated from a car battery.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ThinkerX on 01/15/2018 01:25 am
Warp Tech -

Just trying to keep things straight here.  With your test device, what readings would validate or falsify your current theory? 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 01/15/2018 04:34 am
Warp Tech -

Just trying to keep things straight here.  With your test device, what readings would validate or falsify your current theory?

Good question, since there are multiple models that could produce thrust for different reasons.

1. The 2nd time derivative v2 with electrostriction at 2*w, results in Larmor radiation and Radiation Reaction responses. Direction will depend on frequency, the natural resonances of the stack and which direction has the maximum rate of acceleration. My guess is, there will be "peak" thrust a little better than a photon rocket, but it should disappear if I put it inside a grounded Faraday cage. It will also be very sensitive to the temperature of the stack.

2. The 2nd time derivative of v2 but using 2 AC sources at w and 2*w. The results should be the same, but now the direction can be reversed by inverting the phase of either source. I expect this to be a bit more stable with temperature, it has the ability to be regulated by a DSP and could work at higher frequencies than the natural resonance allows.

3. The 1st space derivate of v2 results in a gradient in the power and kinetic energy across the stack. The light-weight end vibrates much faster than the heavy end. If this results in any thrust, it would be much greater than a photon rocket and would work while shielded by a grounded Faraday cage. The direction would not be reversible because the gradient would always be in the same direction.

The first 2 validate QED, not my theory. This is textbook stuff. The 3rd would be surprising.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ThinkerX on 01/15/2018 05:00 am
Again, seeking clarity here:

Quote
3. The 1st space derivate of v2 results in a gradient in the power and kinetic energy across the stack. The light-weight end vibrates much faster than the heavy end. If this results in any thrust, it would be much greater than a photon rocket and would work while shielded by a grounded Faraday cage. The direction would not be reversible because the gradient would always be in the same direction.

The first 2 validate QED, not my theory. This is textbook stuff. The 3rd would be surprising.

How surprising?  Could it be shoehorned into existing physics with trivial adjustments?

Or does this imply CoE or CoM issues? Or other significant physics issues?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 01/15/2018 05:44 pm
Again, seeking clarity here:

Quote
3. The 1st space derivate of v2 results in a gradient in the power and kinetic energy across the stack. The light-weight end vibrates much faster than the heavy end. If this results in any thrust, it would be much greater than a photon rocket and would work while shielded by a grounded Faraday cage. The direction would not be reversible because the gradient would always be in the same direction.

The first 2 validate QED, not my theory. This is textbook stuff. The 3rd would be surprising.

How surprising?  Could it be shoehorned into existing physics with trivial adjustments?

Or does this imply CoE or CoM issues? Or other significant physics issues?

In a gravitational field, from the perspective of a distant observer. As objects fall toward the ground they are losing energy to the environment. The oscillator frequency is red shifted, as are the photons it emits. The probability of losing energy is greater in the "down" direction, and input of energy is required to make it move "up" in a gravity well.

The stack however has a gradient "internal" to it. It's not relative to some external planet. The energy content of the stack does not depend on its coordinate location. It's not losing more energy moving in one direction relative to any other direction. There is no exhaust of momentum when considering only the space gradient derivative, so it doesn't obey CoM. IMO just having an internal gradient is not enough to make it move due to gravity, therefore it would be surprising if it did.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: X_RaY on 01/15/2018 08:02 pm
I just finished winding the 2 transformers. The resistors have arrived and the project box will be here tomorrow. The shielded cable will be here mid week. I also ordered 10 more disks. ($$) so I can build up the 2nd MEGA to match. I hope to start building the rotary test rig next weekend.

Here is the test setup. The amplifier is powered by an AC/DC power supply but can also be operated from a car battery.

Hi Todd,

i am a little skeptical about the 43 KHz driven by a car hifi amplifier.  ??? These circuits are optimized for low frequencies and may contain filters with cut off frequencies around 20 KHz or even lower. Did you measure the peak to peak voltage and /or power at that frequency?
Did you modify the anplifier to get good power levels for over 40 KHz?

Just another question: The two resistors(? / or choke?) labeled as "10mΩ, 5W", what does the "m" stands for milli or Mega?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 01/15/2018 08:41 pm
I just finished winding the 2 transformers. The resistors have arrived and the project box will be here tomorrow. The shielded cable will be here mid week. I also ordered 10 more disks. ($$) so I can build up the 2nd MEGA to match. I hope to start building the rotary test rig next weekend.

Here is the test setup. The amplifier is powered by an AC/DC power supply but can also be operated from a car battery.

Hi Todd,

i am a little skeptical about the 43 KHz driven by a car hifi amplifier.  ??? These circuits are optimized for low frequencies and may contain filters with cut off frequencies around 20 KHz or even lower. Did you measure the peak to peak voltage and /or power at that frequency?
Did you modify the anplifier to get good power levels for over 40 KHz?

Just another question: The two resistors(? / or choke?) labeled as "10mΩ, 5W", what does the "m" stands for milli or Mega?

The amplifier doesn't put out full power, but it's over 75% at 43kHz, unloaded. It actually works much better than I expected it would. Mathematically, the 2nd harmonic only has to be driven at an amplitude of 25% of the 1st harmonic in order to achieve the desired waveform. My step-up transformers boost the amplitude to 200Vpk at 21.5kHz, unloaded. 

The resistors are 10 milliohms, and are 1% tolerance, so I can use them to monitor the current and get accurate calculations of the power and VA. Eventually, I will remove the 2 disks used to monitor the stack, and just go by the current waveform to know when it's tuned properly.

The enclosure arrived today. I'm waiting on the shielded cable so I can wire it all up, nice and neat. I thought I had some vector board, but it looks like that's next on my shopping list.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 01/15/2018 08:46 pm
i am a little skeptical about the 43 KHz driven by a car hifi amplifier.  ??? These circuits are optimized for low frequencies and may contain filters with cut off frequencies around 20 KHz or even lower. Did you measure the peak to peak voltage and /or power at that frequency?
Did you modify the anplifier to get good power levels for over 40 KHz?

I've seen ultrasonic speakers (40kHz) driven by a standard hifi amplifier. All modern audio amplifiers will have a flat frequency response over the audio range from 20Hz to 20kHz, but there are also many higher frequency harmonics in the signal that must be preserved so as not to introduce distortion.  These high frequency harmonics are present up to 10Mhz. At 43kHz, there will probably be less gain, but I doubt the hifi amplifier sharply cuts off the high frequencies at 20kHz.

All that said, the voltage level from hifi amplifiers is way too low for the impedance of the piezo stack. If 1A output current is sufficient, I would buy the MX200 high performance piezo driver listed here. It can still be powered using two 12V or one 24V lipo battery.  Simply remove the fan and add a large heat sink: https://www.piezodrive.com/modules/
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 01/15/2018 09:39 pm
i am a little skeptical about the 43 KHz driven by a car hifi amplifier.  ??? These circuits are optimized for low frequencies and may contain filters with cut off frequencies around 20 KHz or even lower. Did you measure the peak to peak voltage and /or power at that frequency?
Did you modify the anplifier to get good power levels for over 40 KHz?

I've seen ultrasonic speakers (40kHz) driven by a standard hifi amplifier. All modern audio amplifiers will have a flat frequency response over the audio range from 20Hz to 20kHz, but there are also many higher frequency harmonics in the signal that must be preserved so as not to introduce distortion.  These high frequency harmonics are present up to 10Mhz. At 43kHz, there will probably be less gain, but I doubt the hifi amplifier sharply cuts off the high frequencies at 20kHz.

All that said, the voltage level from hifi amplifiers is way too low for the impedance of the piezo stack. If 1A output current is sufficient, I would buy the MX200 high performance piezo driver listed here. It can still be powered using two 12V or one 24V lipo battery.  Simply remove the fan and add a large heat sink: https://www.piezodrive.com/modules/

These are pricey! The wire I used to wind the XFMR's was about $10 on Amazon. The cores and bobbins were free samples from Ferroxcube and Cosmo Corp. It only takes about half an hour to wind both of them. You may not feel comfortable with doing this, but I've done it hundreds of times. As a lab technician, I often wound much larger transformers by hand where I had to be precise in order to make every last turn fit on the bobbin. With the 22 Awg wire I used, it didn't require that much precision so winding went quickly.

Core: P36-22
Bobbin: 2035-0
Amplifier: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004S50ZNA/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o07_s01?ie=UTF8&psc=1
#22 Wire: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00L5IVS8E/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o04_s01?ie=UTF8&psc=1
#18 Wire: https://www.amazon.com/Remington-Industries-18H200P-5-Enameled-Diameter/dp/B00L5IU79A/ref=sr_1_8?s=industrial&ie=UTF8&qid=1516056163&sr=1-8&keywords=%2318+Magnet+wire
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob Woods on 01/16/2018 10:53 pm

I've seen ultrasonic speakers (40kHz) driven by a standard hifi amplifier. All modern audio amplifiers will have a flat frequency response over the audio range from 20Hz to 20kHz, but there are also many higher frequency harmonics in the signal that must be preserved so as not to introduce distortion. 
Remembering back to my college days doing rock concerts, power amplifiers were broad-range across a very wide spectrum, 200K+ hz at the top, and it was the pre-amp stage that was used to regulate the bandwidth before it hit the power amp to avoid distortions. But that was over 40 years ago...
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 01/21/2018 03:16 am
I now have two MEGA's again. Both have two stacks of 4 disks, and 1 stack of 2 disks to monitor the displacement. I have cleaned them up and attached 4-wire 22AWG "shielded" cables to each, so there should be no Lorentz forces on the wires once everything is grounded.

GRN - Common Source / Ground
BLK - Bottom 4 stack - Channel 1
RED - Middle 4 stack - Channel 2
WHT - Top 2 stack / Feedback

I'm setting up an hanging rotary test rig next. For now, I'm not going to put the MEGA's in a box. I want to see if there is thrust in "air" without blocking the exhaust photons from the output. Putting it in the box is part of the test to see if the thrust is affected, so start simple.

The resistors shown are the .01 Ohm current sense resistors. I can monitor the current on each channel this way. I will be mounting the XFMR's and Resistors to this Vector board as soon as I get some board-to-cable connectors.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star-Drive on 01/21/2018 03:08 pm
I now have two MEGA's again. Both have two stacks of 4 disks, and 1 stack of 2 disks to monitor the displacement. I have cleaned them up and attached 4-wire 22AWG "shielded" cables to each, so there should be no Lorentz forces on the wires once everything is grounded.

GRN - Common Source / Ground
BLK - Bottom 4 stack - Channel 1
RED - Middle 4 stack - Channel 2
WHT - Top 2 stack / Feedback

I'm setting up an hanging rotary test rig next. For now, I'm not going to put the MEGA's in a box. I want to see if there is thrust in "air" without blocking the exhaust photons from the output. Putting it in the box is part of the test to see if the thrust is affected, so start simple.

The resistors shown are the .01 Ohm current sense resistors. I can monitor the current on each channel this way. I will be mounting the XFMR's and Resistors to this Vector board as soon as I get some board-to-cable connectors.

Todd:

How are you controlling the phase of the 1w and 2w acoustic sine-wave signals being driven in your PZT stacks?  IMO Jim Woodward's lack of dramatic performance from his MEGA-drives rests squarely in not being able to adequately control AND maintain the required acoustical phase relationship between these two acoustic signals in the stacks, where maximum thrust occurs at 90-degrees phase shift and zero thrust occurs at 0-degree phase shift.  Jim's ex-graduate student, Tom Mahood and Woodward as well have already explored this 2-acoustic signal, phase control in PZT stacks problem, see attached papers.  I also summed it up in my STAIF-2004 paper as follows:

"Another issue though with Woodward’s PZT test articles was that they were very difficult to keep operating and garnering successful data runs. After searching for a number of explanations for why these PZT based stacks were so difficult to use, Woodward and his colleagues found that the most probable cause for their erratic behavior was due to the use of piezoelectric crystals with “ageing” memory characteristics and relying on ultrasonic pressure waves to force rectify the W-E mass fluctuations and/or reductions into a uni-direction force or weight reduction.  The transient mass fluctuations propagate through the PZT stack crystals at some substantial percentage of the speed of light in lockstep with the applied E-field, while the ultrasonic force rectification waves are traveling through the PZT crystals at the speed of sound through that same material, which are some 5 orders of magnitude slower than the applied E-field. These very large velocity differentials between the E-field driven transient mass fluctuations and the much slower ultrasonic standing waves propagating back and forth in the PZT crystal stack structure, generated large variations in the phase relationship between these two signals."

And this 1w & 2w acoustic phase control problem in the PZT stacks is why I'm concentrating on the Mach Lorentz Thruster (MLT) design where both the electric mass fluctuation signal and force rectifying B-field signal travel at the speed of light in the MLT's dielectric in question.

Best, Paul M.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 01/21/2018 03:22 pm

Todd:

How are you controlling the phase of the 1w and 2w acoustic sine-wave signals being driven in your PZT stacks?  IMO Jim Woodward's lack of dramatic performance from his MEGA-drives rests squarely in not being able to adequately control AND maintain the required acoustical phase relationship between these two acoustic signals in the stacks, where maximum thrust occurs at 90-degrees phase shift and zero thrust occurs at 0-degree phase shift.  Jim's ex-graduate student, Tom Mahood and Woodward as well have already explored this 2-acoustic signal, phase control in PZT stacks problem, see attached papers.  I also summed it up in my STAIF-2004 paper as follows:

"Another issue though with Woodward’s PZT test articles was that they were very difficult to keep operating and garnering successful data runs. After searching for a number of explanations for why these PZT based stacks were so difficult to use, Woodward and his colleagues found that the most probable cause for their erratic behavior was due to the use of piezoelectric crystals with “ageing” memory characteristics and relying on ultrasonic pressure waves to force rectify the W-E mass fluctuations and/or reductions into a uni-direction force or weight reduction.  The transient mass fluctuations propagate through the PZT stack crystals at some substantial percentage of the speed of light in lockstep with the applied E-field, while the ultrasonic force rectification waves are traveling through the PZT crystals at the speed of sound through that same material, which are some 5 orders of magnitude slower than the applied E-field. These very large velocity differentials between the E-field driven transient mass fluctuations and the much slower ultrasonic standing waves propagating back and forth in the PZT crystal stack structure, generated large variations in the phase relationship between these two signals."

And this 1w & 2w acoustic phase control problem in the PZT stacks is why I'm concentrating on the Mach Lorentz Thruster (MLT) design where both the electric mass fluctuation signal and force rectifying B-field signal travel at the speed of light in the MLT's dielectric in question.

Best, Paul M.

At the moment, I do not have a control circuit yet. My original idea will not work because the inductance of the PZT stack is almost non-existant. The energy does not circulate without an external inductor.

For my current tests, I have the 2 channel waveform generator. I have two ways to configure this for the test rig.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31037.0;attach=1470425;image (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31037.0;attach=1470425;image)
1. Each MEGA is driven at a single frequency. Channel 1 powers MEGA 1 and channel 2 powers MEGA 2. For this, I rely on the electrostriction to provide the 2nd harmonic. I can monitor the waveform using the displacement of the 2-disk stack.

2. I can power one 4 disk stack with channel 1 at w, and the 2nd 4 disk stack with channel 2 at 2w. From what I've seen, this does not drift out of range as fast as the electrostriction. It appears to be controlled by adjusting the phase of one of the generators. I will do this manually as I observe the feedback. The benefit of resonance is that the phase difference is zero, but with two generators I can get the right waveform at any frequency.

Regarding the 90-deg phase shift. This I think is an error in the mathematics description. The scalar "power" is radiated in both directions but is always positive. The 90-deg phase difference makes it appear that the force is also rectified, but that is the wrong conclusion. The two must be in-phase so that radiation is rectified. The force will then be uni-directional.

I'll review the papers you attached.

Thanks!
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 01/21/2018 03:27 pm
And this 1w & 2w acoustic phase control problem in the PZT stacks is why I'm concentrating on the Mach Lorentz Thruster (MLT) design where both the electric mass fluctuation signal and force rectifying B-field signal travel at the speed of light in the MLT's dielectric in question.

Best, Paul M.

Paul, Regarding the MLT design, what do you personally think of Buldrini's (and now Woodward's) "bulk acceleration conjecture" referenced in this earlier post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1766405#msg1766405)?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star-Drive on 01/21/2018 04:22 pm
And this 1w & 2w acoustic phase control problem in the PZT stacks is why I'm concentrating on the Mach Lorentz Thruster (MLT) design where both the electric mass fluctuation signal and force rectifying B-field signal travel at the speed of light in the MLT's dielectric in question.

Best, Paul M.

Paul, Regarding the MLT design, what do you personally think of Buldrini's (and now Woodward's) "bulk acceleration conjecture" referenced in this earlier post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1766405#msg1766405)?

Flux Capacitor:

IMO, the a^2 Bulk Acceleration conjecture by Nembo Buldrini in 2008 and later codified by Woodward and Fearn in 2010 and 2012, see attached papers, is the key requirement to making the Mach Effect work in these gravity/inertia (G/I) thrusters. That is because this bulk acceleration a^2 term multiplies all the other thrust generation variables in the M-E thrust equation.  No bulk acceleration of the energy storing dielectric, no mass or vacuum density fluctuations from the M-E should be observed.

BTW, while re-reading Woodard's LS2_Woodward paper, I found it amusing that in the same 2010 paper that Jim codified and made explicit the Mach-Effect's a^2 bulk acceleration requirement, that Jim, while shooting down the reality of the "quantum Vacuum" in QED, also allowed that the QED quantum vacuum would permit vacuum fluctuations in the Dirac electron/positron semi-virtual pair sea to exist, see pages 3&4 in the attached LS2_Woodward paper and the below excerpt from same.  This is the very premise that Dr. Woodward then turned around to say, no that can't be, when he was trying to shoot down Sonny White's QV conjecture that is explicitly based on the reality of the Dirac e/p pair quantum vacuum sea.


"There is an even more fundamental problem here. As Milonni (1993; and refs. therein) and others showed about forty years ago, quantum electrodynamics does not – on the basis of the Casimir effect at least – demand that the quantum vacuum be filled with anything at all. That is, quantum electrodynamics can be consistently interpreted as without any zero point vacuum fluctuations of the electromagnetic field at all. (The argument, however, does not include vacuum fluctuations of the electron field, that is, the creation and annihilation ex nihilo of virtual electron-positron pairs in the vacuum.) In this view, the Casimir force is a result of direct interactions between the particles in the plates, so one can still claim that there is an effective negative energy density in the space separating the plates. But there are no vacuum fluctuations with independent degrees of freedom between the plates. Aficionados of zero point energy and fields are not enamored of this fact. The cautionary message of all this is that one should be very careful when asserting that nothing is really something, and that the something nothing is the solution to all of our technical problems."

 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 01/21/2018 04:35 pm

Todd:

How are you controlling the phase of the 1w and 2w acoustic sine-wave signals being driven in your PZT stacks?  IMO Jim Woodward's lack of dramatic performance from his MEGA-drives rests squarely in not being able to adequately control AND maintain the required acoustical phase relationship between these two acoustic signals in the stacks, where maximum thrust occurs at 90-degrees phase shift and zero thrust occurs at 0-degree phase shift.  Jim's ex-graduate student, Tom Mahood and Woodward as well have already explored this 2-acoustic signal, phase control in PZT stacks problem, see attached papers.  I also summed it up in my STAIF-2004 paper as follows:

"Another issue though with Woodward’s PZT test articles was that they were very difficult to keep operating and garnering successful data runs. After searching for a number of explanations for why these PZT based stacks were so difficult to use, Woodward and his colleagues found that the most probable cause for their erratic behavior was due to the use of piezoelectric crystals with “ageing” memory characteristics and relying on ultrasonic pressure waves to force rectify the W-E mass fluctuations and/or reductions into a uni-direction force or weight reduction.  The transient mass fluctuations propagate through the PZT stack crystals at some substantial percentage of the speed of light in lockstep with the applied E-field, while the ultrasonic force rectification waves are traveling through the PZT crystals at the speed of sound through that same material, which are some 5 orders of magnitude slower than the applied E-field. These very large velocity differentials between the E-field driven transient mass fluctuations and the much slower ultrasonic standing waves propagating back and forth in the PZT crystal stack structure, generated large variations in the phase relationship between these two signals."

And this 1w & 2w acoustic phase control problem in the PZT stacks is why I'm concentrating on the Mach Lorentz Thruster (MLT) design where both the electric mass fluctuation signal and force rectifying B-field signal travel at the speed of light in the MLT's dielectric in question.

Best, Paul M.

At the moment, I do not have a control circuit yet. My original idea will not work because the inductance of the PZT stack is almost non-existant. The energy does not circulate without an external inductor.

For my current tests, I have the 2 channel waveform generator. I have two ways to configure this for the test rig.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31037.0;attach=1470425;image (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31037.0;attach=1470425;image)
1. Each MEGA is driven at a single frequency. Channel 1 powers MEGA 1 and channel 2 powers MEGA 2. For this, I rely on the electrostriction to provide the 2nd harmonic. I can monitor the waveform using the displacement of the 2-disk stack.

2. I can power one 4 disk stack with channel 1 at w, and the 2nd 4 disk stack with channel 2 at 2w. From what I've seen, this does not drift out of range as fast as the electrostriction. It appears to be controlled by adjusting the phase of one of the generators. I will do this manually as I observe the feedback. The benefit of resonance is that the phase difference is zero, but with two generators I can get the right waveform at any frequency.

Regarding the 90-deg phase shift. This I think is an error in the mathematics description. The scalar "power" is radiated in both directions but is always positive. The 90-deg phase difference makes it appear that the force is also rectified, but that is the wrong conclusion. The two must be in-phase so that radiation is rectified. The force will then be uni-directional.

I'll review the papers you attached.

Thanks!

Again this totally reminds me of a phased array in that for a phased array to work properly you need not only control of one antenna but two antennas.  Naturally with out it one will drift out of phase.  Of course we are talking about adding in harmonics here which is a bit different. 

The 90 degree phase shift can be interpreted as such via an external observer observing the external currents but in actuality when the signal arrives the current moves in phase 0deg with the arriving electric field for radiation traveling in one direction and 180 out of phase for radiation moving in the other direction.  2 different velocities in the material does make things complicated. 

I don't see how radiation could be involved however at khz frequencies as quarter wavelength spacing would be massive unless dielectric slowing of the signals could match that.  Not sure how the acoustic phased array would pan out.

I guess I remain sceptical about a phased array analogy but it is tempting to try and analyze it as such.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 01/21/2018 05:00 pm
And this 1w & 2w acoustic phase control problem in the PZT stacks is why I'm concentrating on the Mach Lorentz Thruster (MLT) design where both the electric mass fluctuation signal and force rectifying B-field signal travel at the speed of light in the MLT's dielectric in question.

Best, Paul M.

Paul, Regarding the MLT design, what do you personally think of Buldrini's (and now Woodward's) "bulk acceleration conjecture" referenced in this earlier post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1766405#msg1766405)?

Flux Capacitor:

IMO, the a^2 Bulk Acceleration conjecture by Nembo Buldrini in 2008 and later codified by Woodward and Fearn in 2010 and 2012, see attached papers, is the key requirement to making the Mach Effect work in these gravity/inertia (G/I) thrusters. That is because this bulk acceleration a^2 term multiplies all the other thrust generation variables in the M-E thrust equation.  No bulk acceleration of the energy storing dielectric, no mass or vacuum density fluctuations from the M-E should be observed.

As you do agree with this conjecture, even saying it is "the key requirement to making the Mach Effect work in these gravity/inertia (G/I) thrusters" then what about the bulk acceleration of the capacitor in an MLT?

It is my understanding that in a MET (MEGA drive) using vibrating PZT discs, the capacitors themselves (i.e. the whole material they are made of) undergo a proper acceleration, achieving a "bulk" acceleration.

Whereas in an MLT device (which is based on Lorentz forces acting on electric charges due to crossed E×B fields, the B-field being produced by an electromagnetic coil) capacitors remain fixed, only free electrons and some mobile ions inside the lattice are being accelerated. The main atomic structure of the capacitor does not accelerate in an MLT. For this reason, it seems to me that unlike a MET, an MLT does not meet the requirements to achieve the bulk acceleration conjecture. What do you think?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 01/21/2018 06:00 pm
And this 1w & 2w acoustic phase control problem in the PZT stacks is why I'm concentrating on the Mach Lorentz Thruster (MLT) design where both the electric mass fluctuation signal and force rectifying B-field signal travel at the speed of light in the MLT's dielectric in question.

Best, Paul M.

Paul, Regarding the MLT design, what do you personally think of Buldrini's (and now Woodward's) "bulk acceleration conjecture" referenced in this earlier post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1766405#msg1766405)?

Flux Capacitor:

IMO, the a^2 Bulk Acceleration conjecture by Nembo Buldrini in 2008 and later codified by Woodward and Fearn in 2010 and 2012, see attached papers, is the key requirement to making the Mach Effect work in these gravity/inertia (G/I) thrusters. That is because this bulk acceleration a^2 term multiplies all the other thrust generation variables in the M-E thrust equation.  No bulk acceleration of the energy storing dielectric, no mass or vacuum density fluctuations from the M-E should be observed.

As you do agree with this conjecture, even saying it is "the key requirement to making the Mach Effect work in these gravity/inertia (G/I) thrusters" then what about the bulk acceleration of the capacitor in an MLT?

It is my understanding that in a MET (MEGA drive) using vibrating PZT discs, the capacitors themselves (i.e. the whole material they are made of) undergo a proper acceleration, achieving a "bulk" acceleration.

Whereas in an MLT device (which is based on Lorentz forces acting on electric charges due to crossed E×B fields, the B-field being produced by an electromagnetic coil) capacitors remain fixed, only free electrons and some mobile ions inside the lattice are being accelerated. The main atomic structure of the capacitor does not accelerate in an MLT. For this reason, it seems to me that unlike a MET, an MLT does not meet the requirements to achieve the bulk acceleration conjecture. What do you think?
Some speculation on my part is that the mach effect does work by suggesting a change in effective mass.  The difference in effective mass would be key.  What I find interesting is that depending on the current when it encounters a change in the magnetic field or light it can be either repulsed or attracted.  This suggest a reversibility in the effective mass of the moving charges with respect to the encountered electric field.  Of course this is similar to a phased array so people are reluctant to assume any effective thrust from a phased array as all they know about are the ejected photons.

What I found however was that normally in a phased array the static electric fields often oppose the propulsive thrust effects of the "relativistic electric field/magnetic field". 

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.msg1459290#msg1459290
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36911.0;attach=1087630;image)

So in a normal phased array you have this competing effect between static electric field and magnetic fields.  I have wanted to test or I should some time try and estimate what would happen when one of these effects is eliminated, what would be the effective thrust.  There are ways of eliminating one of the opposing forces and even making them work together.  This would not be your standard phased array and I have my doubts it's been tested before. 

[see image at bottom]

If by some chance there were a greater than photon force that came from it then one would suspect something else was going on more than just ejection of photons which would require further research.  The patent below seems to have come across this idea some time ago but I am unsure it has ever been actually tested. 

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.0
patent 8,459,002.pdf

A dielectric would be required to slow the effective speed of light between the arrays to decrease array spacing and I think it might be possible to introduce iron in the coil to enhance the magnetic field but this would decrease the frequency so it would be a challenge to get the balance just right.  Some heating effects may be present when using iron. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star-Drive on 01/21/2018 06:48 pm
And this 1w & 2w acoustic phase control problem in the PZT stacks is why I'm concentrating on the Mach Lorentz Thruster (MLT) design where both the electric mass fluctuation signal and force rectifying B-field signal travel at the speed of light in the MLT's dielectric in question.

Best, Paul M.

Paul, Regarding the MLT design, what do you personally think of Buldrini's (and now Woodward's) "bulk acceleration conjecture" referenced in this earlier post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1766405#msg1766405)?

Flux Capacitor:

IMO, the a^2 Bulk Acceleration conjecture by Nembo Buldrini in 2008 and later codified by Woodward and Fearn in 2010 and 2012, see attached papers, is the key requirement to making the Mach Effect work in these gravity/inertia (G/I) thrusters. That is because this bulk acceleration a^2 term multiplies all the other thrust generation variables in the M-E thrust equation.  No bulk acceleration of the energy storing dielectric, no mass or vacuum density fluctuations from the M-E should be observed.

As you do agree with this conjecture, even saying it is "the key requirement to making the Mach Effect work in these gravity/inertia (G/I) thrusters" then what about the bulk acceleration of the capacitor in an MLT?

It is my understanding that in a MET (MEGA drive) using vibrating PZT discs, the capacitors themselves (i.e. the whole material they are made of) undergo a proper acceleration, achieving a "bulk" acceleration.

Whereas in an MLT device (which is based on Lorentz forces acting on electric charges due to crossed E×B fields, the B-field being produced by an electromagnetic coil) capacitors remain fixed, only free electrons and some mobile ions inside the lattice are being accelerated. The main atomic structure of the capacitor does not accelerate in an MLT. For this reason, it seems to me that unlike a MET, an MLT does not meet the requirements to achieve the bulk acceleration conjecture. What do you think?

Flux-Capacitor:

"The main atomic structure of the capacitor does not accelerate in an MLT. For this reason, it seems to me that unlike a MET, an MLT does not meet the requirements to achieve the bulk acceleration conjecture. What do you think?"

This is where Woodward's 2002-to-2006 MLT prototypes ran afoul of this bulk acceleration requirement before Buldrini pointed out the problem in 2008 after showing Jim that his Mach-6 test articles were not producing steady state thrust levels in a horizontal torque pendulum, because he used Y5U low acoustic generation energy storage caps in his build.  (In Jim's CSUF tests, he used a vertically mounted load-cell for his force sensor that permitted his MLT test articles to bounce up and down on the force sensor's internal spring, thus generating the bulk accelerations in his test articles that enabled the generation of the mass density fluctuations, which were in turn  force rectified by the MLT's ac B-field. 

Now in my own 2003 MLT build, I had an intuitive feeling that the energy storage capacitors had to move relative to the distant stars, AKA they had to bulk accelerate to operate as intended.  Thus I procured 100, Vishay Ceramite 1,000pF at 10 kV, Y5R high voltage ceramic capacitors, which come the closest to having pure BaTiO3 with a piezo response of ~78 pico-meter per volt (pm/V), in the hopes of finding enough energy storage capacitors with sufficient piezo response to be usable for the MLT application. 

(Capacitor manufacturers to NOT measure the piezo-response of their energy storage capacitors, since they went to some trouble in the first place to originally formulate their ceramic alloy blends with as little piezo response as possible to minimize their acoustic micro-phonics when subjected to vibrations.  A micro-phonic characteristic that their military customers and stereo amplifier equipment manufactures did not want to deal with.  Lucky for me they were only partially successful in their quest, due to the piezo response bell curve of some of their ceramic alloy products.)   

I tested each of the procured 100, Y5R capacitors with a "rap" test while monitoring their output with a scope to see which ones had the most mechanical to electrical output using a semi-consistent rapping force applied to a oak wood table in my lab that was applied at right angles to the capacitor's parallel plate electrodes.  I then chose the 8 caps with the as determined highest piezo response for my MLT-2004 test article and mounted them into a capacitor ring, per the attached slides.  I then mounted the 8-cap capacitor ring in a bedding of silicone RTV that insulated the cap's High Voltage leads, but also allowed the cap-ring's PCB to vertically vibrate ever so slightly inside the toroidal copper-wire coil at 2X the MLT drive frequency.  Lastly, I also used a vertical load cell like Woodward for my force measurement system, which also permitted maximizing the relative motion of the caps relative to the stars.  Did I plan all of this from the beginning?  Other than the original intuitive feel I had about the need for movement in the MLT cap ring, it just sort of happened this way, but I have found over the years that my internal muses are oft times right if I bother to listen to them.  Woodward just called it "Beginners Luck" when I showed him my initial MLT-2004 test results at the STAIF-2004 Conference in New Mexico.

BTW for future MLT builds we should all consider using on-purpose, high electrical and mechanical-Q piezoelectric, i.e., "hard" piezo-materials like the Steiner Martin SM118 material for the MLT's energy storage capacitors while driving them at one of the piezo-ring's higher harmonic radial resonant modes.  We also need to allow the resulting cap-ring assembly in the toroidal coil to be cyclically Z-axis accelerated by the crossed ac E-fields and B-fields relative to the the toroidal coil, and the distant stars.  This is where I'm going for my next MLT build.  An MLT-2018 build that may provide some very interesting test results, if my current White-QV / Woodward-M-E / Plasma-MHD based MLT spreadsheet is anything to go by.  "IF"...

Best, Paul M.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 01/21/2018 07:00 pm
Many thanks for this complete answer Paul :)
So, basically, Woodward's initial MLT design didn't allow capacitors to vibrate, hence he moved to the MET design with vibrating PZT discs and no EM coil. But at the cost of much lower frequency (acoustic).
While your own 2004 MLT design luckily incorporated this fundamental feature.
Do you know the reason why Woodward never moved over the years to a "new" MLT design based on your 2004 MLT, as it can work at much higher frequencies than METs? It's been 14 years…
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: M.E.T. on 01/21/2018 07:41 pm
Moving aside from the technical build discussions for a moment, is there any news on official progress with regards to MET? Based on the Estes Park presentations, it seemed that formal support and indisputable evidence for the existence of the effect has increased dramatically in recent times.

Are there any major official efforts underway to scale up the results to useful levels in the near term? Or is it still "10 years away" as it has been for the last 15 years or so?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 01/21/2018 08:49 pm
Moving aside from the technical build discussions for a moment, is there any news on official progress with regards to MET? Based on the Estes Park presentations, it seemed that formal support and indisputable evidence for the existence of the effect has increased dramatically in recent times.

Are there any major official efforts underway to scale up the results to useful levels in the near term? Or is it still "10 years away" as it has been for the last 15 years or so?

This is what I am attempting. I have increased the disks from 19mm to 50mm, and the size of the massive end caps to nearly 1kg. I have also increased the available power from about 100W to over 400Wpk. However, I don't have a thrust balance. I just finished hanging a rotating test rig, suspended by a barrel swivel, S.S. leader line (AKA fishing tackle). It seems to work. I gave it a small push and it made several revolutions over about 10 minutes. I closed the windows to eliminate the drafts and it stabilized. Then it sat there practically motionless. However, when I stretch the cables to the amplifier, they're causing some torque. I took a break for a 2nd cup of coffee to consider what to do about it. ???

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star-Drive on 01/21/2018 09:33 pm
Many thanks for this complete answer Paul :)
So, basically, Woodward's initial MLT design didn't allow capacitors to vibrate, hence he moved to the MET design with vibrating PZT discs and no EM coil. But at the cost of much lower frequency (acoustic).
While your own 2004 MLT design luckily incorporated this fundamental feature.
Do you know the reason why Woodward never moved over the years to a "new" MLT design based on your 2004 MLT, as it can work at much higher frequencies than METs? It's been 14 years…

Flux Capacitor

"Do you know the reason why Woodward never moved over the years to a "new" MLT design based on your 2004 MLT, as it can work at much higher frequencies than METs? It's been 14 years…"

At first blush, all I can think of is that Jim spent over five years pursuing his version of the MLTs using low-loss Vishay Ceramite Y5U dielectric caps running them at only 50 kHz but up to 8.0k Vac in the potted arrangement.  That arrangement did not function as well as needed without the aid of his MU80 load cell mounted in a vertical format.  When asked why Jim didn't push on to higher frequencies and added bulk acceleration at the 2016 Estes Park workshop, all Jim would say is that he had already moved on to his rotary work after 2006 and didn't have the RF equipment or expertise needed pursue HF driven MLTs even with the bulk acceleration problem taken care of. 

So Dr. Woodward and his team of which I'm a part, is now trying to make the purely acoustic MEGA-drive PZT stacks work and play at somewhat higher frequencies, ~100 kHz 1w verses the current 33 kHz by making them smaller in size, which should get his test articles up into the desired 1w operating frequency range while using an internal PZT stack strain gauge to monitor the 1w and 2w phase relationship.  How he intends to control the driven 1w/2w phase relationship is still up for grabs, but IMO it will take a dynamically tuned PZT layer in the stack that can tune the length the of stack to do it.

BTW, just so you know what raising the MEGA-drive's 1w drive frequency by a factor 3 means is that with the same driven power levels and SM-111 PZT material, the current MEGA-drive thrust output should increase by a factor of 3^6 power or ~2.5 uN x 729 = 1.823 milli-Newton (mN).  Jim already demonstrated this w^6 frequency scaling in his 2012 N5 MEGA-drive test article that was inadvertently self-generating the 3rd and 4th harmonics with a 33 kHz 1w signal due to some of SM-111 PZT material's w^2 electrostrictive responses when tuned to "just so" conditions, which are still hard to replicate.  A 2x increase in the effective drive frequency is equal to 2^6 = 64X increase in thrust, which is about 2.5 uN x 64 = 160 uN as shown in the below 2012 N5 slides.   And then we have the V^4 voltage scaling to pursue, which also takes improved cooling of the PZT stacks to implement.

Added the Woodward 2012, 130uN N5 Presentation.

Best, Paul M.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Augmentor on 01/22/2018 05:16 am
Moving aside from the technical build discussions for a moment, is there any news on official progress with regards to MET? Based on the Estes Park presentations, it seemed that formal support and indisputable evidence for the existence of the effect has increased dramatically in recent times.

Are there any major official efforts underway to scale up the results to useful levels in the near term? Or is it still "10 years away" as it has been for the last 15 years or so?

Define "useful levels"...

The MET device produces low microNewton thrust levels in a physics lab test environment. Useful levels are for the current size, weight and power (and cost too!) are at least 1mN for a commercial device.

For any self-contained space drive, every order of magnitude thrust per unit (N/kWe) is a milestone.

Scaling from micronewtons to newton level thrust and higher requires a combination of amplification and multiplication. Various methods of amplification have to be analyzed and synthesized and then integrated into a design/build for a vehicle or platform. Multiplication is best produced by arrays.

For example, a rocket requires 1 N thrust. At 10 uN thrust, 100,000 units would be required. The best answer is not in it's present form. Too many obstacles to overcome.

However, for 1N thrust requirement using 1 mN thrust/unit. Then 1,000 units would be needed, 10 x 100 2D array or a cube 10x10x10 3D array which is less than a cubic foot.

There are other issues most notably the thrust output vs power input where the units are N/kWe. Practical applications require at least 0.1 N/kWe preferably 100 N/kWe.

The other issue of concern is a customer.

The NASA NIAC study will be finished soon.  For a long trip to the next star, the feasibility of long and slow acceleration works and is sufficient to obtain a peak velocity of around 40% c.  However, much work at the Basic R&D level - not Product R&D level - needs to be done.

The time horizon is filled with numerous issues and obstacles. Estimates vary from 5 to 15 years for reasons not of technology alone of scaling, test, and integration but the business side presenting a viable business case with a value proposition, a team than can execute a project plan, and the availability of funding. And a customer.

Time will tell.


Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 01/23/2018 12:28 am
Moving aside from the technical build discussions for a moment, is there any news on official progress with regards to MET? Based on the Estes Park presentations, it seemed that formal support and indisputable evidence for the existence of the effect has increased dramatically in recent times.

Are there any major official efforts underway to scale up the results to useful levels in the near term? Or is it still "10 years away" as it has been for the last 15 years or so?

This is what I am attempting. I have increased the disks from 19mm to 50mm, and the size of the massive end caps to nearly 1kg. I have also increased the available power from about 100W to over 400Wpk. However, I don't have a thrust balance. I just finished hanging a rotating test rig, suspended by a barrel swivel, S.S. leader line (AKA fishing tackle). It seems to work. I gave it a small push and it made several revolutions over about 10 minutes. I closed the windows to eliminate the drafts and it stabilized. Then it sat there practically motionless. However, when I stretch the cables to the amplifier, they're causing some torque. I took a break for a 2nd cup of coffee to consider what to do about it. ???

I was pondering coupling power transfer via a capacitance inductive coupling.  I attached an image below.  Never played with one before so its just a guess it should work.  Might cause some physical vibration but I am guessing fishing line might damp it?   

Not sure this is a good idea because it might change the downward force of the apparatus via the voltage on the capacitor.  For a torque this could change how far it would turn. 

Wondering what you would use to generate your test force to rotate the pendulum for calibration.

Oh a swivel.  So it isn't a pendulum?

I am assuming two opposing MET's.  One run at the proper phase relationship and the other ran in a null configuration?

Other problems might be transfer of data from the M.E.T.'s to equipment.

another thought this morning was a galinstan contact through the center below to convey power.
 Multiple channels might be possible.

Multiple capacitor rings might achieve a similar effect of multiple channels of galinstan
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 01/24/2018 02:06 pm

I was pondering coupling power transfer via a capacitance inductive coupling.  I attached an image below.  Never played with one before so its just a guess it should work.  Might cause some physical vibration but I am guessing fishing line might damp it?   

How will you make the top plate freely rotatable? How will you hang the weight of the apparatus? Note that there is no mechanical connection between the upper plate and the lower plate to bear weight. These details need to be figured out.

Quote
Not sure this is a good idea because it might change the downward force of the apparatus via the voltage on the capacitor.  For a torque this could change how far it would turn. 

No. The electrical force between the two plates is internal force. It will not change the downward force (in the upper fishing line).

Quote
Wondering what you would use to generate your test force to rotate the pendulum for calibration.

Oh a swivel.  So it isn't a pendulum?

I am assuming two opposing MET's.  One run at the proper phase relationship and the other ran in a null configuration?

Other problems might be transfer of data from the M.E.T.'s to equipment.
This is not a problem. A wireless connection (wifi, bluetooth, etc) will make it.

Quote
another thought this morning was a galinstan contact through the center below to convey power.
 Multiple channels might be possible.

Multiple capacitor rings might achieve a similar effect of multiple channels of galinstan

EW at NASA used this in their earlier (2014) experiment. Rfmwguy used this in his earlier configuration. He abandoned it because of the hard-to-control surface tension problem.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 01/24/2018 06:33 pm

I was pondering coupling power transfer via a capacitance inductive coupling.  I attached an image below.  Never played with one before so its just a guess it should work.  Might cause some physical vibration but I am guessing fishing line might damp it?   

How will you make the top plate freely rotatable? How will you hang the weight of the apparatus? Note that there is no mechanical connection between the upper plate and the lower plate to bear weight. These details need to be figured out.

Quote
Not sure this is a good idea because it might change the downward force of the apparatus via the voltage on the capacitor.  For a torque this could change how far it would turn. 

No. The electrical force between the two plates is internal force. It will not change the downward force (in the upper fishing line).

Quote
Wondering what you would use to generate your test force to rotate the pendulum for calibration.

Oh a swivel.  So it isn't a pendulum?

I am assuming two opposing MET's.  One run at the proper phase relationship and the other ran in a null configuration?

Other problems might be transfer of data from the M.E.T.'s to equipment.
This is not a problem. A wireless connection (wifi, bluetooth, etc) will make it.

Quote
another thought this morning was a galinstan contact through the center below to convey power.
 Multiple channels might be possible.

Multiple capacitor rings might achieve a similar effect of multiple channels of galinstan

EW at NASA used this in their earlier (2014) experiment. Rfmwguy used this in his earlier configuration. He abandoned it because of the hard-to-control surface tension problem.

The top plate would need to be attached to the met apparatus it self.  There would need to be either a twisting of the top fishing line or if using a swivel then the swivel needs to be above the MET. 

A fully charged capacitor should experience attraction between the plates.  A sinusodal force should apply half this force I surmised .  Getting the plate perfectly flat with respect to the plate below may be a problem as with applied force this would cause tipping.

A single point that sits in the galinstan and doesn't move through the galinstan would probably have minimal friction.  As the radius increases from the center may cause problems due to dissipation to heat or turbulancevia increased velocity. 

One could figure in the damping as a factor.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Augmentor on 01/24/2018 08:29 pm
There are some annoying gaps or misunderstanding in Woodward's Mach effect theory that need to be clarified especially the use solely of the a^2 term and ignoring the j v term. In this paragraph, v, a and j are always vectors. Finally, a discussion of where the Mach effect roadmap eventually leads to in terms of theory is briefly discussed.

I'd like to point out that the a^2 term in the Woodward effect is not the only term. From both the Stargates paper where force change was first published and in the MSAS book, the Woodward equation for force change is

F' = A a^2 + B j v

where A and B are constants and may be functions, scaling variables and even imaginary values where i is used to indicate potential energy.

From a GRT standpoint, a is a vector and j~0. So a can be relativistic; j simply is not.

SR might apply to velocity, v. However, one quickly runs into the jerk term, j, as a major obstacle to applying SR or even GR.

Frame dragging is a natural result that causes pause and not just be concerned with frames but with scaling, perhaps even scale dragging.

Another factor is parsing by expanding the Woodward force change equation

0. F' = A a^2 + B j v

Beginning with a two level scaled system, we have the following possibilities:

1. F' = A a(system) a(atomic) + B j(atomic) v(system)

2. F' = A a(system) a(atomic) + B j(system) v(atomic)


Furthermore, if we take a more generalized approach that only relativistic and quantum systems are participating we can used the above  for R for Relativistic (GR for general relativity) and quantum mechanic (QM), for a particle view we have:


1. F' = A a(R) a(QM) + B j(R) v(QM)

2. F' = A a(R) a(QM) + B j(QM) v(R)

Equation 1 makes little since since relativistic jerk is a change in acceleration at relativistic acceleration which is not clearly supported by GR and is beyond GR theory even though empirically that is what is measured especially in rotating system.

However, if only Newtonian kinematic force is allowed we have


3. F' = A a(GR) a(QM) + B j(N) v(QM)

4. F' = A a(GR) a(QM) + B j(QM) v(N)

 This makes a bit better sense.

So, assuming j(N) or j(QM) are approximately zero. Then we need to address the simplified equation

5. F' = A a(GR) a(QM)

and note whether we are speaking of the entire thruster acceleration, a1, or the nested active material acceleration a2.

6a. F' = A a1(GR) a2(QM)

6b. F' = A a2(GR) a1(QM)

If one ignores QM as well as QFT, then we can reduce the basic theory to a relativistic Newtonian view as seen in equations 7a and 7b. Again, a1 is the system level and a2 is the particle level (atomic and elementary) within a crystal.

7a. F' = A a1(GR) a2(N)

7b. F' = A a1(N) a2(GR)

Now we come to the important part of the show...for v<0.1 c we have Newtonian velocities  that could become
relativistic velocities through Newtonian acceleration. So we use the Lorentz factor as which speaks to the instant velocity but not the acceleration. For this, we need to jump to Einstein's Field Equations and probably Kaluza-Klein theory.

Even after relativistic Newtonian solutions are extended to a full General Relativity, there is the matter of what is going on at the quantum level as well as in fields. For an invariant charge based system, atoms and elementary particles have their own rule set leaving fields to the designer applying in increasing succession the  Dirac-Maxwell equations (fixed charge), Lorentz charge-force equation (moving charge and SR), and General Relativity (accelerating charge).

See "Solutions to the Lorentz force equation with fixed charge-to-mass ratio in globally hyperbolic spacetimes"
https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0211100 (https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0211100)

After one calculates bonds both molecular and gravitational as well as E&M, one might have to use EM, QED or QCD to resolve issues such as Aharanov-Bohm. Axion-Electromagnetic theory is an attempt to resolve the strong force CP problem resulting in Visinelli-Dirac-Maxwell equations.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axion)

For Mach effects, there is the question on the role of quasiparticles such as electron-hole theory, squeezed states, and topological insulators. One should also include superconductors, BEC and BCS theory. All of this leads to quantum field theory as an area which needs to be studied.

To truly understand GR effects, one has to resort to four-vectors and tensors. The physics frontiers of gravitational effects may require an improved understanding not just of wave-particles and fields, but on dissimilar scales from the macro to the nano where quantum  wave-particles and fields become quasiparticles.

To that end, one has to strongly consider the study of the Transactional Interpretation of QM (TI theory) by Cramer and the QFT modifications to TI theory by Kastner.

Then one can truly appreciate Dr. Woodward's work in simplifying a change in force down to a^2.

David

David
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: HMXHMX on 01/31/2018 12:48 am
Videos from the Aerospace-sponsored workshop from fall 2017 are now being posted on ssi.org: http://ssi.org/advanced-propulsion-workshop-2017/
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Rodal on 02/01/2018 09:04 pm
 "Propellant-less Space Propulsion from a Gravitational Effect Sourced by Energy Fluctuations."

https://www.youtube.com/c/SSISpaceStudiesInstitute


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nybymlIN08Q&t=913s
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Rodal on 02/03/2018 04:56 pm
Here is a copy of my slide presentation
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: mboeller on 02/04/2018 02:28 pm
Your workshop slides confuse me completely.

The conclusion is, at least for a layman like myself complete strange. Is a woodward-drive (MEGA-Drive) possible after all or not? From the slides with all the negativity I would conclude that a MEGA-Drive is not possible, but I'm not sure.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Rodal on 02/04/2018 03:01 pm
Your workshop slides confuse me completely.

The conclusion is, at least for a layman like myself complete strange. Is a woodward-drive (MEGA-Drive) possible after all or not? From the slides with all the negativity I would conclude that a MEGA-Drive is not possible, but I'm not sure.
To understand, it may be helpful to  listen to my presentation (see above https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1780819#msg1780819 ), particularly the answers to questions from the audience, in addition to seeing the slides you refer to.  It may also be helpful if you listen to Tajmar's presentation of the MEGA drive including questions and answers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36Hpgxb9MdU&t=1185s. 

This is research work in progress at a level of Technology Readiness Level below 4 (see

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/NASA_TRL_Meter.png)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_readiness_level ) involving basic technology research. 

Scientific rigor should not be viewed as "negativity" but as a normal part of the process of healthy science and technology research.  Both the theory and experiments point to interesting possibilities for research and development.   This "Mach Effect" drive research is active at universities and research centers in California, Canada, England and Germany towards moving this to a higher Technology Readiness Level.

Of course, the research is presently conducted hoping that it will indeed move to a higher Technology Readiness Level, while keeping scientific objectivity and rigor.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Augmentor on 02/04/2018 04:35 pm
The Mach Effect thruster families are like an unfinished symphony in a new opera house. Does one work on the building, the instruments or the acoustics?  or all three...

The violins need to resonate on the same note at the same time. The brass section is a bit off key. The percussion is maddening. And the sharpness of the piccolo is not soothing just yet. The cacophony means the conductor has his work cut out for him to bring up the orchestra in practice to bring down the house in performance. And the sound techs have to remember it's suppose to be a symphony orchestra, not just a string quartet.   Right now, there is a single violin and it's not in tune apparently and can barely be heard. So not only is the theory unfinished, the music, the building and the performers all need work.

To reach Level 4 one would require a rigorous paper documenting the Basic R&D that is peer-reviewed and published in a top journal such as Physics Review Letters or Nature. One would also demand that theory and experiment are reflected in modeling and simulations.

Since the thrust is still in the low micronewtons, the efficiency is extremely low. As a transducer, there is not sufficient power efficiency to overcome thermodynamic limits.

For a single unit, both tuning and amplification are needed before one can claim victory. Keep in mind the single unit is a small stack of PZT discs that is pre-tensioned using machined parts to shape the excitation thrust.

So the status is very promising but does not deliver beyond Basic R&D and applied physics. Product R&D is still in the future  .

Basic R&D --> Applied Physics --> Product R&D --> Manufacturing --> Integration --> Application

Also, power signal testing uses a single unit, not two units in close proximity.   

At best, one could claim TRL 3, although in some circles, there is unfinished business for TRL 1 and 2.





Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: masterharper1082 on 02/05/2018 12:42 am
Capability of understanding (workable theory) and modeling is very helpful to improve the technology further, to better understand its limitations, and to accelerate development, but is largely irrelevant for TRL, which depends on practical usability, and can be achieved with thorough testing.  An extreme example: were Newton's equations of motion, kinematics, or Lagrangian dynamics with nonholonomic constraints required for the wheel to be developed into a useful tool?  I think we can agree that the wheel was at TRL 9 long before the theoretical developments.

Understanding/modeling capability is a separate issue, and there is no necessity to publish.  Ability to understand and model better than others can be a proprietary advantage.  It may not be the reality we desire to see for such a (potentially) groundbreaking technology, but for military or commercial applications, that's often how it happens.  Shawyer's breadcrumbs are a perfect example, no matter how theoretically unsatisfying they are.

mh
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 02/05/2018 04:13 pm
"Propellant-less Space Propulsion from a Gravitational Effect Sourced by Energy Fluctuations."

https://www.youtube.com/c/SSISpaceStudiesInstitute


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nybymlIN08Q&t=913s

Dr. Rodal, that's a great photo as it looks like you got Einstein's interest in your presentation!
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 02/12/2018 09:32 pm
MEGA UPDATE 2/12/18

I got side tracked and purchased a 5kg load cell. I received it over the weekend and built a scale to weigh my MEGA test devices with high precision. The issue I'm having is that the load cell output changes by only ~.24nV per micro-Newton. The Op Amps I had on hand have 22nV/rtHz of input Shot noise and when I amplify the signal, this noise swamps any signal smaller than about 100uN. I have a few more tricks though.

1. I ordered some very low noise Op Amps, 3.8nV/rtHz to test.
2. I also ordered the pressure sensitive resistor for Raspberry Pi that was suggested here, as opposed to the load cell. It can support up to 10kg and has >10Mohm open circuit resistance. It will arrive this week. With that, I hope to increase the sensitivity, but it will depend on how much current the device can withstand without temperature drift.

I've probably given up on the rotary test rig. There is no way to measure forces from it, which I feel I need to do, and the slip-ring wire hub I bought is not very smooth rolling. It takes more force than I expected to make it spin and the slip-ring's drag damps it very quickly. It's also difficult to keep it aligned so that there is only torque on the slip ring and no side-to-side wobbles when I turn it on and off. Lastly, even if I cover and box both devices, I still think it will push air due to the audible vibrations attached to a long flat board. It will not have a valid outcome, regardless if it spins or not. I don't have a huge vacuum chamber to hang it in and to do it right will cost a lot more than I am willing to spend.

2/13/18 - I received the force sensitive resistor, but it does not look promising. It seems to have memory and a large hysteresis. The spec says 10% and it responds so slow I can watch it creep down from 30k, 29.98k, 29.55k... over several minutes. When I remove a mass, it takes time to spring back to higher resistance.

Regarding the noise issue, I found that the majority of noise I was measuring was coming from the power supply, so I switch to 8 "AA" batteries for my 12V supply. The low noise Op Amps will arrive tomorrow, and then I'll solder up a circuit board keeping all the traces tight to avoid noise pickup. I'll be back....
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 02/14/2018 06:50 pm
MEGA UPDATE 2/12/18

I got side tracked and purchased a 5kg load cell. I received it over the weekend and built a scale to weigh my MEGA test devices with high precision. The issue I'm having is that the load cell output changes by only ~.24nV per micro-Newton. The Op Amps I had on hand have 22nV/rtHz of input Shot noise and when I amplify the signal, this noise swamps any signal smaller than about 100uN. I have a few more tricks though.

1. I ordered some very low noise Op Amps, 3.8nV/rtHz to test.
2. I also ordered the pressure sensitive resistor for Raspberry Pi that was suggested here, as opposed to the load cell. It can support up to 10kg and has >10Mohm open circuit resistance. It will arrive this week. With that, I hope to increase the sensitivity, but it will depend on how much current the device can withstand without temperature drift.

I've probably given up on the rotary test rig. There is no way to measure forces from it, which I feel I need to do, and the slip-ring wire hub I bought is not very smooth rolling. It takes more force than I expected to make it spin and the slip-ring's drag damps it very quickly. It's also difficult to keep it aligned so that there is only torque on the slip ring and no side-to-side wobbles when I turn it on and off. Lastly, even if I cover and box both devices, I still think it will push air due to the audible vibrations attached to a long flat board. It will not have a valid outcome, regardless if it spins or not. I don't have a huge vacuum chamber to hang it in and to do it right will cost a lot more than I am willing to spend.

2/13/18 - I received the force sensitive resistor, but it does not look promising. It seems to have memory and a large hysteresis. The spec says 10% and it responds so slow I can watch it creep down from 30k, 29.98k, 29.55k... over several minutes. When I remove a mass, it takes time to spring back to higher resistance.

Regarding the noise issue, I found that the majority of noise I was measuring was coming from the power supply, so I switch to 8 "AA" batteries for my 12V supply. The low noise Op Amps will arrive tomorrow, and then I'll solder up a circuit board keeping all the traces tight to avoid noise pickup. I'll be back....

Regarding the rotary test rig, can you use a laser beam deflection, record the beam motion and from that compute the forces? Thanks.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 02/14/2018 09:04 pm
MEGA UPDATE 2/12/18

I got side tracked and purchased a 5kg load cell. I received it over the weekend and built a scale to weigh my MEGA test devices with high precision. The issue I'm having is that the load cell output changes by only ~.24nV per micro-Newton. The Op Amps I had on hand have 22nV/rtHz of input Shot noise and when I amplify the signal, this noise swamps any signal smaller than about 100uN. I have a few more tricks though.

1. I ordered some very low noise Op Amps, 3.8nV/rtHz to test.
2. I also ordered the pressure sensitive resistor for Raspberry Pi that was suggested here, as opposed to the load cell. It can support up to 10kg and has >10Mohm open circuit resistance. It will arrive this week. With that, I hope to increase the sensitivity, but it will depend on how much current the device can withstand without temperature drift.

I've probably given up on the rotary test rig. There is no way to measure forces from it, which I feel I need to do, and the slip-ring wire hub I bought is not very smooth rolling. It takes more force than I expected to make it spin and the slip-ring's drag damps it very quickly. It's also difficult to keep it aligned so that there is only torque on the slip ring and no side-to-side wobbles when I turn it on and off. Lastly, even if I cover and box both devices, I still think it will push air due to the audible vibrations attached to a long flat board. It will not have a valid outcome, regardless if it spins or not. I don't have a huge vacuum chamber to hang it in and to do it right will cost a lot more than I am willing to spend.

2/13/18 - I received the force sensitive resistor, but it does not look promising. It seems to have memory and a large hysteresis. The spec says 10% and it responds so slow I can watch it creep down from 30k, 29.98k, 29.55k... over several minutes. When I remove a mass, it takes time to spring back to higher resistance.

Regarding the noise issue, I found that the majority of noise I was measuring was coming from the power supply, so I switch to 8 "AA" batteries for my 12V supply. The low noise Op Amps will arrive tomorrow, and then I'll solder up a circuit board keeping all the traces tight to avoid noise pickup. I'll be back....

Regarding the rotary test rig, can you use a laser beam deflection, record the beam motion and from that compute the forces? Thanks.

I considered using video frames with a laser sensor, but... the flat board vibrates like crazy and is very audible. Whatever forces I measure will be mostly from the resulting sound waves. I don't trust wrapping it up in foam and cardboard to make it silent. Besides, fiddling around with a circuit board and the load cell is a lot more my style! Still waiting for my Op amps to arrive. I have a multi-stage differential amplifier simulation complete, whose gain is 1nv to 1V of resolution. I just hope the real circuit isn't swamped by the noise.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 02/17/2018 11:47 am
As a transducer, there is not sufficient power efficiency to overcome thermodynamic limits.

As already explained by Paul March and Ron Stahl : a Mach effect thruster (MET) or Mach-Effect Gravity Assist (MEGA) drive relies on Mach's principle, it is not an electrical to kinetic transducer, i.e. it does not convert the electric energy from the power supply to kinetic energy. Rather, a MEGA drive is a gravitational transistor that develops its kinetic energy from the cosmological gravity/inertial (G/I) field locally in and out of the active mass of the thruster.

The force produced by such a thruster is supposed to grow like the square of the frequency applied to the stack, as well as the fourth power of the input voltage (unfortunately you can't increase the voltage that much because thermal expansion quickly destroys the resonance frequency, and power consumption increases too much, so you have to focus on increasing the resonant frequency). Therefore they have to develop better electronics –and maybe choose a different piezoelectric material than PZT that would have a higher natural resonant frequency– and see if the efficiency is really increasing like theoretical predictions. Precise control of the input AC voltage (shape and power) and resonant frequency determine the efficiency of a MEGA drive. Well, finding how to do this and building the right electronics is one of the goals of the 2017 NIAC contract.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob Woods on 02/17/2018 06:35 pm
Rather, a MEGA drive is a gravitational transistor that develops its kinetic energy from the cosmological gravity/inertial (G/I) field locally in and out of the active mass of the thruster.
Unqualified as I am, mechanistically any creation of mass at a quantum level requires the absorption of inertia from the universe as a whole for that mass to exist. If a quanta of energy is introduced in a manner that creates some spin, it would be effectively a boson, wouldn't it, and that would mean it has some angular momentum borrowed from the inertia of the  universe as a whole.


Can a piezoelectric lattice structure provide a matrix that imparts spin to energy quanta introduced into that structure? Likewise in the EM drive could a TE resonance contained within a moving magnetic field induce some spin into quanta of the resonant electric field?


... it make my head hurt, but I like dreaming about this stuff.


Bob
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 02/17/2018 07:28 pm
Rather, a MEGA drive is a gravitational transistor that develops its kinetic energy from the cosmological gravity/inertial (G/I) field locally in and out of the active mass of the thruster.
Unqualified as I am, mechanistically any creation of mass at a quantum level requires the absorption of inertia from the universe as a whole for that mass to exist. If a quanta of energy is introduced in a manner that creates some spin, it would be effectively a boson, wouldn't it, and that would mean it has some angular momentum borrowed from the inertia of the  universe as a whole.


Can a piezoelectric lattice structure provide a matrix that imparts spin to energy quanta introduced into that structure? Likewise in the EM drive could a TE resonance contained within a moving magnetic field induce some spin into quanta of the resonant electric field?


... it make my head hurt, but I like dreaming about this stuff.


Bob

Point taken, if the MEGA exchanges a quantum of momentum with the universe as a whole, why should/would that quanta have any more or less momentum than a photon? Photons, gravitons, dilatons are all massless particles that obey p=hbar*k.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob Woods on 02/19/2018 03:59 pm
Rather, a MEGA drive is a gravitational transistor that develops its kinetic energy from the cosmological gravity/inertial (G/I) field locally in and out of the active mass of the thruster.
Unqualified as I am, mechanistically any creation of mass at a quantum level requires the absorption of inertia from the universe as a whole for that mass to exist. If a quanta of energy is introduced in a manner that creates some spin, it would be effectively a boson, wouldn't it, and that would mean it has some angular momentum borrowed from the inertia of the  universe as a whole.


Can a piezoelectric lattice structure provide a matrix that imparts spin to energy quanta introduced into that structure? Likewise in the EM drive could a TE resonance contained within a moving magnetic field induce some spin into quanta of the resonant electric field?


... it make my head hurt, but I like dreaming about this stuff.


Bob

Point taken, if the MEGA exchanges a quantum of momentum with the universe as a whole, why should/would that quanta have any more or less momentum than a photon? Photons, gravitons, dilatons are all massless particles that obey p=hbar*k.
The Higgs field is an energy quanta with spin of 0, and is massless. However, according to Wikipedia, the W and Z bosons have a spin of 1 and can have a mass greater than a proton of 80.04 GeV/c2  and 91.2 GeV/c2 but have a short half-life of 3x10-25 seconds. That would be far greater energy than a photon. In the Wiki it notes that the Z boson is a mediator of momentum transfer in neutrino scattering. Momentum transfer is what we're looking for if we're "stealing" from the universe as a whole.


I wish I understood more. I guess I'll have to keep studying  :)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 02/19/2018 05:34 pm
...
The Higgs field is an energy quanta with spin of 0, and is massless. However, according to Wikipedia, the W and Z bosons have a spin of 1 and can have a mass greater than a proton of 80.04 GeV/c2  and 91.2 GeV/c2 but have a short half-life of 3x10-25 seconds. That would be far greater energy than a photon. In the Wiki it notes that the Z boson is a mediator of momentum transfer in neutrino scattering. Momentum transfer is what we're looking for if we're "stealing" from the universe as a whole.


I wish I understood more. I guess I'll have to keep studying  :)

I doubt there is any nuclear decay happening in the MEGA that would create W's or Z's.

MEGA Update 2/19/18

My test scale can clearly resolve a ~20mN (2g) (Thanks Monomorphic) of mass, from a calibrated weight. However, when I put the MEGA on the scale, there is over 150mV of output noise at 21kHz modulated by 60Hz. Even with the noise, I can resolve the 2g mass on, and off the scale but the MEGA just appears to be making noise. I need to decrease the noise and increase the resolution to single digits, in order to read an average weight change.

One could interpret what I'm seeing as the weight oscillating at 21kHz, but somehow I doubt it. I need to check for electrical noise getting into the amplifier breadboard.

Also, it appears that the old MEGA has very good electrostriction response at 21kHz, but the new MEGA built using new disks doesn't appear to have any. Next, I'll try applying 2 frequencies directly. I'm documenting everything for the report.


EDIT: I can clearly measure 20mN divided by 2 divisions or more on the O'scope grid. The gain of the circuit is 10^9, so 1uN ~ .24V or 240mV However, there is 120mVp-p noise when it's operating. I'm working on shielding the load cell to try to minimize the noise. twisted wires isn't doing enough.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 02/19/2018 11:45 pm
My test scale can clearly resolve a ~20uN (2g) of mass, from a calibrated weight.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe 20uN is 2mg-force (0.002g-force).
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 02/20/2018 10:37 pm
I am getting some very large results ~100mN (10 grams) with my MEGA Drive. However, when I flip it over, the thrust direction does not change. I am measuring weight with a load cell, and the MEGA always gains weight when energized.

The Yellow trace is the output of my differential amplifier. The calibration pulses are included in the attached results. 

Note: 5g = 5 grams, 10g = 10 grams,  “g” is grams not acceleration.

Edit 9:28PM: Turns out, the signal is just pickup-noise. It is there when the MEGA is energized even when it is not on the scale. More work is required to shield the whole setup before I can trust any data.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 02/21/2018 02:38 am
I am getting some very large results ~100mN (10 grams) with my MEGA Drive. However, when I flip it over, the thrust direction does not change. I am measuring weight with a load cell, and the MEGA always gains weight when energized.

The Yellow trace is the output of my differential amplifier. The calibration pulses are included in the attached results. 

Note: 5g = 5 grams, 10g = 10 grams,  “g” is grams not acceleration.

I am curious about the exact mechanical design of your MEGA.  What parts are free to move.  What parts are bolted.  Relative masses.  Damping mechanisms.

Also curious about the load cell design.  It sits underneath I assume.  This can be done with the same material you are using to expand and contract your mega? (Pezio like material).

Is it that the device uses the weight of the table as an anchor and is accelerating the top mass?  Flipping it over still accelerates mainly the top mass?  Would changing the phase of the 2ndary signal by 180 degrees have any effect?  Do you use a 2ndary signal or use electrostriction.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 02/21/2018 04:39 am
I am getting some very large results ~100mN (10 grams) with my MEGA Drive. However, when I flip it over, the thrust direction does not change. I am measuring weight with a load cell, and the MEGA always gains weight when energized.

The Yellow trace is the output of my differential amplifier. The calibration pulses are included in the attached results. 

Note: 5g = 5 grams, 10g = 10 grams,  “g” is grams not acceleration.

I am curious about the exact mechanical design of your MEGA.  What parts are free to move.  What parts are bolted.  Relative masses.  Damping mechanisms.

Also curious about the load cell design.  It sits underneath I assume.  This can be done with the same material you are using to expand and contract your mega? (Pezio like material).

Is it that the device uses the weight of the table as an anchor and is accelerating the top mass?  Flipping it over still accelerates mainly the top mass?  Would changing the phase of the 2ndary signal by 180 degrees have any effect?  Do you use a 2ndary signal or use electrostriction.

The big copper mass is about .98kg, the whole thing assembled is about 1.7kg. There are 2 pairs driven at 21.3kHz and 2 pairs driven at 42.6kHz and 1 pair used as a displacement sensor. The displacement disks can be compressed by the other stacks. The aluminum end cap is unthreaded, the copper is threaded. There are spring washers under the head of the 4-40 SS screws.

The whole rig is sitting on a 1cm thick slab of granite, on 2 "Isolate It" isolators. I'm also using a piece of foam as a damper. I have everything taped down with copper tape, grounded to the amplifier common. It runs on eight "AA" batteries, center taped for +/- 6V. However, the whole thing is electrically "floating", and is not grounded to Earth except through the O'scope, to prevent any ground loops.

Changing phase by 180 deg does change the results. It gets physically louder when the applied signals are in phase with resonance and electrostriction, and quieter when it is out of phase, but my O'scope results are mostly electrical noise. I think we should wait and see if I can resolve that issue before we trust any data I've gathered.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 02/21/2018 06:41 pm
I am getting some very large results ~100mN (10 grams) with my MEGA Drive. However, when I flip it over, the thrust direction does not change. I am measuring weight with a load cell, and the MEGA always gains weight when energized.

The Yellow trace is the output of my differential amplifier. The calibration pulses are included in the attached results. 

Note: 5g = 5 grams, 10g = 10 grams,  “g” is grams not acceleration.

I am curious about the exact mechanical design of your MEGA.  What parts are free to move.  What parts are bolted.  Relative masses.  Damping mechanisms.

Also curious about the load cell design.  It sits underneath I assume.  This can be done with the same material you are using to expand and contract your mega? (Pezio like material).

Is it that the device uses the weight of the table as an anchor and is accelerating the top mass?  Flipping it over still accelerates mainly the top mass?  Would changing the phase of the 2ndary signal by 180 degrees have any effect?  Do you use a 2ndary signal or use electrostriction.

The big copper mass is about .98kg, the whole thing assembled is about 1.7kg. There are 2 pairs driven at 21.3kHz and 2 pairs driven at 42.6kHz and 1 pair used as a displacement sensor. The displacement disks can be compressed by the other stacks. The aluminum end cap is unthreaded, the copper is threaded. There are spring washers under the head of the 4-40 SS screws.

The whole rig is sitting on a 1cm thick slab of granite, on 2 "Isolate It" isolators. I'm also using a piece of foam as a damper. I have everything taped down with copper tape, grounded to the amplifier common. It runs on eight "AA" batteries, center taped for +/- 6V. However, the whole thing is electrically "floating", and is not grounded to Earth except through the O'scope, to prevent any ground loops.

Changing phase by 180 deg does change the results. It gets physically louder when the applied signals are in phase with resonance and electrostriction, and quieter when it is out of phase, but my O'scope results are mostly electrical noise. I think we should wait and see if I can resolve that issue before we trust any data I've gathered.

I think the secondary signal helps keep the electrostriction signal in the phase it is supposed to be when it overheats right?  Or is the 2nd signal just completely eliminated when hot.  When you reverse the phase of your secondary signal do you get the proper reversal of maximum acceleration or might that need to be adjusted?  It sounds like you might not be able to tell yet because of all the noise. 

Sorry for the confusion.  Fixed my missunderstanding.  So the foam is under the granite slab to damp viberations. The aluminum plate is free to move and the sensing disks and spring washers provide the damping.  The aluminum plate compressing the spring.

I wonder if eliminating Electro striction altogether might not be the easier way to go if using a secondary signal. Sorry about the confusion.  Realized what I said here doesn't make sense.  Am I correct you stated when the expanding disks when hot they lose their second electrostriction signal 2f frequency, or am I remembering this wrong.  If this is right then I guess when they are hot reversing the phase of the 2nd signal should be easy as you have no inherent 2nd signal to combat the phase change. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 03/03/2018 05:58 pm
MEGA UPDATE 3/3/18

I put the high gain differential amplifier board in a copper shielded box, and also put the 20kHz transformers in a copper shielded box. I reconnected everything together using shielded cables and extended them so that I can put the oscilloscope and amplifier board far from the power equipment. The result is that I no longer see huge false readings at the output of the diff-amplifier. The bad news is, if there is any thrust, it is much less than .2 mN, which is the limit of my resolution right now.

The main issue now is that as the battery discharges, this tiny drop in voltage is amplified to the point where the O'scope trace is dropping at a rate of about 10mV per minute. At 1mV per division, in less than 1 minute the trace moves from the top of the screen, off the bottom of the screen. Then I have to readjust the offset voltage and start over. Hence, I have ordered some voltage regulators so I can build a battery powered, regulated, bi-polar supply for the diff-amplifier circuit to stabilize the output signals.

Readjusting the offset is no easy task either. The gain is so high that a small tweak of the 100-ohm POT causes a relatively large change in the output. I've also noticed there is quite a bit of hysteresis because the impedance of the power supply is not low enough to be unaffected by the output swing. This makes it nearly impossible to get a smooth adjustment range. Again, this is why I am redesigning the power supply to be regulated AND bi-polar, so it's not simply divided by 2 resistors. I know that the lower I make the resistors to stabilize it, the faster the battery will discharge.

The third issue is, the power amplifier seems to radiate a lot of EMI noise, even when there is no output power. As soon as I turn it on I see a haze of noise around the scope trace. (That's what you get for $57.) I'm considering putting the whole power amplifier and transformers inside a large shielded box. All these things I hope will make it so I can actually resolve the thrust the MEGA puts out down to the single-digit uN scale.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 03/05/2018 02:58 pm
MEGA UPDATE 3/3/18

I put the high gain differential amplifier board in a copper shielded box, and also put the 20kHz transformers in a copper shielded box. I reconnected everything together using shielded cables and extended them so that I can put the oscilloscope and amplifier board far from the power equipment. The result is that I no longer see huge false readings at the output of the diff-amplifier. The bad news is, if there is any thrust, it is much less than .2 mN, which is the limit of my resolution right now.

The main issue now is that as the battery discharges, this tiny drop in voltage is amplified to the point where the O'scope trace is dropping at a rate of about 10mV per minute. At 1mV per division, in less than 1 minute the trace moves from the top of the screen, off the bottom of the screen. Then I have to readjust the offset voltage and start over. Hence, I have ordered some voltage regulators so I can build a battery powered, regulated, bi-polar supply for the diff-amplifier circuit to stabilize the output signals.

Readjusting the offset is no easy task either. The gain is so high that a small tweak of the 100-ohm POT causes a relatively large change in the output. I've also noticed there is quite a bit of hysteresis because the impedance of the power supply is not low enough to be unaffected by the output swing. This makes it nearly impossible to get a smooth adjustment range. Again, this is why I am redesigning the power supply to be regulated AND bi-polar, so it's not simply divided by 2 resistors. I know that the lower I make the resistors to stabilize it, the faster the battery will discharge.

The third issue is, the power amplifier seems to radiate a lot of EMI noise, even when there is no output power. As soon as I turn it on I see a haze of noise around the scope trace. (That's what you get for $57.) I'm considering putting the whole power amplifier and transformers inside a large shielded box. All these things I hope will make it so I can actually resolve the thrust the MEGA puts out down to the single-digit uN scale.

Would you please share your diff-amp design? I happen to be an Electrical Engineer. I think a proper design should reject the common mode drift caused by the battery voltage drop. Also the pot-adjusted voltage can be made insensitive by using two stage adjustment, with a coarse adjustment followed by a fine one. Maybe your regulator should be put here instead of being with the battery.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 03/05/2018 06:47 pm

Would you please share your diff-amp design? I happen to be an Electrical Engineer. I think a proper design should reject the common mode drift caused by the battery voltage drop. Also the pot-adjusted voltage can be made insensitive by using two stage adjustment, with a coarse adjustment followed by a fine one. Maybe your regulator should be put here instead of being with the battery.

See attached. It's not just common mode. The load cell is also powered by the battery and so the load cell signal varies too when the battery discharges. This is then amplified by 10^9 and the resulting drift is about 10mV/Minute.  I already have multiple adjustments. Only the 1st two are significant, but the issue is not the range of adjustment. The issue is the high impedance of the ground reference, which shifts when the op-amp outputs change causing hysteresis. Hence, the need for a bipolar regulated supply to fix both of these issues.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 03/05/2018 07:20 pm

Would you please share your diff-amp design? I happen to be an Electrical Engineer. I think a proper design should reject the common mode drift caused by the battery voltage drop. Also the pot-adjusted voltage can be made insensitive by using two stage adjustment, with a coarse adjustment followed by a fine one. Maybe your regulator should be put here instead of being with the battery.

See attached. It's not just common mode. The load cell is also powered by the battery and so the load cell signal varies too when the battery discharges. This is then amplified by 10^9 and the resulting drift is about 10mV/Minute.  I already have multiple adjustments. Only the 1st two are significant, but the issue is not the range of adjustment. The issue is the high impedance of the ground reference, which shifts when the op-amp outputs change causing hysteresis. Hence, the need for a bipolar regulated supply to fix both of these issues.

I do not quite understand your schematic. It seems your Vin_H (vn_L too) feeds into a low impedance point. This is against my understanding. Also the 4 stages all look like voltage followers. How could they amplify? One thing I can say is that your voltage dividers are taking voltage from the 6V battery. This can cause the drifting. You definitely need regulated voltage to feed those voltage dividers.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 03/05/2018 07:28 pm

Would you please share your diff-amp design? I happen to be an Electrical Engineer. I think a proper design should reject the common mode drift caused by the battery voltage drop. Also the pot-adjusted voltage can be made insensitive by using two stage adjustment, with a coarse adjustment followed by a fine one. Maybe your regulator should be put here instead of being with the battery.

See attached. It's not just common mode. The load cell is also powered by the battery and so the load cell signal varies too when the battery discharges. This is then amplified by 10^9 and the resulting drift is about 10mV/Minute.  I already have multiple adjustments. Only the 1st two are significant, but the issue is not the range of adjustment. The issue is the high impedance of the ground reference, which shifts when the op-amp outputs change causing hysteresis. Hence, the need for a bipolar regulated supply to fix both of these issues.

I do not quite understand your schematic. It seems your Vin_H (vn_L too) feeds into a low impedance point. This is against my understanding. Also the 4 stages all look like voltage followers. How could they amplify? One thing I can say is that your voltage dividers are taking voltage from the 6V battery. This can cause the drifting. You definitely need regulated voltage to feed those voltage dividers.

The output of the load cell is a Wheatstone bridge, one corner goes up while the other goes down. The op-amps follow this trend all the way through in stages. This doubles the effective gain and helps to eliminate common mode noise.

See example on page 4, attached.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 03/06/2018 02:30 am

Would you please share your diff-amp design? I happen to be an Electrical Engineer. I think a proper design should reject the common mode drift caused by the battery voltage drop. Also the pot-adjusted voltage can be made insensitive by using two stage adjustment, with a coarse adjustment followed by a fine one. Maybe your regulator should be put here instead of being with the battery.

See attached. It's not just common mode. The load cell is also powered by the battery and so the load cell signal varies too when the battery discharges. This is then amplified by 10^9 and the resulting drift is about 10mV/Minute.  I already have multiple adjustments. Only the 1st two are significant, but the issue is not the range of adjustment. The issue is the high impedance of the ground reference, which shifts when the op-amp outputs change causing hysteresis. Hence, the need for a bipolar regulated supply to fix both of these issues.

I do not quite understand your schematic. It seems your Vin_H (vn_L too) feeds into a low impedance point. This is against my understanding. Also the 4 stages all look like voltage followers. How could they amplify? One thing I can say is that your voltage dividers are taking voltage from the 6V battery. This can cause the drifting. You definitely need regulated voltage to feed those voltage dividers.

The output of the load cell is a Wheatstone bridge, one corner goes up while the other goes down. The op-amps follow this trend all the way through in stages. This doubles the effective gain and helps to eliminate common mode noise.

See example on page 4, attached.

I still can't understand your circuit. Maybe other people can shed some light on the issues I am confused with.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 03/06/2018 04:24 am

I still can't understand your circuit. Maybe other people can shed some light on the issues I am confused with.

Exactly what are you confused with? I provided the circuit diagram on page 4 that includes the gain equation. Instead of changing to a single op-amp output, it amplifies the differential voltage all the way through. It's supposed to be less susceptible to noise.

As soon as I get some free time, I'll solder in the voltage regulators and see what happens. :)


Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 03/06/2018 05:12 am

I still can't understand your circuit. Maybe other people can shed some light on the issues I am confused with.

Exactly what are you confused with? I provided the circuit diagram on page 4 that includes the gain equation. Instead of changing to a single op-amp output, it amplifies the differential voltage all the way through. It's supposed to be less susceptible to noise.

As soon as I get some free time, I'll solder in the voltage regulators and see what happens. :)

I think you talked about fig 5 on page 4. It is an instrumentation amplifier with two input amp in voltage follower mode, followed by a differentiation amp which actually amplifies. You took away the one stage that actually amplifies, replaced it with another pair of voltage followers. There is no amplification happening. Instead, you have  two stages of voltage followers instead. The gain is exactly 1. Even 4 stages will give you only gain = 1. [Update] sorry I misread the schematic. They can amplify. they are not voltage followers. [end Update]

Also your vin_H, vin_L are all low impedance points driven by the two amps OPA288. You can not drive that two low impedance points with your vin_H and vin_L signal.

Also it is not clear to me why the 100Hz signal is used.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 03/06/2018 01:50 pm

I still can't understand your circuit. Maybe other people can shed some light on the issues I am confused with.

Exactly what are you confused with? I provided the circuit diagram on page 4 that includes the gain equation. Instead of changing to a single op-amp output, it amplifies the differential voltage all the way through. It's supposed to be less susceptible to noise.

As soon as I get some free time, I'll solder in the voltage regulators and see what happens. :)

I think you talked about fig 5 on page 4. It is an instrumentation amplifier with two input amp in voltage follower mode, followed by a differentiation amp which actually amplifies. You took away the one stage that actually amplifies, replaced it with another pair of voltage followers. There is no amplification happening. Instead, you have  two stages of voltage followers instead. The gain is exactly 1. Even 4 stages will give you only gain = 1. [Update] sorry I misread the schematic. They can amplify. they are not voltage followers. [end Update]

Also your vin_H, vin_L are all low impedance points driven by the two amps OPA288. You can not drive that two low impedance points with your vin_H and vin_L signal.

Also it is not clear to me why the 100Hz signal is used.

First, it's not an OPA288 anymore. I changed it to an LMC660N, they actually had less noise pickup. The inputs to the op-amp are very high impedance, not low impedance.

The 100Hz is a remnant of the simulations. I was varying this from 100Hz to 100kHz to test the frequency response. I created this using Circuit Lab online. The actual first resonant frequency is at 21.3 kHz, and doubled is 42.6kHz.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 03/06/2018 02:47 pm

First, it's not an OPA288 anymore. I changed it to an LMC660N, they actually had less noise pickup. The inputs to the op-amp are very high impedance, not low impedance.

On your schematic, Vin_H indeed was connected to the high impedance + input pin of 324, but it was also connected to the low impedance output pin of 288. Perhaps  the 288 on your schematic is a remnant of the simulations too?

Quote
The 100Hz is a remnant of the simulations. I was varying this from 100Hz to 100kHz to test the frequency response. I created this using Circuit Lab online. The actual first resonant frequency is at 21.3 kHz, and doubled is 42.6kHz.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 03/06/2018 04:42 pm

First, it's not an OPA288 anymore. I changed it to an LMC660N, they actually had less noise pickup. The inputs to the op-amp are very high impedance, not low impedance.

On your schematic, Vin_H indeed was connected to the high impedance + input pin of 324, but it was also connected to the low impedance output pin of 288. Perhaps  the 288 on your schematic is a remnant of the simulations too?

Quote
The 100Hz is a remnant of the simulations. I was varying this from 100Hz to 100kHz to test the frequency response. I created this using Circuit Lab online. The actual first resonant frequency is at 21.3 kHz, and doubled is 42.6kHz.

Oh, I see what you're looking at. Vin_H and Vin_L are just NODE Names, for the simulator. They aren't connections. The connection is; the output of OA5 drives the input of OA16, the output of OA6 drives the input of OA8., etc... Each op-amp contributes a gain of 47.5, and each stage has a gain of 95 (or ~10^2). So 4 stages is ~10^8. I tried not to drive any current back to the center ground reference, but the impedance of the source is still too high so it still drifts and causes hysteresis.

Currently, both Quad op-amps are LMC660N. The low noise OPA288's didn't reduce the noise and had large resonant oscillations at the output that aren't there with the LM660's. Although, this may also be due to the same issue of too much impedance at the center ground causing positive feedback. I just need more time to play with it. I'll get it working eventually, I always do. :)

https://www.circuitlab.com (https://www.circuitlab.com)  This is what I'm using for simulations.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Mikos on 03/20/2018 04:04 pm
Hello,
I am toying with the idea of writing sci-fi story with Woodward effect based drive and I am particularly interrested in second (wormhole) term. Assume that Woodward effect is real and so is the second term. I have read "Making Starships and Stargates", but I still don't understand how such wormholes could be "targeted". I only understand "classical" possibility of making microscopic wormhole at one place (extracting it from quantum vacuum) and taking one "throat" with you to some other place (e.g. on board of spaceship). But this seems not to be the case with Woodward wormholes.

So if you create wormhole with Woodward effect, how do you "target" it? How do you choose where the second throat should emerge?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Stormbringer on 03/21/2018 02:54 am
According to the book you were reading; the main thing that makes targeting the other end of the wormhole possible is the very thing physicists first proposed to make navigable wormhole impossible. if you dump energy or mass into a wormhole at one end the opposite sort of state, energy or matter develops at the distal end. Your wormhole can develop charges and states of various sorts which can be manipulated or arranged to your favor.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Augmentor on 03/21/2018 01:13 pm
Hello,
I am toying with the idea of writing sci-fi story with Woodward effect based drive and I am particularly interrested in second (wormhole) term. Assume that Woodward effect is real and so is the second term. I have read "Making Starships and Stargates", but I still don't understand how such wormholes could be "targeted". I only understand "classical" possibility of making microscopic wormhole at one place (extracting it from quantum vacuum) and taking one "throat" with you to some other place (e.g. on board of spaceship). But this seems not to be the case with Woodward wormholes.

So if you create wormhole with Woodward effect, how do you "target" it? How do you choose where the second throat should emerge?

More than just energy and mass is required; information has to travel through the wormhole. Some assembly may be required at the distant wormhole end.

Most likely, the information channel would be embedded in the outer wall of the wormhole. Putting an information channel in the middle of the wormhole would block passage of energy and matter.

In building a bridge, many civilized approaches use a bow and arrow, or an air gun, to launch a lightweight threat to the other side. The strong string is tied to a stronger strong or rope. Then there is a point where a pretty hefty rope bridges the gap, so strong that a second rope can be pulled.

In the past few centuries, cable has been used to cross canyons. Notably, during the later part of the 19th century US gold rush and logging.

In the case of a wormhole, one would need to send energy, matter and information through the wormhole to a construction site. Self-assembly from energy, then atomics (nanotech) and then molecules would be required. Probably want to produce a 3D printer.

The idea  that feeding the wormhole from both ends is a good idea that should be explored.

Steering a wormhole? Study caterpillars, snakes and worms. What might work is segmented wormhole generation, preferably periodic rings that form the basis for walls.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Mikos on 03/21/2018 04:16 pm
I have somehow came to an idea that wormholes generated with Woodward effect can be generated from one place (spaceship) without some other part (gate) at second end. Maybe it was in some article, paper or Woodward's book, but I am not sure now. So this is not true? And if it is true, how can be place where other wormhole ending emerges "choosen" or how can be wormhole "targeted"?

The only reference that I have now found in "Making starships and stargates" is this:

Quote
Even if we assume that we can lay our hands on the requisite amount of exotic matter and confine it in a structure of suitable dimensions, there is the problem of how the induced wormhole forms. In general terms, there are two possibilities. One is that wormhole induction by the exotic matter causes a tear in spacetime before the forming wormhole reconnects (God knows where!) with some distant location in spacetime. In this scenario, the tearing of spacetime occurs because the topology of the spacetime is changed by the wormhole. The other is that wormhole induction produces a smooth deformation of spacetime, so no topology change accompanies wormhole formation.

But this is in general section about wormholes, there seems to be nothing more specific for Woodward wormholes (or I am bad at searching and/or my memory is bad ;-)).
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Mikos on 03/21/2018 04:41 pm
And even if I would have some pre-existing device (gate) on the other end, how would this help? How would one gate know to connect with some other specific gate? You can't even synchronize the process of creating wormhole on both gates without some other instantaneous FTL communication channel, so concept of stargates (without pre-existing wormhole between them) seems moot.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Stormbringer on 03/22/2018 02:23 am
in Woodward's scheme both ends of the wormhole are generated at the same location. one end is then sent towards the destination at relativistic velocities. Because of this a trip through the worm hole is possible before the distal aperture would arrive by the reconning of people at the near end of the wormhole. in the example he gave the distal end of the wormhole was aimed at a star system 1200(?) light years away. Naturally at light speed one would expect classically that one would have to wait 1200 years for the bridge between the distal and proximal ends to become operational. However due to relativistic effects the bridge would function as intended a few weeks after the distal end was set on its way to the target.

This summary takes as given that the mechanics of stabilizing, launching and guiding a wormhole distal end would work as he envisions, -which is generally disputed by the physics community. After all; "they" created the cosmic back reaction principle as a way to forbid the survival of wormholes which allowed the passage of information and matter and energy through a macroscopic wormhole in the first place. But if i understand it his warping of the CBR principle is as plausible as the CBR itself.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Mikos on 03/22/2018 03:12 am
Stormbringer: Thanks. Can you please give me some paper or article, where is this Woodward's wormhole scenario described in more details?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Mikos on 03/22/2018 05:12 am
Btw. your (or Woodward's?) example is time machine (due to relativistic effects - you are simply using your wormhole to go 1200 years into future or 1200 years back into past). If you make just 2 similar wormholes, you can create a paradox (if some "magic" quantum effects don't destroy your wormhole, like Stephen Hawking and others suggested). Or did Woodward somehow overcome this issue?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Stormbringer on 03/22/2018 06:20 am
Woodward and others believe you can avoid this by not making more than one wormhole connecting any two sets of coordinates and that failure to follow this rule results in the explosive destruction of one or both wormholes.

One of Woodward's peers , John Kramer from Washington U, gave a talk on video about this in which some references are given

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZG1LK0KjKs

His talk is pretty interesting and the Q&A session at the end is pretty good. references mentioned all around though you'd have to use google-fu to track them down.

The advantages of having some sort of anchoring gate at either end are speculation on my part but i think it might help ensure the wormhole is more stable or permanent. alternatively you might be able to terminate and re-establish the wormhole at will once the initial set up is accomplished. this might make it possible to bend the rule about potential recursive routes that allow time travel of the sort that horrifies physicists and philosophers.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Mikos on 03/22/2018 07:01 am
So in this scenario if you close your original wormhole (maybe by accident), you can't go back to Earth (if you create new wormhole from original destination to Earth, you will arrive 2400 years in Earths future). Only Earth can create new wormhole to communicate with you or take you back. Is this correct?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Mikos on 03/22/2018 07:14 am
Btw. can you give me some sources where Woodward talks about this scenario (how to create wormhole, accelerate one wormhole opening to relativistic speed and then stop it at destination with Woodward effect)? And is it really limited by speed of light and relativistic effects? Wormhole is spacetime construct and in some GR constructs like Alcubierre warp drive (or in cosmic inflation), movement/constriction/expansion of spacetime itself isn't limited by speed of light, so maybe wormhole opening can even move by superluminal speeds and avoid relativistic effects (like spaceship in warp bubble)?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Mikos on 03/22/2018 08:15 am
Ok, I have looked at video with Cramers lecture that you have provided, but there really isn't anything specific about Woodward's wormholes. It is general lecture about wormholes and to be fair there was nothing new or interresting said (for people who already know something about wormholes, read some papers, etc.).

Is this Cramers scenario really what Woodward is proposing or did he proposed also something else?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Stormbringer on 03/22/2018 02:27 pm
So in this scenario if you close your original wormhole (maybe by accident), you can't go back to Earth (if you create new wormhole from original destination to Earth, you will arrive 2400 years in Earths future). Only Earth can create new wormhole to communicate with you or take you back. Is this correct?
The wormhole works both ways. Cramer mentions that if you don't like what you find at the other end you can go back through to earth practically instantly. there is only a problem if you have two wormhole tunnels that are parallel to each other because it allows forbidden time travel. Woodward is not concentrating on the second term of his equation since his immediate objective is to verify his Mach effect; not to mention talking about the second term except in passing would make his job of finding independent peer replication and legitimacy much much more complicated.

Cramer's stuff is applicable to all wormholes including Woodward's wormhole. Woodward mentions (speculates) some ways a wormhole might be possible technologically but that is about it. For more specific wormhole physics there are lots of independent articles such as articles on entanglement, gravity, cosmology, astronomy over the last decade or so. Cramer's discussion is the most specific i have seen in how steering a wormhole or how to hold the apertures open in the face of the CBR principle i have seen that i can recall.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Stormbringer on 03/22/2018 02:35 pm
Btw. your (or Woodward's?) example is time machine (due to relativistic effects - you are simply using your wormhole to go 1200 years into future or 1200 years back into past). If you make just 2 similar wormholes, you can create a paradox (if some "magic" quantum effects don't destroy your wormhole, like Stephen Hawking and others suggested). Or did Woodward somehow overcome this issue?
Not all types of time travel are forbidden by physics. Time travel may be supported if the time travel does not involve going back in time further than the creation of the time machine itself. so going back and forth in Cramer/Woodward's scenario must not violate that providing there is not a second wormhole path parallel to the first. There are however other considerations that may make it impossible that have nothing to do with time travel.

(time travel before the inception of the time machine itself is impossible now but it is possible that there may exist naturally occurring primordial wormholes that are all connected to each other and various points in time. Some astronomers are looking for signs of these in existing telescope data)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Mikos on 03/22/2018 02:46 pm
The wormhole works both ways. Cramer mentions that if you don't like what you find at the other end you can go back through to earth practically instantly.

I know that wormholes work both ways, I was talking about potential issue that original wormhole is closed after you went through it (maybe by accident). In that case you must hope that Earth opens new wormhole to your location. Because if you open wormhole from your location to Earth, you will end up 2400 years in Earths future (after your original departure).
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Mikos on 03/22/2018 03:04 pm
Not all types of time travel are forbidden by physics. Time travel may be supported if the time travel does not involve going back in time further than the creation of the time machine itself. so going back and forth in Cramer/Woodward's scenario must not violate that providing there is not a second wormhole path parallel to the first.

That depends on your point of view (it is still purely hypothetical). According to Stephen Hawking's chronology protection conjecture, I believe that any wormhole that works as time machine (even if there is only one wormhole, like in Cramer's scenario) would be destroyed by quantum vacuum fluctuations. So if Hawking is right (and that is big IF, there are no proofs of that, it is only hypothesis), wormhole would be maybe destroyed just by accelerating it to relativistic speed.

But you can also choose to trust in Novikov self-consistency principle instead of Hawking chronology protection conjecture. And in that case, even 2 parallel wormholes / time machine scenario is not problematic at all and you can go in your own past just like you want (only your free will is then limited by self-consistency principle, but like Wheeler said: "Physics already restricts your free will every day. You may will yourself to fly or to walk through a concrete wall, but gravity and condensed-matter physics dictate that you cannot. Why, Novikov asks, is the consistency restriction placed on a time traveler any different?")
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Mikos on 03/22/2018 03:34 pm
But back to the topic. Would it be possible with Woodward effect-based technology to create wormhole from spaceship and then pass through it (so something like creating wormhole opening around your ship) or is it nonsense and you will always need external generator (gate) which will have to stay on place?

I mean scenario like this: spaceship with Woodward effect wormhole generator onboard creates wormhole, accellerates and steers one opening of wormhole at the destination (by wormhole back-reaction) and then goes through wormhole (with wormhole generator still onboard).

And if you can make this work with Woodward effect (by creating massive amount of exotic matter with Woodwards effect second term - by unmasking negative mass of ADM electrons, if I understand it correctly and ADM electron model is true), wouldn't it be easier to create Alcubierre warp drive metric?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Stormbringer on 03/22/2018 05:54 pm
well you are writing a science fiction story ... so if the intrepid travelers get stranded and try to find a way to overcome this problem. They might decide to search for a proximal naturally occurring wormhole which would probably appear to be a normal black hole until examined for signatures that would differ from a normal black hole. Spectral data and refraction indexes. of course it might be thousands of light years away from their present location.

Cite:  https://phys.org/news/2011-02-scientists-possibility-wormholes-stars.html

if you decide the natural wormhole isn't in their star system (which very likely the case) they have to get to the proper wormhole via artificial wormholes or they have to find a (hand-wavy) way to connect an artificial wormhole to the primordial wormhole network. A primordial wormhole network started existing so far in the past that it is nearly completely "exempt" from time travel prohibition. According to some theories primordial wormholes are all connected to each other and any naturally occurring wormholes that appeared later are also potentially included depending on how they formed.

Or they might presume the home civilization is sending a new wormhole  which strands them a few weeks to a year or so or else have to communicate the request which would strand them years, centuries or millennia depending on the distance from home.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Stormbringer on 03/22/2018 06:02 pm
If Cramer's ideas about steering the distal end of the wormhole by sending energy or matter through it is true i think you'd gain access to freely available abundant negative energy. i do not know how far you can carry this idea but i think what develops at the other end due to the back reaction is the opposite of what is developed on the proximal end. So positive energy here would generate negative energy or mass on the distal end or maybe i am wrong in going that far? you could make a box with a short wormhole inside and you toss regular energy into and get negative energy on the other side. you could put regular matter into the region around the throat of the aperture and get anti particles around the region of the throat of the distal opening. and i do not know if matter just passing through is inverted into antimatter but i do know the image from the other end gets mirror reversed so... 

Anyway here is a set of intersting links about searching for preexisting wormholes.

https://www.google.com/search?q=astronomers+search+for+wormholes&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: HMXHMX on 03/30/2018 07:48 pm
Phase II NIAC Grant Selection for SSI:

https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2018_Phase_I_Phase_II/Mach_Effect_for_In_Space_Propulsion_Interstellar_Mission
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star One on 03/30/2018 10:34 pm
Here’s the press release in full.

Mach Effect for In Space Propulsion: Interstellar Mission

We propose to study the implementation of an innovative thrust producing technology for use in NASA missions involving in space main propulsion. Mach Effect Gravity Assist (MEGA) drive propulsion is based on peer-reviewed, technically credible physics. Mach effects are transient variations in the rest masses of objects that simultaneously experience accelerations and internal energy changes. They are predicted by standard physics where Mach's principle applies as discussed in peer- reviewed papers spanning 20 years and a recent book, Making Starships and Stargates: the Science of Interstellar Transport and Absurdly Benign Wormholes published in 2013 by Springer-Verlag.

In Phase I we achieved the following:

Implemented chirped pulses to reduce heating and provide a longer duration thrust capability.
Designed and developed circuits to allow for 1f and 2f frequency impedance matched AC input to the device, to improve efficiency of the MEGA drive.
Developed a better theoretical model for the device and conceptualized a probe for an interstellar mission to Proxima b. In Phase II, the next critical step in the development of these thrusters is to test new designs with higher frequency to increase the output thrust.
We have been using Steiner Martin's SM-111 PZT for our devices. We also expect to test new materials, for example APC-840 PZT, and PIN-PMN-PT, which we have procured but not had the opportunity to yet evaluate. It would also be advantageous to operate multiple devices to determine the thrust scales in arrays of 2 or more devices. We view the independent verification of the MEGA Drive effects by experts in the vacuum testing of micropropulsion as a crucial step in Phase II. We envision a collaboration with several entities (from academia and industry) to enable the testing of new devices. Mach effects have the revolutionary capability to produce thrust without the ejection of propellant, eliminating the need to carry propellant as required with most other propulsion systems. Ultimately, once proven in flight, these thrusters could be used for primary mission propulsion, opening up the solar system and making interstellar missions a reality. This aerospace concept is an exciting TRL 1 technology, ready to take the next step to providing propellantless propulsion, first in incremental NASA smallsat missions, but later enabling revolutionary new deep space exploratory capabilities beyond anything achievable by conventional chemical, nuclear or electric propulsion systems.

https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2018_Phase_I_Phase_II/Mach_Effect_for_In_Space_Propulsion_Interstellar_Mission
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: HMXHMX on 03/31/2018 03:35 pm
I wish to take this opportunity to thank Chris Bergin and this website's moderators for creating and hosting this sub-forum, because it is likely SSI and the Mach Effects team might not have received these NASA NIAC grants without your interest and support.  (Some members of the team came together by participating in this forum on New Physics for Space Technology.)  I'd also like to thank forum commentators and readers.

Thanks again for having the courage to establish this forum!  However the science and engineering turn out, it has been quite a ride.

Gary C Hudson
President & Trustee
The Space Studies Institute, Inc.
a 501(c)3 non-profit
www.ssi.org
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/31/2018 04:58 pm
I wish to take this opportunity to thank Chris Bergin and this website's moderators for creating and hosting this sub-forum, because it is likely SSI and the Mach Effects team might not have received these NASA NIAC grants without your interest and support.  (Some members of the team came together by participating in this forum on New Physics for Space Technology.)  I'd also like to thank forum commentators and readers.

Thanks again for having the courage to establish this forum!  However the science and engineering turn out, it has been quite a ride.

Gary C Hudson
President & Trustee
The Space Studies Institute, Inc.
a 501(c)3 non-profit
www.ssi.org

That's awesome to hear, Gary - and important to hear as there's been many a time I've questioned (via numerous people complaining about it, which becomes a pain as all the mods receive an e-mail every time someone 'reports to mod' on a post) if we should keep this sub section.

I think the post above will prove to be a good a reminder - now and in the future - it was/is right to keep it going.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star One on 03/31/2018 05:44 pm
I wish to take this opportunity to thank Chris Bergin and this website's moderators for creating and hosting this sub-forum, because it is likely SSI and the Mach Effects team might not have received these NASA NIAC grants without your interest and support.  (Some members of the team came together by participating in this forum on New Physics for Space Technology.)  I'd also like to thank forum commentators and readers.

Thanks again for having the courage to establish this forum!  However the science and engineering turn out, it has been quite a ride.

Gary C Hudson
President & Trustee
The Space Studies Institute, Inc.
a 501(c)3 non-profit
www.ssi.org

That's awesome to hear, Gary - and important to hear as there's been many a time I've questioned (via numerous people complaining about it, which becomes a pain as all the mods receive an e-mail every time someone 'reports to mod' on a post) if we should keep this sub section.

I think the post above will prove to be a good a reminder - now and in the future - it was/is right to keep it going.

It also helps that the ‘heat’ has gone out of the topic. The general public has lost interest and moved on. In my view that’s probably for the best.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 03/31/2018 10:03 pm
I wish to take this opportunity to thank Chris Bergin and this website's moderators for creating and hosting this sub-forum, because it is likely SSI and the Mach Effects team might not have received these NASA NIAC grants without your interest and support.  (Some members of the team came together by participating in this forum on New Physics for Space Technology.)  I'd also like to thank forum commentators and readers.

Thanks again for having the courage to establish this forum!  However the science and engineering turn out, it has been quite a ride.

Gary C Hudson
President & Trustee
The Space Studies Institute, Inc.
a 501(c)3 non-profit
www.ssi.org
Congrats on receiving a NIAC phase II grant! I hope that this money will allow you to proof the technology!

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Lar on 04/01/2018 03:55 am
congrats indeed...
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: M.E.T. on 04/01/2018 05:45 am
Well, probably no surprise based on my username, the Mach Effect Thruster discussion is what brought me to this forum in the first place, allowing me to discover all the other interesting topics also available here.

This NASA announcement sounds like the great leap forward that the research team has been waiting for for all these years.

Congratulations. This is fantastic news. Does anyone know what the timeframe of this study will be and when  the first results will start coming through?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star One on 04/01/2018 08:25 am
Well, probably no surprise based on my username, the Mach Effect Thruster discussion is what brought me to this forum in the first place, allowing me to discover all the other interesting topics also available here.

This NASA announcement sounds like the great leap forward that the research team has been waiting for for all these years.

Congratulations. This is fantastic news. Does anyone know what the timeframe of this study will be and when  the first results will start coming through?

I wouldn’t have thought that would be made public at this time.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: SeeShells on 04/01/2018 11:35 am
Well, probably no surprise based on my username, the Mach Effect Thruster discussion is what brought me to this forum in the first place, allowing me to discover all the other interesting topics also available here.

This NASA announcement sounds like the great leap forward that the research team has been waiting for for all these years.

Congratulations. This is fantastic news. Does anyone know what the timeframe of this study will be and when  the first results will start coming through?
It is fantastic news.
Here is a summary with time frames.

https://goo.gl/zZDSpz

Mach Effect Propellantless drive gets NIAC phase 2 and progress towards great interstellar propulsion
NextBigFuture
brian wang | April 1, 2018


My Very Best,
Shell
Title: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star One on 04/01/2018 02:40 pm
Well, probably no surprise based on my username, the Mach Effect Thruster discussion is what brought me to this forum in the first place, allowing me to discover all the other interesting topics also available here.

This NASA announcement sounds like the great leap forward that the research team has been waiting for for all these years.

Congratulations. This is fantastic news. Does anyone know what the timeframe of this study will be and when  the first results will start coming through?
It is fantastic news.
Here is a summary with time frames.

https://goo.gl/zZDSpz

Mach Effect Propellantless drive gets NIAC phase 2 and progress towards great interstellar propulsion
NextBigFuture
brian wang | April 1, 2018


My Very Best,
Shell

When I use that link it defaults to that websites homepage so here’s the direct link.

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/04/mach-effect-propellantless-drive-gets-niac-phase-2-and-progress-to-great-interstellar-propulsion.html

By the way as a general warning to people don’t bother looking on another well known site that still has a area dedicated to these experiments for coverage of this news as it really isn’t worth it these days compared to a few years back.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: sanman on 04/02/2018 06:00 pm
With this NIAC grant and implicit recognition by NASA of the merits of this research, is there any possibility that more researchers will see EMdrive as a worthwhile research opportunity?

(If there's a breakthrough, then of course everyone will be scrambling to jump on the bandwagon - but as it's still early on, will skepticism continue to keep the mainstreamers away?)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: RonM on 04/02/2018 06:25 pm
With this NIAC grant and implicit recognition by NASA of the merits of this research, is there any possibility that more researchers will see EMdrive as a worthwhile research opportunity?

(If there's a breakthrough, then of course everyone will be scrambling to jump on the bandwagon - but as it's still early on, will skepticism continue to keep the mainstreamers away?)

Can't compare the two. MAGA has shown some results that warrant a second look while EM drive has not. EM drive experiments need to show results above signal to noise ratio.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: sanman on 04/03/2018 01:54 am
With this NIAC grant and implicit recognition by NASA of the merits of this research, is there any possibility that more researchers will see EMdrive as a worthwhile research opportunity?

(If there's a breakthrough, then of course everyone will be scrambling to jump on the bandwagon - but as it's still early on, will skepticism continue to keep the mainstreamers away?)

Can't compare the two. MAGA has shown some results that warrant a second look while EM drive has not. EM drive experiments need to show results above signal to noise ratio.

Oops - sorry to mention EMdrive - I should have said MEGA drive - getting my breakthrough propulsions mixed up.  :P

So, what I said before, but with MEGA drive.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: M.E.T. on 04/03/2018 08:55 am
With this NIAC grant and implicit recognition by NASA of the merits of this research, is there any possibility that more researchers will see EMdrive as a worthwhile research opportunity?

(If there's a breakthrough, then of course everyone will be scrambling to jump on the bandwagon - but as it's still early on, will skepticism continue to keep the mainstreamers away?)

Can't compare the two. MAGA has shown some results that warrant a second look while EM drive has not. EM drive experiments need to show results above signal to noise ratio.

Oops - sorry to mention EMdrive - I should have said MEGA drive - getting my breakthrough propulsions mixed up.  :P

So, what I said before, but with MEGA drive.

I have personally been somewhat surprised that a cutting edge company like SpaceX hasn't gotten involved in this effort. For the cost of one F9 fairing, Musk could probably have boosted this research to the next level. And might have had first access to any potential breakthrough technologies unlocked.

The cost/benefit seems a no brainer. What was there to lose? Too late now, I guess. Now everyone will be interested.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: M.E.T. on 04/03/2018 08:57 am
With this NIAC grant and implicit recognition by NASA of the merits of this research, is there any possibility that more researchers will see EMdrive as a worthwhile research opportunity?

(If there's a breakthrough, then of course everyone will be scrambling to jump on the bandwagon - but as it's still early on, will skepticism continue to keep the mainstreamers away?)

Can't compare the two. MAGA has shown some results that warrant a second look while EM drive has not. EM drive experiments need to show results above signal to noise ratio.

Oops - sorry to mention EMdrive - I should have said MEGA drive - getting my breakthrough propulsions mixed up.  :P

So, what I said before, but with MEGA drive.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: sanman on 04/03/2018 09:38 am
I have personally been somewhat surprised that a cutting edge company like SpaceX hasn't gotten involved in this effort. For the cost of one F9 fairing, Musk could probably have boosted this research to the next level. And might have had first access to any potential breakthrough technologies unlocked.

The cost/benefit seems a no brainer. What was there to lose? Too late now, I guess. Now everyone will be interested.

Musk doesn't do new physics - he takes existing technologies and repurposes/recombines them for newer applications with better results.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob Woods on 04/03/2018 11:14 pm

September 25-27 | 2018 NIAC Symposium, Boston, MA (https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/key_dates) - Location Not Specified
September 22 | NIAC Inventive Genius Lecture: From Science Fiction to Science Fact, Boston Museum of Science
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: sanman on 04/04/2018 04:45 am
Since Mach Effect is said to scale with the cube of oscillation frequency, and since it's the tiniest of devices which would be able to achieve these highest possible oscillation frequencies, then does anybody have a blueprint for what such an idealized nano-mechanical oscillator would look like, and what an overall experimental apparatus based on this would look like?

Even if the fabrication of it can't be done easily or immediately - what is it that you'd be trying to build?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Augmentor on 04/04/2018 03:22 pm
Since Mach Effect is said to scale with the cube of oscillation frequency, and since it's the tiniest of devices which would be able to achieve these highest possible oscillation frequencies, then does anybody have a blueprint for what such an idealized nano-mechanical oscillator would look like, and what an overall experimental apparatus based on this would look like?

Even if the fabrication of it can't be done easily or immediately - what is it that you'd be trying to build?

Keep in mind the research is still at the basic and applied physics level, not at the product engineering level. Only single units have been tested and verified. Scaling by amplification and unit multiplication is required to reach useful thrust levels.

A forced, damped harmonic oscillator system using parametric amplification that produces transient mass by the periodic controlled phase collision of acoustic and electric waves in a dielectric. The resulting momentum change is stored in a bulk mass.

In the proposed probe starship of NASA NIAC the unit should continuously operate for 30 years. A large array may be required, but the preliminary calculations suggest that a velocity peak of over 40% the speed of light is doable.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Asteroza on 04/05/2018 06:06 am
Array side-effects will be of interest, whether phased array style effects occur. Not just collective thrust boost, but thrust vectoring as well.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: sanman on 04/05/2018 09:12 am

Keep in mind the research is still at the basic and applied physics level, not at the product engineering level. Only single units have been tested and verified. Scaling by amplification and unit multiplication is required to reach useful thrust levels.

But in order to better prove out the basic effect, wouldn't it be better to achieve high oscillation frequencies, in order to make the effect stand out more?

Mach Effect may be bleeding edge, but mechanical oscillation itself is not. So just in regards to the challenge of achieving the highest possible mechanical oscillation frequency - how can that be done? What known examples might be the best candidates for doing that?


Quote
A forced, damped harmonic oscillator system using parametric amplification that produces transient mass by the periodic controlled phase collision of acoustic and electric waves in a dielectric. The resulting momentum change is stored in a bulk mass.

In the proposed probe starship of NASA NIAC the unit should continuously operate for 30 years. A large array may be required, but the preliminary calculations suggest that a velocity peak of over 40% the speed of light is doable.

Yes, I saw the video of Dr Fearn's previous NIAC talk. The point was raised that the faster you travel, the better the Mach Effect couples with the Rest Of The Universe - what the heck does that mean, and what are the implications of it?!?!
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Augmentor on 04/05/2018 05:30 pm

Keep in mind the research is still at the basic and applied physics level, not at the product engineering level. Only single units have been tested and verified. Scaling by amplification and unit multiplication is required to reach useful thrust levels.

But in order to better prove out the basic effect, wouldn't it be better to achieve high oscillation frequencies, in order to make the effect stand out more?

No, the effect needs to be seen in detail. One can miss a lot of subtleties and nuances by going faster, higher or farther in one leap. Establish a good foundation of basic research that can be built upon first.

At higher frequencies, there are emergent properties as well as roll off frequencies limiting experiments to a specific bandwidth.

Quote
Mach Effect may be bleeding edge, but mechanical oscillation itself is not. So just in regards to the challenge of achieving the highest possible mechanical oscillation frequency - how can that be done? What known examples might be the best candidates for doing that?

Oscillation is in every part of physics from mechanical to electric and magnetic to gravity and to the particle, wave and quantum levels.

Mechanical Oscillation is simply a means to an end. Vibrating crystals (frequency crystals for example) are a form of mechanical oscillation. So one needs to look at oscillations that are below bulk mechanical and look at molecular, atomic and elementary particle oscillations to replace the mechanical.

There are issues with going higher frequency of mechanical oscillations. Heating is the most obvious issue. More heat is expected. Processes will be less efficient. Less detail can be seen. So there are test equipment issues and limits. It's easy to talk about the possibilities using acoustic, hypersonics, RF, microwaves, Terahertz and optics. However, even within those topics are lab requirements that far exceed budgets and even technical expertise.

So one could find the highest mechanical frequency experimentally. However, there is a differently equipped lab with yet another PhD who not only sees outside of the acoustic box, but RF and microwave as well.

One might want to use the Hydrogen atom to explore the limits of mechanical oscillation.

Quote
A forced, damped harmonic oscillator system using parametric amplification that produces transient mass by the periodic controlled phase collision of acoustic and electric waves in a dielectric. The resulting momentum change is stored in a bulk mass.

In the proposed probe starship of NASA NIAC the unit should continuously operate for 30 years. A large array may be required, but the preliminary calculations suggest that a velocity peak of over 40% the speed of light is doable.

Yes, I saw the video of Dr Fearn's previous NIAC talk. The point was raised that the faster you travel, the better the Mach Effect couples with the Rest Of The Universe - what the heck does that mean, and what are the implications of it?!?!

Ask Dr. Fearn

D
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: sanman on 04/05/2018 06:01 pm
Ask Dr. Fearn

D

I've tried that, but my emails don't get responses - maybe we can pester Paul March for answers.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob Woods on 04/05/2018 07:08 pm
Ask Dr. Fearn

D

I've tried that, but my emails don't get responses - maybe we can pester Paul March for answers.
Speculation? If the thrust is a result of the creation of transient mass in the PZT stack thereby gaining inertia from the universe as a whole, then increasing relativistic speeds also increases the mass of the spacecraft and everything in it including the PZT stack and any transient maass created.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 04/05/2018 07:59 pm
From what I saw on the NBF website, they are planning to use a nuclear reactor.
For exploration in the inner solar system, solar arrays may be able to provide more power with less mass. Maybe, they should look into mars missions with the proposed higher thrust versions of the MEGA drive using solar arrays for power. I am curious how that would play out. Also what are the predictions for the mass of the 1 N MEGA drive if there are any? Just orders of magnitude would already be interesting to know.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: sanman on 04/05/2018 09:34 pm
Speculation? If the thrust is a result of the creation of transient mass in the PZT stack thereby gaining inertia from the universe as a whole, then increasing relativistic speeds also increases the mass of the spacecraft and everything in it including the PZT stack and any transient maass created.

One thing I was thinking of is that if the coupling between transient mass and RestOfUniverse keeps increasing with travel velocity, then it means that each oscillation is a bigger "pull" - so your increments get coarser and coarser - ie. jerkier and jerkier.

Eventually, do you start experiencing a bumpier and bumpier ride -  ie. the oscillations transitioning away from smooth acceleration and giving rise to jerky acceleration?

In that case it might be necessary to cryogenically freeze your passengers to make them structurally strong enough to survive the bumpiness/jerkiness at very high travel velocities.

Could there possibly be a limiting Barrier Law here, so that as you reach some sufficiently high travel velocity, your oscillations progressively generate enough jerkiness to make your spacecraft shake apart?
(Heh, ironically, isn't that what used to happen to aircraft during early attempts to breach the sound barrier? An altogether older type of Mach effect)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob Woods on 04/05/2018 09:56 pm
Speculation? If the thrust is a result of the creation of transient mass in the PZT stack thereby gaining inertia from the universe as a whole, then increasing relativistic speeds also increases the mass of the spacecraft and everything in it including the PZT stack and any transient maass created.

One thing I was thinking of is that if the coupling between transient mass and RestOfUniverse keeps increasing with travel velocity, then it means that each oscillation is a bigger "pull" - so your increments get coarser and coarser - ie. jerkier and jerkier.

Eventually, do you start experiencing a bumpier and bumpier ride -  ie. the oscillations transitioning away from smooth acceleration and giving rise to jerky acceleration?

In that case it might be necessary to cryogenically freeze your passengers to make them structurally strong enough to survive the bumpiness/jerkiness at very high travel velocities.

Could there possibly be a limiting Barrier Law here, so that as you reach some sufficiently high travel velocity, your oscillations progressively generate enough jerkiness to make your spacecraft shake apart?
(Heh, ironically, isn't that what used to happen to aircraft during early attempts to breach the sound barrier? An altogether older type of Mach effect)


I think we have a long time to wait until we have to worry about passengers  :)   Any vehicle produced will be robotic. The speed limitation that was mentioned probably has most to do with interstellar dust and atoms that a spacecraft would push against.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 04/05/2018 10:00 pm

Keep in mind the research is still at the basic and applied physics level, not at the product engineering level. Only single units have been tested and verified. Scaling by amplification and unit multiplication is required to reach useful thrust levels.

But in order to better prove out the basic effect, wouldn't it be better to achieve high oscillation frequencies, in order to make the effect stand out more?

Mach Effect may be bleeding edge, but mechanical oscillation itself is not. So just in regards to the challenge of achieving the highest possible mechanical oscillation frequency - how can that be done? What known examples might be the best candidates for doing that?


Quote
A forced, damped harmonic oscillator system using parametric amplification that produces transient mass by the periodic controlled phase collision of acoustic and electric waves in a dielectric. The resulting momentum change is stored in a bulk mass.

In the proposed probe starship of NASA NIAC the unit should continuously operate for 30 years. A large array may be required, but the preliminary calculations suggest that a velocity peak of over 40% the speed of light is doable.

Yes, I saw the video of Dr Fearn's previous NIAC talk. The point was raised that the faster you travel, the better the Mach Effect couples with the Rest Of The Universe - what the heck does that mean, and what are the implications of it?!?!

Just FYI: I am not done with my thrust experiments yet. I've been delayed due to a series of unfortunate events in my other life, and it doesn't help that I threw out my back again last week either.

However, what I have seen at the output from the 50mm PZT disk I use to measure mechanical amplitudes is that, at higher frequency the mechanical motion is significantly reduced. At the lowest resonant frequency the mechanical oscillation amplitude is orders of magnitude higher than it is at the higher resonant frequencies. So simply changing the frequency doesn't equate apples to apples. One must also significantly increase the driving voltage to the stack to achieve the same amplitudes, and by which I am limited by the available voltage and power from my amplifiers. At 200Vpk, I get the largest response at the lowest resonant frequency, but I have not measured any "thrust" yet. I still need to update my circuit per my previous status reports to improve the resolution down to single-digit micronewtons of force.

Also, don't get your hopes up too high. Even if the MEGA does work by coupling to gravity, gravitons like photons, still only carry momentum p=h/λ, regardless if I use hypothetical QFT models or my own model of Quantum Gravity. IMO, I do not expect it to produce more thrust than a well columnated photon rocket. It's not a warp-drive. It's just a simpler, more cost effective design for a photon rocket.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Augmentor on 04/05/2018 10:43 pm
From what I saw on the NBF website, they are planning to use a nuclear reactor.
For exploration in the inner solar system, solar arrays may be able to provide more power with less mass. Maybe, they should look into mars missions with the proposed higher thrust versions of the MEGA drive using solar arrays for power. I am curious how that would play out. Also what are the predictions for the mass of the 1 N MEGA drive if there are any? Just orders of magnitude would already be interesting to know.

Beyond Mars, solar cell power is a waste of energy since there is not enough payback or efficiency.

To be a true interplanetary craft, one need to have at least fission or fusion sources, or even a matter-antimatter drive.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Augmentor on 04/05/2018 10:52 pm
Speculation? If the thrust is a result of the creation of transient mass in the PZT stack thereby gaining inertia from the universe as a whole, then increasing relativistic speeds also increases the mass of the spacecraft and everything in it including the PZT stack and any transient maass created.

One thing I was thinking of is that if the coupling between transient mass and RestOfUniverse keeps increasing with travel velocity, then it means that each oscillation is a bigger "pull" - so your increments get coarser and coarser - ie. jerkier and jerkier.

Eventually, do you start experiencing a bumpier and bumpier ride -  ie. the oscillations transitioning away from smooth acceleration and giving rise to jerky acceleration?

In that case it might be necessary to cryogenically freeze your passengers to make them structurally strong enough to survive the bumpiness/jerkiness at very high travel velocities.

Could there possibly be a limiting Barrier Law here, so that as you reach some sufficiently high travel velocity, your oscillations progressively generate enough jerkiness to make your spacecraft shake apart?
(Heh, ironically, isn't that what used to happen to aircraft during early attempts to breach the sound barrier? An altogether older type of Mach effect)

There is a duty cycle. However, the expectation is that phase control will reduce the drama of jerk force. If you have a large array of devices you would not want them to all fire off like 1 cylinder. Instead, per cycle there should be a thousand time slots.

Besides, jerk force is already accounted for at the unit level in Woodward's "Making Starships and Stargates"
In Dr. Woodward's book there is a calculation on the change in force, F'. I'll simplify the equation to vector level, and without relativistic corrections.


F' =  A a^2 + B j v

where A and B are not just constants but functions, and j is jerk or jolt.

By dispersing the "jerk" over the time of a single cycle at relativistic velocities, a structural engineer might be able to calculate the forces and limits using tensor analysis and relativistic correction to array and unit dynamics.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Augmentor on 04/05/2018 10:56 pm

Could there possibly be a limiting Barrier Law here, so that as you reach some sufficiently high travel velocity, your oscillations progressively generate enough jerkiness to make your spacecraft shake apart?
(Heh, ironically, isn't that what used to happen to aircraft during early attempts to breach the sound barrier? An altogether older type of Mach effect)

Right now, a mass object traveling the speed of light is limited to less than 70% but I'd have to find the paper that did the calculations based on astronomical data. What happens is that at that velocity there is a compression wave that forms and there is a forward energy spike emission at the nose which results in additional drag.  The propulsion efficiency goes down and so incremental improvements in relativistic velocity dramatically slow.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: sanman on 04/06/2018 12:19 am

There is a duty cycle. However, the expectation is that phase control will reduce the drama of jerk force. If you have a large array of devices you would not want them to all fire off like 1 cylinder. Instead, per cycle there should be a thousand time slots.

Besides, jerk force is already accounted for at the unit level in Woodward's "Making Starships and Stargates"
In Dr. Woodward's book there is a calculation on the change in force, F'. I'll simplify the equation to vector level, and without relativistic corrections.


F' =  A a^2 + B j v

where A and B are not just constants but functions, and j is jerk or jolt.

By dispersing the "jerk" over the time of a single cycle at relativistic velocities, a structural engineer might be able to calculate the forces and limits using tensor analysis and relativistic correction to array and unit dynamics.

So this does imply limits on how much oscillation is allowable at a given velocity of travel. And it sounds like the faster you're traveling, the lower the limit will be on the oscillation or transient mass.

A phased array could be sensitive to individual unit failure in a way that a non-phased array would not be.
What happens if enough individual units were to fail while traveling at a very high velocity?

What are the failure modes of a phased array in this situation?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Augmentor on 04/06/2018 03:36 am
There is no limit I'm aware of.

With impulse, at the top end, there is a transition from flat to open curved space which is understood commonly as warp.  Keep in mind there is no experiment definitively warping spacetime.

Once open curved space begins to curl, there is "wormhole like" formation which is traveling in a tube or conduit.

Only the first two terms define

To summarize:

Impulse - Flat space
Warp = open curved space, riding the spacetime wave
Wormhole - close curve space, must be benign

In terms of energy density, the Schwinger limit is where energy density change goes from linear to non-linear. This limit is not reached by any process I'm aware of... although there may be an astronomical object that demonstrates this limit.

>> A phased array could be sensitive to individual unit failure in a way that a non-phased array would not be.

Nonsense. It's the other way around.

D


Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 04/06/2018 03:23 pm
From what I saw on the NBF website, they are planning to use a nuclear reactor.
For exploration in the inner solar system, solar arrays may be able to provide more power with less mass. Maybe, they should look into mars missions with the proposed higher thrust versions of the MEGA drive using solar arrays for power. I am curious how that would play out. Also what are the predictions for the mass of the 1 N MEGA drive if there are any? Just orders of magnitude would already be interesting to know.

Beyond Mars, solar cell power is a waste of energy since there is not enough payback or efficiency.

To be a true interplanetary craft, one need to have at least fission or fusion sources, or even a matter-antimatter drive.
Which is why I said "inner solar system", which is what I was talking about. Jupiter, Saturn and co are nice, but right now I would be happy to reach mars in a reasonable amount of time and preferably with a more compact spacecraft than what they proposed.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: sanman on 04/06/2018 03:54 pm
There is no limit I'm aware of.

With impulse, at the top end, there is a transition from flat to open curved space which is understood commonly as warp.  Keep in mind there is no experiment definitively warping spacetime.

Once open curved space begins to curl, there is "wormhole like" formation which is traveling in a tube or conduit.

Only the first two terms define

To summarize:

Impulse - Flat space
Warp = open curved space, riding the spacetime wave
Wormhole - close curve space, must be benign

In terms of energy density, the Schwinger limit is where energy density change goes from linear to non-linear. This limit is not reached by any process I'm aware of... although there may be an astronomical object that demonstrates this limit.

>> A phased array could be sensitive to individual unit failure in a way that a non-phased array would not be.

Nonsense. It's the other way around.

D

Okay, fair enough - so you're saying that phased array will provide flexibility through its control over all the independent array elements.

So will we be able to detect the "gravito-acoustic" signature of a spacecraft using Mach-drive?
Could we use atom optics / atomic interferometry for this purpose?

Since gravity has a ridiculously long range (thus enabling us to interact with TheRestOfTheUniverse), and since a Mach drive would be generating some coherent high-frequency wave pattern, then there should be something available to detect.
Since matter responds to gravity, and since coherent matter (eg. Bose-Einstein Condensates) can be used to do interferometry, then atom optics / atom interferometry should should be able to detect gravity waves.

Instead of having SETI listen for radio signals from other planets, would it be feasible to have them listen for high-frequency gravity waves, in the hopes of detecting Mach-drive signature from anybody who might be cruising past our neighborhood?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Augmentor on 04/06/2018 07:46 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.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: sanman on 04/06/2018 10:48 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?

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Augmentor 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.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: RotoSequence on 04/07/2018 01:39 am
Where's the lab data that shows that these devices have a massive scaling property, anyway?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Augmentor 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
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: RotoSequence 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.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star-Drive 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.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star-Drive 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
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech 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.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: sanman 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?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Augmentor 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.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star-Drive 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.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: sanman 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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLs9NEt9LRQ


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?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star-Drive 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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLs9NEt9LRQ


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.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Jim Davis 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?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: sanman 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?


Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech 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.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: HMXHMX 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
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: sanman 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)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Augmentor 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://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9yWv5dqSKk

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

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: aceshigh 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.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: HMXHMX 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
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: aceshigh on 04/17/2018 05:05 am
a bit short on time to watch 7 hours of video lol

but at 6:25:00, the man talking tells "it's a bit intimidating having Lawrence Krauss sitting right there, and I felt a little sorry for Dr Sonny White explaining his propulsion concept"

I suppose Lawrence Krauss gave Dr Sonny White a hard time? Has anyone seen Dr Sonny White's talk?

ok, watched it... apparently, Krauss basically grilled Dr Sonny White and said Sonny White should look for other things to do (rather than physics field, based on how grumpy he was, including saying Dr White was fooling himself)


Zubrin was also on the conference and also gave some hard time to Dr Sonny White.


It seems none of them addressed directly Dr Heidi Fern, although Krauss did argue a little at that panel at the end, basically saying people shouldn´t pay attention to anything that disagrees with what physics has already understood.

7:07:00
Krauss: "the difference is that when something disagrees with experiment, it's wrong"

Jeff Greason from Tau Zero: "yes, when something disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. When something disagrees with our interpretation of the experiments, there is room for argument"

But even Marc Millis, from Tau Zero Foundation (partner of Jeff Greason) had some flak to give to Dr Sonny White.

Krauss doesn´t even look at the panelists, when he stops talking angrily, he turns kind of sideways, like a defensive posture "I don´t care to read your replies".

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 04/17/2018 09:25 pm
a bit short on time to watch 7 hours of video lol

but at 6:25:00, the man talking tells "it's a bit intimidating having Lawrence Krauss sitting right there, and I felt a little sorry for Dr Sonny White explaining his propulsion concept"

I suppose Lawrence Krauss gave Dr Sonny White a hard time? Has anyone seen Dr Sonny White's talk?

ok, watched it... apparently, Krauss basically grilled Dr Sonny White and said Sonny White should look for other things to do (rather than physics field, based on how grumpy he was, including saying Dr White was fooling himself)


Zubrin was also on the conference and also gave some hard time to Dr Sonny White.


It seems none of them addressed directly Dr Heidi Fern, although Krauss did argue a little at that panel at the end, basically saying people shouldn´t pay attention to anything that disagrees with what physics has already understood.

7:07:00
Krauss: "the difference is that when something disagrees with experiment, it's wrong"

Jeff Greason from Tau Zero: "yes, when something disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. When something disagrees with our interpretation of the experiments, there is room for argument"

But even Marc Millis, from Tau Zero Foundation (partner of Jeff Greason) had some flak to give to Dr Sonny White.

Krauss doesn´t even look at the panelists, when he stops talking angrily, he turns kind of sideways, like a defensive posture "I don´t care to read your replies".

Prof. Krauss says some pretty uninformed things. "One is, that the quantum vacuum has no (rest) frame. There is nothing you can push against."  The latter is NOT necessarily implied by the former statement. Even though the QV has no rest frame, when "pushing" the goal is that it is no longer an "inertial frame" anyway. It is an accelerated frame, in which case there is Unruh radiation and we can push against it by exchanging momentum with this elevated "thermal field". Krauss is ignoring the details in those statements.

In addition, even if Dr. White's conjecture about the density of e-p pairs in the vacuum is wrong. It is not wrong to expect such particle densities "in the vicinity" of charged particles, such as electrons and nuclei. As one approaches the center of charge, there is a limit regarding how close you can get because when the distance is on the order of the Compton wavelength, pair-creation can and does occur. So the field Dr. White is referring to is KNOWN to exist, but only in the vicinity of charge. It is not observed in free space in the way he conjectures.

Krauss: "the difference is that when something disagrees with experiment, it's wrong"

He may eat those words if it turns out the Em Drive actually does produce thrust. It would imply that conventional physics does not agree with experiment! IMO, it does but there is some exchange of momentum going on with the environment that we are not aware of yet.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob Woods on 04/18/2018 03:48 pm
Krauss doesnt even look at the panelists, when he stops talking angrily, he turns kind of sideways, like a defensive posture "I don´t care to read your replies".
I watched the live stream as it happened, and Krauss was cranky and too dismissive. I hope it might be something like low blood sugar, because I get cranky when mine is low, but it seemed more like overarching arrogance. Challenging a position is good, dismissing the person is not.


There was a time where many great minds were absolutely certain that the world was flat. It was flat from the reference frame that they lived their lives in, it just didn't hold when their perspective expanded.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Jim Davis on 04/18/2018 04:23 pm
There was a time where many great minds were absolutely certain that the world was flat. It was flat from the reference frame that they lived their lives in, it just didn't hold when their perspective expanded.

This is fascinating. Who were these great minds and when did they live?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 04/18/2018 05:18 pm
"One is, that the quantum vacuum has no (rest) frame. There is nothing you can push against."  The latter is NOT necessarily implied by the former statement. 





It would imply that conventional physics does not agree with experiment! IMO, it does but there is some exchange of momentum going on with the environment that we are not aware of yet.


Yeah, I don't think you are thinking it through.

Think of a propeller aircraft pushing against the air. How much power does it take to get a given acceleration? Well that depends on how fast the craft is traveling currently. The faster it is going the more power is needed to maintain the current acceleration. This is necessary for conservation of energy since energy goes with the square of velocity. And it is possible because there is a special frame in which the air is motionless.

Now imagine a craft pushing against the quantum vacuum. The problem is that the QV has no frame in which it is motionless. The amount of power needed for a constant acceleration is a constant. This immediately causes a violation of conservation of energy. Exchanging momentum with parts of the environment does not help unless you can give that part a special frame where it is motionless.  The QV does not allow this.

Any attempt to get around this will necessarily involve physics beyond the conventional. And I would add that often the whole point of doing experiments is to find places where experiment disagrees with conventional physics. Finding such a thing is good because it may mean you just won the Nobel.

 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob Woods on 04/18/2018 05:48 pm
There was a time where many great minds were absolutely certain that the world was flat. It was flat from the reference frame that they lived their lives in, it just didn't hold when their perspective expanded.

This is fascinating. Who were these great minds and when did they live?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth)


If you wish to take issue with "many great minds", fine.


The article cites both sides, and notes that the Chinese did not adopt a spherical view until the 17th century. I think most of us grew up with the belief that certainty did not reign globally until after Columbus and Magellan.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Jim Davis on 04/18/2018 08:28 pm
The article cites both sides, and notes that the Chinese did not adopt a spherical view until the 17th century.

That's fine, Bob, your point is made. But I think it is grossly unfair to compare someone in the 21st century who thinks there is something to conservation of momentum and conservation of energy to people in the 17th who thought the earth was flat.

I don't think the evidence in favor of propellant propulsion, such as it is, of whatever flavor, is so overwhelming that doubters can be dismissed as irrational traditionalists.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: aceshigh on 04/18/2018 10:59 pm
The article cites both sides, and notes that the Chinese did not adopt a spherical view until the 17th century. I think most of us grew up with the belief that certainty did not reign globally until after Columbus and Magellan.

we grew up with that belief due to urban myth. Everyone in Columbus time knew the Earth was round.

Columbus had trouble convincing people to sponsor his trip exactly because he was wrong. He thought the Earth was smaller than it really was, and thus, that Japan was much nearer to western Europe than it really is.

That's why Columbus thought he had reached the Indias when he landed in the Caribbean. No navigator would make such mistake, as they could already measure longitude at that time... unless said navigator thought the distance to east Asia was smaller.

Columbus was incredibly lucky. If the Americas did not exist, everyone would die from thirst and starvation, 1/3 to 1/4 of the way to East Asia.

Quote
Krauss was cranky and too dismissive. I hope it might be something like low blood sugar,

MAYBE his problems with sexual harassment accusations in February? Arizona State University even put him in paid leave. I would also be cranky if those allegations were true. And EVEN MORE CRANKY if they were a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_M._Krauss

Quote
I watched the live stream as it happened

did Krass made any comment or questions directly to Dr Heidi Fern? Or anything at all related to Woodward Effect?

What about Zubrin or others?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 04/19/2018 12:49 am
"One is, that the quantum vacuum has no (rest) frame. There is nothing you can push against."  The latter is NOT necessarily implied by the former statement. 


It would imply that conventional physics does not agree with experiment! IMO, it does but there is some exchange of momentum going on with the environment that we are not aware of yet.


Yeah, I don't think you are thinking it through.

Think of a propeller aircraft pushing against the air. How much power does it take to get a given acceleration? Well that depends on how fast the craft is traveling currently. The faster it is going the more power is needed to maintain the current acceleration. This is necessary for conservation of energy since energy goes with the square of velocity. And it is possible because there is a special frame in which the air is motionless.

Now imagine a craft pushing against the quantum vacuum. The problem is that the QV has no frame in which it is motionless. The amount of power needed for a constant acceleration is a constant. This immediately causes a violation of conservation of energy. Exchanging momentum with parts of the environment does not help unless you can give that part a special frame where it is motionless.  The QV does not allow this.

Any attempt to get around this will necessarily involve physics beyond the conventional. And I would add that often the whole point of doing experiments is to find places where experiment disagrees with conventional physics. Finding such a thing is good because it may mean you just won the Nobel.

I don't think you realize what you just said. First, the propeller-driven aeroplane in the atmosphere is a poor example. Instead, think of a photon rocket.

1. The amount of power required for constant acceleration is not constant.
2. There is no violation of conservation of energy.
3. It exchanges momentum simply by emitting EM waves that carry momentum, which can be quantized as photons.
4. The QV allows this.
5. There may not be new physics, just new understanding or interpretations of what we already know.

If you think it through, you will find that the QV spectrum is Lorentz invariant, so it is identical in any inertial reference frame. Pushing on it is a non-inertial action, which results in a temperature gradient due to the Unruh effect being asymmetrical. Similar to the Casimir effect, if a flat plate pushes on the QV, the EM modes on the leading side are blue-shifted and on the back side are red-shifted. This results in a pressure imbalance that allows some "push" off the QV. However, the effect is only as good as a photon rocket whose output is the difference between the two sides of the plate. Unfortunately, the highest energy photons of the QV pass right through the plate, so we are limited by the hard X-ray transparency of matter.

In the case of a MEGA drive, I conjecture that the electric charge on the PZT stack has asymmetrical radiation due to its asymmetrical acceleration. Thereby, improving the coupling by increasing the number of photons emitted in one direction over the other. Similarly, gravity is the coupling of matter to the QV. Matter and QV are constantly exchanging photons at resonance. Radiative damping due to other influences, such as a nearby massive planet, causes a gradient in this process which results in matter drifting toward the source of the damping because it results in a lower energy state of matter.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: SeeShells on 04/19/2018 02:08 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)

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://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9yWv5dqSKk

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
This video is what got me thinking about the possability of Pilot Wave Theory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlXdsyctD50
Shell
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 04/19/2018 04:23 am

I don't think you realize what you just said. First, the propeller-driven aeroplane in the atmosphere is a poor example. Instead, think of a photon rocket.

1. The amount of power required for constant acceleration is not constant.

For a rocket in the accelerating frame of the rocket it is. A rocket using fuel at a constant rate thus producing energy at a constant rate will have a constant acceleration neglecting the change of weight due to fuel depletion. Factor in fuel depletion and it gets even better. This seems like a good thing until you factor in the cost of carrying all that fuel. That's what the rocket equation is all about.

An airplane or car does not expel any reaction mass. It instead reacts against an external medium such as the air or ground. That means it needs ever increasing amounts of power to maintain constant acceleration. That seems like a bad thing. But actually it will outperform a rocket because it does not have to carry its reaction mass with it and does not have to deal with the rocket equation.

Quote
2. There is no violation of conservation of energy.

Certainly not in a photon rocket or any other rocket. As long as you are converting something internal to the rocket into photons and expelling them out the back you can have constant acceleration with constant power. Or better. But the rocket equation apples and you will run out of fuel. For a photon rocket this is bad because you need a megawatt of power just to get three newtons of force. Nothing less than the energy density of matter/antimatter will do. And if your target velocity is anything short of a massive fraction of the speed of light you are wasting massive amounts of energy. Almost anything else would work better.
 
Quote
3. It exchanges momentum simply by emitting EM waves that carry momentum, which can be quantized as photons.

But how many photons? A photon rocket of any size would need to produce a laser beam more powerful than any laser ever produced on earth. Remember a megawatt for just three newtons. A photon rocket that could accelerate at one g would burn a hole deep into the Earth.


Quote
4. The QV allows this.

No. It. Does. Not.

You still need to push against a massive amount of photons. Megawatts of them for barely measurable thrust. If the source of the photons is from energy stored on the ship then this is possible if impractical. And you would run out of photon fuel before getting very far.

But you seem to want to push against the QV which is outside the ship. The power you need for a given acceleration then depends on your velocity with respect to the QV the same way the power a car needs for a given acceleration depends on how fast the car is going with respect to the road.

The quantum vacuum has no preferred frame of reference. You cannot calculate your velocity with respect to it. If you could react against it you would either create a preferred frame of reference for the universe or violate conservation of energy. Or both. Depending on just what your engine did.   



Quote
In the case of a MEGA drive, I conjecture that the electric charge on the PZT stack has asymmetrical radiation due to its asymmetrical acceleration.

You cannot have asymmetrical acceleration. Ever. This is the very definition of violating conservation of momentum. For anything accelerating in one direction there must be something with equal acceleration in the other. Because they must push each other equally. And if that thing is photons then for any reasonable thrust you would need enough of them to burn down a city.

Unless you introduce some very new physics. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 04/19/2018 05:09 am

3. It exchanges momentum simply by emitting EM waves that carry momentum, which can be quantized as photons.

But how many photons? A photon rocket of any size would need to produce a laser beam more powerful than any laser ever produced on earth. Remember a megawatt for just three newtons. A photon rocket that could accelerate at one g would burn a hole deep into the Earth.

Not true! If gravity is acting on a mass and it is accelerating relative to the Earth at 1g, there must be an exchange of momentum between the mass and the Earth. That exchange has to be either gravitons or photons, but either way it is the same amount of power we are talking about. I don't see falling objects burning holes through the Earth, so there must be a way to replicate this, and I believe the key is the Mach effect that I'm working on.

4. The QV allows this.
No. It. Does. Not.

You still need to push against a massive amount of photons. Megawatts of them for barely measurable thrust. If the source of the photons is from energy stored on the ship then this is possible if impractical. And you would run out of photon fuel before getting very far.

But you seem to want to push against the QV which is outside the ship. The power you need for a given acceleration then depends on your velocity with respect to the QV the same way the power a car needs for a given acceleration depends on how fast the car is going with respect to the road.

The quantum vacuum has no preferred frame of reference. You cannot calculate your velocity with respect to it. If you could react against it you would either create a preferred frame of reference for the universe or violate conservation of energy. Or both. Depending on just what your engine did.   

You contradicted yourself. The QV is Lorentz invariant, therefore there is no "drag" force dependent on velocity like you have with air, or wrt "the road". You can't measure your velocity wrt the vacuum because there is no drag force relative to it. I'm not the one saying there is.

There IS a drag force when the time derivative of "acceleration" is non-zero. The 3rd derivative of the position will result in a drag force on an atom, but this is not an inertial reference frame. It is "Radiation Reaction", and it's proportional to the Larmour radiation from the accelerating charges.

In the case of a MEGA drive, I conjecture that the electric charge on the PZT stack has asymmetrical radiation due to its asymmetrical acceleration.
You cannot have asymmetrical acceleration. Ever. This is the very definition of violating conservation of momentum. For anything accelerating in one direction there must be something with equal acceleration in the other. Because they must push each other equally. And if that thing is photons then for any reasonable thrust you would need enough of them to burn down a city.

Unless you introduce some very new physics.

Not true, relative to the center of mass. Take 2 unequal masses, M1 and M2 attached to the ends of a coiled Spring of length "L" and constant "k", and calculate the acceleration of each mass, relative to the center of mass. They are not the same at all! The force is the same, but not the acceleration.

M1*a1 = -M2*a2, but a1 =/= -a2 if M1 =/= M2.

Larmour radiation depends on the square of the acceleration and the square of the charge. So if the masses are charged equally, like a capacitor, then one end will radiate more than the other because the accelerations are not equal.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 04/19/2018 09:46 am

Not true! If gravity is acting on a mass and it is accelerating relative to the Earth at 1g, there must be an exchange of momentum between the mass and the Earth. That exchange has to be either gravitons or photons, but either way it is the same amount of power we are talking about.


Gravity is a field not a rocket motor. It does not work by emitting an exhaust of gravitons. There are no actual gravitons involved at all. They are only virtual particles introduced to do a calculation. In order to have an actual gravitron you would need to furnish the energy to create it. Nobody has managed to do that yet. Gravity also obeys conservation of momentum and energy. No orbiting configuration of masses will accelerate anywhere without a real exhaust.

There is a similar field called an electric field that is mediated by the photon. There are no actual photons there as again it is only virtual particles. To see a real photon you have to furnish the energy to create it. Fortunately these can be created by smacking an electric field up side the head. The electric field also obeys conservation of momentum and energy. No configuration of interacting electric fields will accelerate anywhere without a real exhaust.

Quote
You contradicted yourself. The QV is Lorentz invariant, therefore there is no "drag" force dependent on velocity like you have with air, or wrt "the road".

Aiiiiiiii....

Drag has nothing to do with it. The fact that you need four times the energy to go twice as fast is not caused by drag and has nothing to do with drag. Ke=1/2mv^2 even in a frictionless system. A car with a lossless transmission and zero rolling friction will still need ever increassing power to maintain constant acceleration. This because energy goes with the square of velocity.

The problem isn't that there is no drag force with the QV. The problem is that there can be no process at all that lets you know how fast you are going with respect to the QV. This means that a drive reacting against the QV must produce constant acceleration with constant power or otherwise you can measure how fast you are going with respect to the QV. But constant acceleration with constant power is a violation of conservation of energy because energy goes with the square of velocity.

Quote
Not true, relative to the center of mass. Take 2 unequal masses, M1 and M2...

Well yes if the masses are different. But so what? The forces are equal and momentum and energy is conserved as it must be.

Quote
Larmour radiation depends on the square of the acceleration and the square of the charge. So if the masses are charged equally, like a capacitor, then one end will radiate more than the other because the accelerations are not equal.

Uh, no.

Say you have unequal masses tied together with a rubber band. They bounce to and fro exchanging energy and momentum. But energy and momentum is conserved so the center of mass never changes. It ain't goin' anywhere.

Now say you give the masses a charge. Now when they bounce to and fro they emit photons. That's what happens when you smack an electric field around. But however many photons you have going in one direction you have an equal number going in the opposite direction and in fact most of the photons go out in a ring perpendicular to the direction of acceleration. This is true of each individual mass so it is true of the combination of masses no matter how they pull on each other. In any case all the momentum cancels out and you still ain't goin' anywhere.

In any case these are real photons that you have to supply the energy to create. To get a large number of photons you have to smack the electric field really hard. That means a gigawatt of power would at most give you three newtons of force even if you could get around the fact that all the momentum cancels out.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: bad_astra on 04/19/2018 03:45 pm
The article cites both sides, and notes that the Chinese did not adopt a spherical view until the 17th century. I think most of us grew up with the belief that certainty did not reign globally until after Columbus and Magellan.

Columbus had trouble convincing people to sponsor his trip exactly because he was wrong. He thought the Earth was smaller than it really was, and thus, that Japan was much nearer to western Europe than it really is.

That's why Columbus thought he had reached the Indias when he landed in the Caribbean. No navigator would make such mistake, as they could already measure longitude at that time... unless said navigator thought the distance to east Asia was smaller.

Columbus was incredibly lucky. If the Americas did not exist, everyone would die from thirst and starvation, 1/3 to 1/4 of the way to East Asia.
Or Columbus was as good a navigator as his past and later history proved him to be, and he devised his silly voyage proposal precisely because he knew from certain fisherman who were already secretly fishing off the grand banks (as well as possibly Greenlander records that were less than 200 years old at that point) that SOMETHING was out there. I know this has nothing to do with this thread, but over the years I think the oddest idea of Columbus proposal was his misconception of how small the world was, and I don't buy it anymore. He knew. But he needed a reason to get his ships west. It's no mistake that Caboto followed Columbus only a few years later but this time hit the economic bulls eye right in the Grand Banks. By then Columbus was busy pillaging new lands in the south and searching for gold.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 04/19/2018 05:07 pm
...
You contradicted yourself. The QV is Lorentz invariant, therefore there is no "drag" force dependent on velocity like you have with air, or wrt "the road".
...

The problem isn't that there is no drag force with the QV. The problem is that there can be no process at all that lets you know how fast you are going with respect to the QV. This means that a drive reacting against the QV must produce constant acceleration with constant power or otherwise you can measure how fast you are going with respect to the QV. But constant acceleration with constant power is a violation of conservation of energy because energy goes with the square of velocity.

I'm ignoring your comments about gravity because you probably will not give any consideration to my Engineering Model of Quantum Gravity, which is what I am using since it is based in QED, a well tested QFT.

Regarding kinetic energy "Ke", it would be more accurate to say;

ΔKe = (1/2)m*(Δv)2

Where it is the change in velocity "relative to where you started", not relative to the QV that matters. One does not need to measure the velocity relative to the QV to determine that there is not constant acceleration for constant power. All that is required is the integral along the path of travel through space-time. It doesn't matter if the drive is pushing on the QV or if it's just a photon rocket. It is the same thing, because the QV I can interact with is comprised of EM fields and photons.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: RonM on 04/19/2018 05:23 pm
I'm ignoring your comments about gravity because you probably will not give any consideration to my Engineering Model of Quantum Gravity, which is what I am using since it is based in QED, a well tested QFT.

You should preface your comments with "Based on my Engineering Model of Quantum Gravity . . ."

That way people will know to comment on your theory instead of thinking you don't understand accepted physics.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 04/19/2018 06:59 pm
ΔKe = (1/2)m*(Δv)2

Yes but this is just wrong. The problem is that by referencing only a change in velocity it ignores the fact that kinetic energy, like velocity, is frame dependent. Your equation allows you to violate conservation of energy at will by calculating it in two different frames and adding them together as if they were the same thing.

To see how this works consider an electric car. Lets say it accelerates from 0 to 50mph and to do so it pulls one unit of electric energy from the battery. Now how much energy would be pulled from the battery if you accelerated from 50mph to 100mph? Well according to your equation the change in velocity is still just 50mph so again you just need one unit of energy from the battery. But that's just wrong. If you do the experiment you will find that it takes three units of energy to go from 50mph to 100mph. And you would need five more units to get to 150mph. You need ever increasing power to maintain constant acceleration. Your equation implies you only need constant power for constant acceleration. One unit to get to 50mph, another unit to get to 100mph, another unit to get to 150mph... This is what breaks conservation of energy.

If your space drive only used the change in velocity to calculate energy then you could build up a massive amount of kinetic energy using very little power. This energy is extractable and you will have to explain where it comes from.  You can say zero point energy or energy from a different dimension. You can say invisible blue fairies running on treadmills for all I care. But whatever it is is going to be new to physics.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 04/19/2018 07:26 pm
I'm ignoring your comments about gravity because you probably will not give any consideration to my Engineering Model of Quantum Gravity, which is what I am using since it is based in QED, a well tested QFT.

You should preface your comments with "Based on my Engineering Model of Quantum Gravity . . ."

That way people will know to comment on your theory instead of thinking you don't understand accepted physics.

Um, actually I entered this discussion arguing that he needed a theory beyond conventional physics against his claim that he did not. I have no interest in discussing whether his theory is correct or not. Experimenters will decide that. My concern is whether it is internally consistent and whether he has a good grasp of conventional physics.

Experimenters have long ago shown that his equation for kinetic energy is just not right. It violates conservation of energy threatening to make his theory inconsistent. And his inability to grasp this violation suggests his grasp of basic conservation laws is lacking. It seems to be an inability to grasp Galilean relativity. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 04/19/2018 07:38 pm
ΔKe = (1/2)m*(Δv)2

Yes but this is just wrong. The problem is that by referencing only a change in velocity it ignores the fact that kinetic energy, like velocity, is frame dependent. Your equation allows you to violate conservation of energy at will by calculating it in two different frames and adding them together as if they were the same thing.

To see how this works consider an electric car. Lets say it accelerates from 0 to 50mph and to do so it pulls one unit of electric energy from the battery. Now how much energy would be pulled from the battery if you accelerated from 50mph to 100mph? Well according to your equation the change in velocity is still just 50mph so again you just need one unit of energy from the battery. But that's just wrong. If you do the experiment you will find that it takes three units of energy to go from 50mph to 100mph. And you would need five more units to get to 150mph. You need ever increasing power to maintain constant acceleration. Your equation implies you only need constant power for constant acceleration. One unit to get to 50mph, another unit to get to 100mph, another unit to get to 150mph... This is what breaks conservation of energy.

If your space drive only used the change in velocity to calculate energy then you could build up a massive amount of kinetic energy using very little power. This energy is extractable and you will have to explain where it comes from.  You can say zero point energy or energy from a different dimension. You can say invisible blue fairies running on treadmills for all I care. But whatever it is is going to be new to physics.

Point taken, but you changed the problem. Nobody said anything about starting and stopping and adding up the pieces. That's not what I was thinking at all! You said we have to measure the speed relative to the QV. We don't. A photon rocket expends fuel and radiates momentum and energy. Calculating conservation of energy is simply adding up the photons in the exhaust, and then calculating what "v" would be; given the total exhausted energy and the remaining rest-mass, it is straightforward to calculate the Ke relativistically.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 04/19/2018 08:24 pm
ΔKe = (1/2)m*(Δv)2

Yes but this is just wrong. The problem is that by referencing only a change in velocity it ignores the fact that kinetic energy, like velocity, is frame dependent. Your equation allows you to violate conservation of energy at will by calculating it in two different frames and adding them together as if they were the same thing.

To see how this works consider an electric car. Lets say it accelerates from 0 to 50mph and to do so it pulls one unit of electric energy from the battery. Now how much energy would be pulled from the battery if you accelerated from 50mph to 100mph? Well according to your equation the change in velocity is still just 50mph so again you just need one unit of energy from the battery. But that's just wrong. If you do the experiment you will find that it takes three units of energy to go from 50mph to 100mph. And you would need five more units to get to 150mph. You need ever increasing power to maintain constant acceleration. Your equation implies you only need constant power for constant acceleration. One unit to get to 50mph, another unit to get to 100mph, another unit to get to 150mph... This is what breaks conservation of energy.

If your space drive only used the change in velocity to calculate energy then you could build up a massive amount of kinetic energy using very little power. This energy is extractable and you will have to explain where it comes from.  You can say zero point energy or energy from a different dimension. You can say invisible blue fairies running on treadmills for all I care. But whatever it is is going to be new to physics.

Point taken, but you changed the problem. Nobody said anything about starting and stopping and adding up the pieces. That's not what I was thinking at all! You said we have to measure the speed relative to the QV. We don't. A photon rocket expends fuel and radiates momentum and energy. Calculating conservation of energy is simply adding up the photons in the exhaust, and then calculating what "v" would be; given the total exhausted energy and the remaining rest-mass, it is straightforward to calculate the Ke relativistically.

You may not have been thinking about starting and stopping but you should have been because that is the clear implication of the equation you posted. It is what makes it so wrong.

Yes there is no problem with a photon rocket. There is no important difference between it and any other rocket. Now if you can point to the terrawatt laser beam shining out the ass end of your drive and show me the terrawatt nuclear power plant powering it then I agree there is no violation of conservation of energy and momentum.  Photon rockets are possible if profoundly impractical and horribly wasteful for any velocity short of a good fraction of the speed of light.

But until you show me the planet melting laser and the massive power supply...

If you are in an electric car with the windows blacked out you can still figure out how fast you are traveling by measuring how much energy it takes to accelerate. The faster you are going the more energy it takes to go faster.

If you are pushing against the quantum vacuum you could try the same trick. If it works then you have established a universal frame of reference. That is bad.

If it does not work then you have violated conservation of energy. That is worse.

Through all this you have not said which you believe. How much power does it take to accelerate at perfect efficiency and does that power depend on velocity like a car? You are on the horns of a dilemma here.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 04/19/2018 08:44 pm
...
Yes there is no problem with a photon rocket. There is no important difference between it and any other rocket. Now if you can point to the terrawatt laser beam shining out the ass end of your drive and show me the terrawatt nuclear power plant powering it then I agree there is no violation of conservation of energy and momentum.  Photon rockets are possible if profoundly impractical and horribly wasteful for any velocity short of a good fraction of the speed of light.

But until you show me the planet melting laser and the massive power supply...

If you are in an electric car with the windows blacked out you can still figure out how fast you are traveling by measuring how much energy it takes to accelerate. The faster you are going the more energy it takes to go faster.

If you are pushing against the quantum vacuum you could try the same trick. If it works then you have established a universal frame of reference. That is bad.

If it does not work then you have violated conservation of energy. That is worse.

Through all this you have not said which you believe. How much power does it take to accelerate at perfect efficiency and does that power depend on velocity like a car? You are on the horns of a dilemma here.

Think of it this way as an example of what I mean by "pushing on the QV", because we are talking apples and oranges around each other.

If I have a plate with a large surface area, which oscillates along the Normal axis of that plane. For 1/2 cycle, the plate moves toward the rear and imparts momentum to the QV by providing a time-varing acceleration, thereby increasing the relative temperature via Unruh radiation. The radiation generated exerts a Radiation-Reaction force on the plate, pushing back, and pushing the supporting ship in the opposite direction. The exhaust is photons, so it performs like a photon rocket.

It still requires fuel of some sort to drive the oscillating plate and restore the energy that was given to the QV. This comes from the fuel or a battery. On the reverse 1/2-cycle, the acceleration is minimized so that there is asymmetry, thereby rectifying the reaction force to be mostly in one direction. From an outside observer's point of view, it is radiating more in one direction over the other, but it still performs like a photon rocket.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 04/20/2018 01:22 am
...
Yes there is no problem with a photon rocket. There is no important difference between it and any other rocket. Now if you can point to the terrawatt laser beam shining out the ass end of your drive and show me the terrawatt nuclear power plant powering it then I agree there is no violation of conservation of energy and momentum.  Photon rockets are possible if profoundly impractical and horribly wasteful for any velocity short of a good fraction of the speed of light.

But until you show me the planet melting laser and the massive power supply...

If you are in an electric car with the windows blacked out you can still figure out how fast you are traveling by measuring how much energy it takes to accelerate. The faster you are going the more energy it takes to go faster.

If you are pushing against the quantum vacuum you could try the same trick. If it works then you have established a universal frame of reference. That is bad.

If it does not work then you have violated conservation of energy. That is worse.

Through all this you have not said which you believe. How much power does it take to accelerate at perfect efficiency and does that power depend on velocity like a car? You are on the horns of a dilemma here.

Think of it this way as an example of what I mean by "pushing on the QV", because we are talking apples and oranges around each other.

If I have a plate with a large surface area, which oscillates along the Normal axis of that plane. For 1/2 cycle, the plate moves toward the rear and imparts momentum to the QV by providing a time-varing acceleration, thereby increasing the relative temperature via Unruh radiation. The radiation generated exerts a Radiation-Reaction force on the plate, pushing back, and pushing the supporting ship in the opposite direction. The exhaust is photons, so it performs like a photon rocket.

It still requires fuel of some sort to drive the oscillating plate and restore the energy that was given to the QV. This comes from the fuel or a battery. On the reverse 1/2-cycle, the acceleration is minimized so that there is asymmetry, thereby rectifying the reaction force to be mostly in one direction. From an outside observer's point of view, it is radiating more in one direction over the other, but it still performs like a photon rocket.

Ok your engine isn't a car. But that is only the first horn of the dilemma. The other horn is the problem of constant power for constant acceleration.

Ok, let me ask the question in a simpler way. You say it works like a photon rocket. Fine. A laser pointer is small, cheap to make, has amazing energy efficiency and produces enough photons to, you know, actually measure. In what way is your drive better than a laser pointer?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 04/20/2018 02:33 am
....
Ok your engine isn't a car. But that is only the first horn of the dilemma. The other horn is the problem of constant power for constant acceleration.

Ok, let me ask the question in a simpler way. You say it works like a photon rocket. Fine. A laser pointer is small, cheap to make, has amazing energy efficiency and produces enough photons to, you know, actually measure. In what way is your drive better than a laser pointer?

It's not. My point was to set proper expectations. Based on QED, "on average" pushing against the QV is not expected it to be any better than a photon rocket. Similarly, based on my Engineering Model of QG, a gravity drive is not expected to be any better than a photon rocket either. :( Sad but true.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 04/20/2018 03:35 am
....
Ok your engine isn't a car. But that is only the first horn of the dilemma. The other horn is the problem of constant power for constant acceleration.

Ok, let me ask the question in a simpler way. You say it works like a photon rocket. Fine. A laser pointer is small, cheap to make, has amazing energy efficiency and produces enough photons to, you know, actually measure. In what way is your drive better than a laser pointer?

It's not. My point was to set proper expectations. Based on QED, "on average" pushing against the QV is not expected it to be any better than a photon rocket. Similarly, based on my Engineering Model of QG, a gravity drive is not expected to be any better than a photon rocket either. :( Sad but true.

What do you think about a premise of the mach effect such that if the curvature of local space causes a gradient in acceleration, then inducing a gradient in the acceleration of an object might have an effect to impose curvature on local space? 

Similar to the reversibility of some physical mechanisms such as magnetic induction. 

One question I am not sure of is why in matter, would there be some non-symmetric acceleration inherent, so as to curve local space, and cause the gravitational effect.  I suppose if you consider the boundaries of a proton/neutron nucleolus, containing large amounts of energy, is there some massive acceleration at the boundary as opposed to the center required to contain that energy?  That energy being in some inherent osculation. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 04/20/2018 04:12 am

What do you think about a premise of the mach effect such that if the curvature of local space causes a gradient in acceleration, then inducing a gradient in the acceleration of an object might have an effect to impose curvature on local space? 

Similar to the reversibility of some physical mechanisms such as magnetic induction. 

One question I am not sure of is why in matter, would there be some non-symmetric acceleration inherent, so as to curve local space, and cause the gravitational effect.  I suppose if you consider the boundaries of a proton/neutron nucleolus, containing large amounts of energy, is there some massive acceleration at the boundary as opposed to the center required to contain that energy?  That energy being in some inherent osculation.

What is "curvature on local space"? In my Engineering Model of QG, the curvature is determined by the gradients in the radiative damping. The damping is induced by coupled photon pairs, in QED it would be written <A*A>, where "A" is the EM gauge 4-vector field. This is proportional to the energy density, which when quantized is simply the SUM of all photon energies in the volume.

Based on this, the curvature is seen as a means of exchanging momentum with atoms, using photons. Gravity appears to exert a much larger acceleration than a comparable photon rocket of equal potential energy, but in reality the energy density around the Earth is in the GPa, and if you calculate the power in/out of the system, it's a lot greater than any photon rocket, because it takes place in a narrow bandwidth around the Compton wavelength (zitterbewegung) of the individual fermion particles matter is composed of, (electrons and quarks).

IMO the MEGA is reproducing this process on a macroscopic scale. The mass fluctuation depends on the asymmetry, as you derived previously in the graph you posted. The peak of the graph will produce instantaneous thrust greater than a photon rocket by 2 to 3 orders of magnitude. But the average thrust will be at best, the same as a photon rocket because it is exchanging momentum with the gravitational field using massless particles (photons).

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/assets/31037.0/1486153.jpg)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 04/20/2018 12:56 pm

What do you think about a premise of the mach effect such that if the curvature of local space causes a gradient in acceleration, then inducing a gradient in the acceleration of an object might have an effect to impose curvature on local space? 

Similar to the reversibility of some physical mechanisms such as magnetic induction. 

One question I am not sure of is why in matter, would there be some non-symmetric acceleration inherent, so as to curve local space, and cause the gravitational effect.  I suppose if you consider the boundaries of a proton/neutron nucleolus, containing large amounts of energy, is there some massive acceleration at the boundary as opposed to the center required to contain that energy?  That energy being in some inherent osculation.

What is "curvature on local space"? In my Engineering Model of QG, the curvature is determined by the gradients in the radiative damping. The damping is induced by coupled photon pairs, in QED it would be written <A*A>, where "A" is the EM gauge 4-vector field. This is proportional to the energy density, which when quantized is simply the SUM of all photon energies in the volume.

Based on this, the curvature is seen as a means of exchanging momentum with atoms, using photons. Gravity appears to exert a much larger acceleration than a comparable photon rocket of equal potential energy, but in reality the energy density around the Earth is in the GPa, and if you calculate the power in/out of the system, it's a lot greater than any photon rocket, because it takes place in a narrow bandwidth around the Compton wavelength (zitterbewegung) of the individual fermion particles matter is composed of, (electrons and quarks).

IMO the MEGA is reproducing this process on a macroscopic scale. The mass fluctuation depends on the asymmetry, as you derived previously in the graph you posted. The peak of the graph will produce instantaneous thrust greater than a photon rocket by 2 to 3 orders of magnitude. But the average thrust will be at best, the same as a photon rocket because it is exchanging momentum with the gravitational field using massless particles (photons).

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/assets/31037.0/1486153.jpg)

Is it possible, while photons being considered mass-less, that induction of motion to the local frame of photons has some momentum associated with it.  That inducing an asymmetric curvature on the vacuum (unlike matter) causes an effect of changing the frame.  Similar to Lense-Thirring effect or Gravitomagnetism (change in the angular rotation frame of light) or similar to the frame change of light falling toward a gravitational source, except that the gravitational source is symmetric, so no net effect on the frame of the vacuum in total.  Assuming some energy level associated with the vacuum so giving it a net push allowing greater than photon propulsion.  Implying some momentum stored in the vacuum from Gravitomagnetism.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 04/20/2018 03:41 pm
...

Is it possible, while photons being considered mass-less, that induction of motion to the local frame of photons has some momentum associated with it.  That inducing an asymmetric curvature on the vacuum (unlike matter) causes an effect of changing the frame.  Similar to Lense-Thirring effect or Gravitomagnetism (change in the angular rotation frame of light) or similar to the frame change of light falling toward a gravitational source, except that the gravitational source is symmetric, so no net effect on the frame of the vacuum in total.  Assuming some energy level associated with the vacuum so giving it a net push allowing greater than photon propulsion.  Implying some momentum stored in the vacuum from Gravitomagnetism.

From this, it sounds like you are differentiating between the "empty" vacuum which you refer to as having a "frame" and the "stuff" that is in it. In my Model, the "empty" vacuum has no curvature, it has no frame. If it can't be measured or observed, it has no effect on reality, which to me says "it doesn't exist". What exists is the stuff that fills the volume, in this case it is quantized fields of oscillators. The curvature is simply a geometrical interpretation of the interaction that takes place between particles and fields when there are both driving sources and damping (sinks) of energy for the harmonic oscillations of the field.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 04/21/2018 02:17 am
...

Is it possible, while photons being considered mass-less, that induction of motion to the local frame of photons has some momentum associated with it.  That inducing an asymmetric curvature on the vacuum (unlike matter) causes an effect of changing the frame.  Similar to Lense-Thirring effect or Gravitomagnetism (change in the angular rotation frame of light) or similar to the frame change of light falling toward a gravitational source, except that the gravitational source is symmetric, so no net effect on the frame of the vacuum in total.  Assuming some energy level associated with the vacuum so giving it a net push allowing greater than photon propulsion.  Implying some momentum stored in the vacuum from Gravitomagnetism.

From this, it sounds like you are differentiating between the "empty" vacuum which you refer to as having a "frame" and the "stuff" that is in it. In my Model, the "empty" vacuum has no curvature, it has no frame. If it can't be measured or observed, it has no effect on reality, which to me says "it doesn't exist". What exists is the stuff that fills the volume, in this case it is quantized fields of oscillators. The curvature is simply a geometrical interpretation of the interaction that takes place between particles and fields when there are both driving sources and damping (sinks) of energy for the harmonic oscillations of the field.

If the vacuum is so coupled to matter then why is the vacuum so decoupled with respect to matter concerning the Gravitomagnetic effect?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 04/21/2018 03:57 pm
...

Is it possible, while photons being considered mass-less, that induction of motion to the local frame of photons has some momentum associated with it.  That inducing an asymmetric curvature on the vacuum (unlike matter) causes an effect of changing the frame.  Similar to Lense-Thirring effect or Gravitomagnetism (change in the angular rotation frame of light) or similar to the frame change of light falling toward a gravitational source, except that the gravitational source is symmetric, so no net effect on the frame of the vacuum in total.  Assuming some energy level associated with the vacuum so giving it a net push allowing greater than photon propulsion.  Implying some momentum stored in the vacuum from Gravitomagnetism.

From this, it sounds like you are differentiating between the "empty" vacuum which you refer to as having a "frame" and the "stuff" that is in it. In my Model, the "empty" vacuum has no curvature, it has no frame. If it can't be measured or observed, it has no effect on reality, which to me says "it doesn't exist". What exists is the stuff that fills the volume, in this case it is quantized fields of oscillators. The curvature is simply a geometrical interpretation of the interaction that takes place between particles and fields when there are both driving sources and damping (sinks) of energy for the harmonic oscillations of the field.

If the vacuum is so coupled to matter then why is the vacuum so decoupled with respect to matter concerning the Gravitomagnetic effect?

A field oscillator (particle or quanta) is constantly exchanging virtual photons with the vacuum. EM field coupling strength depends on the polarization of the fields as well as the intensity of virtual photons. Gravity is the result of damping the oscillator, where the gradient in the damping factor causes an imbalance in the EM exchange. Damping only affects a tiny percentage of the photons, so the coupling strength is much smaller. Make sense?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 04/24/2018 02:51 pm
...

Is it possible, while photons being considered mass-less, that induction of motion to the local frame of photons has some momentum associated with it.  That inducing an asymmetric curvature on the vacuum (unlike matter) causes an effect of changing the frame.  Similar to Lense-Thirring effect or Gravitomagnetism (change in the angular rotation frame of light) or similar to the frame change of light falling toward a gravitational source, except that the gravitational source is symmetric, so no net effect on the frame of the vacuum in total.  Assuming some energy level associated with the vacuum so giving it a net push allowing greater than photon propulsion.  Implying some momentum stored in the vacuum from Gravitomagnetism.

From this, it sounds like you are differentiating between the "empty" vacuum which you refer to as having a "frame" and the "stuff" that is in it. In my Model, the "empty" vacuum has no curvature, it has no frame. If it can't be measured or observed, it has no effect on reality, which to me says "it doesn't exist". What exists is the stuff that fills the volume, in this case it is quantized fields of oscillators. The curvature is simply a geometrical interpretation of the interaction that takes place between particles and fields when there are both driving sources and damping (sinks) of energy for the harmonic oscillations of the field.

If the vacuum is so coupled to matter then why is the vacuum so decoupled with respect to matter concerning the Gravitomagnetic effect?

A field oscillator (particle or quanta) is constantly exchanging virtual photons with the vacuum. EM field coupling strength depends on the polarization of the fields as well as the intensity of virtual photons. Gravity is the result of damping the oscillator, where the gradient in the damping factor causes an imbalance in the EM exchange. Damping only affects a tiny percentage of the photons, so the coupling strength is much smaller. Make sense?

I think I understand, but by suggesting coupling it seems as though the vacuum gains a life of its own. 

Something with its own energy and therefore mass.  Not sure how that translates into a frame. Especially with backwards time propagators possibly.

 If we had in the vacuum some particles running backwards in time (virtual) and some forward in time then I guess that could give a frame at rest with respect to the coupled particle as well as frames in motion away and towards by the ict vector (minkowski space) via vacuum tilt (effective velocity) away and towards, near gravitational sources.  Not sure that makes sense yet.   

Tunneling could be a particle being swallowed by the vacuum disturbance wave and another like particle created by the vacuum on the other side.  Energy canceled by the backwards propagator, particle creation instigated by vacuum fluctuations.

I guess they are suggesting some reverse time operator in order to instantly couple to the rest of the matter in the universe for thrust but it just seems so appealing to look at it as a local effect.  I think even Dr. Rodal was suggesting it has more to do with the local matter than the rest of the matter in the universe in an old presentation video I was watching.  The mach effect seems a lot like changing the coupling to something local in the vacuum to get a net push.  I still question if one reaches near the speed of light, if one wouldn't experience some reduced effectiveness of the mach effect, though I have seen statements that its always at rest with respect to you which goes back to the immutable vacuum as opposed to a natural one. 

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36313.0;attach=821698
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: HMXHMX on 04/25/2018 02:43 pm
Just an FYI:  one of the organizers of the 2016 Estes Park workshop, Dr. Lance Williams, now affiliated with The Aerospace Corporation, presented the following at an American Physical Society meeting recently.  It has now been released publicly.  Thanks to Lance for sharing.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: bad_astra on 04/25/2018 03:16 pm
Just an FYI:  one of the organizers of the 2016 Estes Park workshop, Dr. Lance Williams, now affiliated with The Aerospace Corporation, presented the following at an American Physical Society meeting recently.  It has now been released publicly.  Thanks to Lance for sharing.


This is very useful. Even a clod like me can get a grasp on this presentation. I hope more people who haven't heard of Woodward get to see this.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: bad_astra on 04/25/2018 03:40 pm
Does this mean that the MEGAdrive is interacting primarily with the gravitation field of the Virgo supercluster rather than local gravity wells? Does the nearness of closer gravity wells effect the performance of the drive?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob Woods on 04/26/2018 01:30 am
Does this mean that the MEGAdrive is interacting primarily with the gravitation field of the Virgo supercluster rather than local gravity wells? Does the nearness of closer gravity wells effect the performance of the drive?
No, I think the Virgo supercluster is just an example of a very strong gravity source due to the size/density of the total matter. At this point I don't think anyone posits anything other than a general relationship with gravity as it permeates the universe.


First step is experimental proof.



Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: sanman on 04/28/2018 08:21 am
Does this mean that the MEGAdrive is interacting primarily with the gravitation field of the Virgo supercluster rather than local gravity wells? Does the nearness of closer gravity wells effect the performance of the drive?

Consider that the MEGAdrive is first interacting with the local gravinertial field, and that this field is a product of the arrangement of all matter in the universe. The distant Virgo supercluster could be considered to be a large constituent of the matter which is responsible for the gravinertial field, including the local portion of that field which the MEGAdrive is immediately interacting with. If I could wave a magic wand to make the Virgo supercluster disappear, or perhaps shift it to the other end of the universe, the resultant change in the gravinertial field would take lightspeed to reach where the MEGAdrive is and affect the local portion of the gravinertial field being interacted with. On the other hand, if my magic wand were to instead make nearby Jupiter disappear, the effect would take less time to propagate here since Jupiter is closer, although the magnitude of change felt would be less, since Jupiter is much less massive than the Virgo supercluster.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Jim Davis on 04/29/2018 04:44 am
Consider that the MEGAdrive is first interacting with the local gravinertial field, and that this field is a product of the arrangement of all matter in the universe.

Does the performance of the MEGAdrive depend on its velocity relative to the local gravintertial field? If so, exactly how does performance vary?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: sanman on 04/29/2018 08:15 pm
I'd assume that because the bulk of the universe is quite remote, you wouldn't experience much variation, except across very huge astronomical distances.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: InventIT on 05/10/2018 02:08 am
Martin Tajmar recently  showed  that  only  the  time-derivate  of mechanical  power  is  responsible  for  these  mass
fluctuations. (In the Mach effect / MEGA Drive). I assume that this rules out the electrical charge (in the capacitance of the PZT stack) having any measurable effect.
My analysis of the mechanical movement of the brass and aluminium mass suggest that it may be moving with a saw-tooth acceleration rate.   I propose that the bolts and damping material that squeeze the device together have a mechanical spring effect. The expansion of the stack should be pushing against the pressure of the bolts, and cause a lower acceleration than the contraction of the stack which is assisted by the pressure of the contracting bolts and expanding damper material.
So there would be a relatively higher accelerated contraction cycle and a relatively lower accelerated expansion cycle of the Piezo stack and end masses: A saw-tooth wave form.
The difference in acceleration rate during the push-pull cycle of the Woodward Mach/MEGA drive could be responsible for the net thrust.
The MEGA drive has two masses. A Brass mass at one end and a smaller aluminium mass or end cap at the other.  The direction of thrust is in the direction of the small mass.  Newtons F=MA would determine that the small mass would have a higher acceleration for the same force than the larger mass.
The small mass would have the largest acceleration, and be accelerating at its highest rate when the Piezo stack is contracting.
If mechanical acceleration is the sole or main cause of net thrust, and the acceleration is reacting against "the universe"; This proposed model would support a net thrust in the direction of the small mass.
Martin Tajmars advised that his paper on the subject is in peer review. Perhaps he has the mathematics to support this model, or an alternate theory on mechanical movement in the device. I look forward to studying the paper later this year.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Augmentor on 05/11/2018 03:32 pm
Consider that the MEGAdrive is first interacting with the local gravinertial field, and that this field is a product of the arrangement of all matter in the universe.

Does the performance of the MEGAdrive depend on its velocity relative to the local gravintertial field? If so, exactly how does performance vary?

In the Stargates paper, and in his book, Making Stargates,
Woodward develops an equation for the change in force, F'.

In it's simplest form, the derivative of force is defined by

F' = A a^2 + B j v

where v is velocity, a is acceleration, and j is jerk (change in acceleration) and A and B are constants.

Keep in mind that the MEGA system as a whole is undergoing acceleration and that an internal change to the dielectric results in an additional acceleration. In addition, sudden changes to the internal mass will result in small jerk forces. The MEGA is a forced harmonic oscillator where the oscillating mass undergoes internal change.

At 1 uN, a force has been recognized and verified. Great care is taken in experiments to obtain 1 uN clearly.
However, a useful force is 1 N (0.22 lbf, 101 gf).

Scaling form 1 uN to 1 N requires both amplifying the power per unit and multiplying units by array. So a unit could produce 1 mN and then 1,000 units could be used to achieve the 1 N goal.

Obtaining a 1 N thrust is only the first step.  One has to put electrical power in to obtain an output of thrust. So a good measure is N/kWe







Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Jim Davis on 05/12/2018 03:33 am
[In it's simplest form, the derivative of force is defined by

F' = A a^2 + B j v

where v is velocity, a is acceleration, and j is jerk (change in acceleration) and A and B are constants.

In the second term what is the velocity v relative to?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Augmentor on 05/13/2018 06:35 am
[In it's simplest form, the derivative of force is defined by

F' = A a^2 + B j v

where v is velocity, a is acceleration, and j is jerk (change in acceleration) and A and B are constants.

In the second term what is the velocity v relative to?

v is instantaneous, a measure of the external velocity.

If v is the external instantaneous velocity of a body undergoing external acceleration then the jerk, j, is internal change.

So we have another issue which appears to be a frame problem. What are v, a and j related to?

Mach effects occur when a body undergoing external Newtonian acceleration also undergoes Relativistic internal change.

Basically, in nested reference frames, Mach effects can occur. Localization from Machian universe where frame dragging results. Squeezed states result from compound acceleration and higher order derivatives, notably jerk.

This brings up the question of whether a GR acceleration with Newtonian internal change results in Mach effects as well. The intuitive answer is yes. However, one needs to define GR acceleration...is it a curved path such that additional forces apply, say in a planetary or stellar gravitation field.

First, a units check:  j v == a^2  ?

( m/sec^3)  (m/sec) = m^2/sec^4 =  (m/sec^2)^2

Units wise,   j v == a^2


On that basis, we can define the a^2 term as actually a(ext)* a(int) or identically a(int) * a(ext). Makes no difference, we can transpose them. So frames identical.

F = A a^2 + B v j =  A v'^2 + B v v''  = A (a(ext) * a(int)) + (v(ext) *  j(int))



If we assign jerk to internal changes and instantaneous v to external, then we have

F = A a^2 + B j v = A (a(ext)* a(int)) + j(int) * v(ext)

So in the j v term, we may need to use an alternative term, v(int) * j(ext). Will that work?

F = A a^2 + B j v = A (a(ext)* a(int)) + v(int) * j(ext)

Internal changes are not defined. However, we can assume the changes are either linear or angular. Linear jerk forces may be due to isolated energy changes, parametric amplification, or even parasitic forces including charge, mass and fields. Angular forces has additional forces which may result in acceleration change aka jerk forces.

D
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 05/13/2018 09:21 pm
[In it's simplest form, the derivative of force is defined by

F' = A a^2 + B j v

where v is velocity, a is acceleration, and j is jerk (change in acceleration) and A and B are constants.

In the second term what is the velocity v relative to?

v is instantaneous, a measure of the external velocity.

If v is the external instantaneous velocity of a body undergoing external acceleration then the jerk, j, is internal change.

So we have another issue which appears to be a frame problem. What are v, a and j related to?

Mach effects occur when a body undergoing external Newtonian acceleration also undergoes Relativistic internal change.

Basically, in nested reference frames, Mach effects can occur. Localization from Machian universe where frame dragging results. Squeezed states result from compound acceleration and higher order derivatives, notably jerk.

This brings up the question of whether a GR acceleration with Newtonian internal change results in Mach effects as well. The intuitive answer is yes. However, one needs to define GR acceleration...is it a curved path such that additional forces apply, say in a planetary or stellar gravitation field.

First, a units check:  j v == a^2  ?

( m/sec^3)  (m/sec) = m^2/sec^4 =  (m/sec^2)^2

Units wise,   j v == a^2


On that basis, we can define the a^2 term as actually a(ext)* a(int) or identically a(int) * a(ext). Makes no difference, we can transpose them. So frames identical.

F = A a^2 + B v j =  A v'^2 + B v v''  = A (a(ext) * a(int)) + (v(ext) *  j(int))



If we assign jerk to internal changes and instantaneous v to external, then we have

F = A a^2 + B j v = A (a(ext)* a(int)) + j(int) * v(ext)

So in the j v term, we may need to use an alternative term, v(int) * j(ext). Will that work?

F = A a^2 + B j v = A (a(ext)* a(int)) + v(int) * j(ext)

Internal changes are not defined. However, we can assume the changes are either linear or angular. Linear jerk forces may be due to isolated energy changes, parametric amplification, or even parasitic forces including charge, mass and fields. Angular forces has additional forces which may result in acceleration change aka jerk forces.

D

I find it interesting that if, "there was a velocity relative to a local vacuum" and an object was increasing its velocity relative to it.  The vacuum that was in front of it would radially decrease in distance, so the relative velocity would be negative, decreasing the effectiveness of thrust.  That is, unless thrust is reversed.  This is like pushing against a moving carpet? 

Is there any such detectable vacuum velocity?  Could any such velocity change locally in the presence of gravitational fields?  Would locally Minkowski tilting the local vacuum around an object to match the objects Minkowski tilt make it at rest with the local vacuum, reducing gamma?  Would that be related to warp drive?  If Minkowski tilting the local vacuum or curving the local vacuum is like creating artificial gravitational wells then this implies creating artificial gravitational fields is key to creating warp drives? 

Some links to earlier speculation and diagrams:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1806976#msg1806976
particularly "minkowski space.png" and the connection to gamma. 
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/assets/42978.0/1485594.jpg)
Notice the tilt in the vacuum in the above mentioned image to match the tilt in the vacuum of the proposed warp drive.

Warp Drive
http://www.andersoninstitute.com/alcubierre-warp-drive.html
(http://www.andersoninstitute.com/images/alcubierre-warp-drive-overview-small.jpg)

or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Augmentor on 05/14/2018 05:43 am
You've missed the point.

This is a nested system, a system within the system. Treat one system, treat the nested system, couple them together.

re: > "there was a velocity relative to a local vacuum"
And it's not clear what or who you are quoting

D
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Jim Davis on 05/14/2018 03:51 pm
You've missed the point.

No doubt.

Quote
This is a nested system, a system within the system. Treat one system, treat the nested system, couple them together.

And once this is done what is v relative to?

Perhaps if you used a real life kinematic example it would help. For example, a satellite in a highly elliptic orbit would have v, a, and j varying throughout its orbit. Can you show that Woodward's theory predicts the orbit of such a satellite better than either Newton's or Einstein's?

Or perhaps you could use as an example a spacecraft equipped with a Mach effect drive with certain characteristics such as thrust to power ratio and available energy. You could show how Woodward's theory predicts the motion of such a spacecraft when the drive is operating for a certain amount of time.

Anything like that.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Jim Davis on 05/15/2018 04:51 pm
For a spaceship in space, v is relative to the rest of the universe. So stellar navigation is a requirement.

For a soccer team moving a soccer balldown the field, one can pick v relative to either goal, or simply to the surface of the field.

Are you saying that Woodward's physics is frame dependent?

Quote
The satellite example is really complex and nonlinear.  Worse, changes to v, a and j mean that v', a' and j' add additional terms as well as g and g'. Since the path is curved, there are pseudo forces.

But surely such a case would be ideal to show that Woodward's physics is a better description of the real world? Why persist with ambiguous laboratory experiments for decades when one has an example ready to hand?

Quote
OTOH Mach effects  are defined as a system undergoing acceleration with respect to the rest of the universe, and  a relativistic change by E waves, produces internal change which creates a small transient gravitational/inertial change resulting in an overall change in Force.

So when a body accelerates it sends out a signal and as each element of the universe receives this signal it returns a gravitation/inertial signal which results in a change of force? How does the distance and direction of the various elements of the universe affect the magnitude and direction of the returned force? It seems to me that the various forces would largely cancel out since they are arriving from all directions over a very long period of time.

In any event, thanks for the lengthy explanation.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ThinkerX on 05/16/2018 01:24 am
Quote
So when a body accelerates it sends out a signal and as each element of the universe receives this signal it returns a gravitation/inertial signal which results in a change of force? How does the distance and direction of the various elements of the universe affect the magnitude and direction of the returned force? It seems to me that the various forces would largely cancel out since they are arriving from all directions over a very long period of time.

My concern as well.

Many pages ago, I posted a suspicion here that the this device might interact with the moons gravitational pull somehow - a local gravitational force strong enough to literally move oceans.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 05/16/2018 11:56 pm
New preprint from Prof. Tajmar and his team.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325177082_The_SpaceDrive_Project_-_First_Results_on_EMDrive_and_Mach-Effect_Thrusters (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325177082_The_SpaceDrive_Project_-_First_Results_on_EMDrive_and_Mach-Effect_Thrusters)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 05/17/2018 12:00 am
Quote
So when a body accelerates it sends out a signal and as each element of the universe receives this signal it returns a gravitation/inertial signal which results in a change of force? How does the distance and direction of the various elements of the universe affect the magnitude and direction of the returned force? It seems to me that the various forces would largely cancel out since they are arriving from all directions over a very long period of time.

My concern as well.

Many pages ago, I posted a suspicion here that the this device might interact with the moons gravitational pull somehow - a local gravitational force strong enough to literally move oceans.

No, no, no! It instantaneously interacts with the fields of matter from the rest of the universe that "are already here". It's not a back-and-forth exchange of signals with distant matter. They refer to it as; Advanced Waves that  propagate "backwards in time". However, I think that is misleading. Matter there has already radiated those waves and they are already here.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 05/20/2018 01:28 pm
Quote
So when a body accelerates it sends out a signal and as each element of the universe receives this signal it returns a gravitation/inertial signal which results in a change of force? How does the distance and direction of the various elements of the universe affect the magnitude and direction of the returned force? It seems to me that the various forces would largely cancel out since they are arriving from all directions over a very long period of time.

My concern as well.

Many pages ago, I posted a suspicion here that the this device might interact with the moons gravitational pull somehow - a local gravitational force strong enough to literally move oceans.

No, no, no! It instantaneously interacts with the fields of matter from the rest of the universe that "are already here". It's not a back-and-forth exchange of signals with distant matter. They refer to it as; Advanced Waves that  propagate "backwards in time". However, I think that is misleading. Matter there has already radiated those waves and they are already here.

In the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory, the "retarded" (orthochronous, or "forward in time") and "advanced" (antichronous, retrochronous or "backward in time") waves are actually the SAME wave, "recorded" from a different temporal perspective.

The solution to the electromagnetic field equations in the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory (which has been developed for electrodynamics) are symmetric with respect to time-inversion. But it has been suggested (first by Sciama) that such a concept could be extended to gravity.

An object A (the emitter) suddenly accelerates (proper acceleration) at an instant t1. It emits gravitational waves. These waves propagate forward in time through space at a velocity c (retarded solution). After some time, the wave arrives at a distant object B (the absorber) at an instant t2.

But the solution can bee seen oppositely, when reversing time (T-symmetry). Then it is the object B, the absorber, that emits a wave at t2, which propages through space at a velocity c, for "some time" and finally arrives at the object A at the instant t1, i.e. at the very same moment the object starts to accelerate in the orhochronous chronology.

Therefore the advanced solution allows an instantaneous inertial (gravitational in essence) interaction between very distant objects through space and time, although the waves themselves propagate at a limited, finite velocity c.

What is important to note, with respect to causality, is that the wave "coming back from the future" (more exactly the advanced solution) never propagates past in time before the moment of the object acceleration that initiated all of the waves.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Augmentor on 05/28/2018 01:02 am
In the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory, the "retarded" (orthochronous, or "forward in time") and "advanced" (antichronous, retrochronous or "backward in time") waves are actually the SAME wave, "recorded" from a different temporal perspective.

The solution to the electromagnetic field equations in the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory (which has been developed for electrodynamics) are symmetric with respect to time-inversion. But it has been suggested (first by Sciama) that such a concept could be extended to gravity.

An object A (the emitter) suddenly accelerates (proper acceleration) at an instant t1. It emits gravitational waves. These waves propagate forward in time through space at a velocity c (retarded solution). After some time, the wave arrives at a distant object B (the absorber) at an instant t2.

But the solution can bee seen oppositely, when reversing time (T-symmetry). Then it is the object B, the absorber, that emits a wave at t2, which propages through space at a velocity c, for "some time" and finally arrives at the object A at the instant t1, i.e. at the very same moment the object starts to accelerate in the orhochronous chronology.

Therefore the advanced solution allows an instantaneous inertial (gravitational in essence) interaction between very distant objects through space and time, although the waves themselves propagate at a limited, finite velocity c.

What is important to note, with respect to causality, is that the wave "coming back from the future" (more exactly the advanced solution) never propagates past in time before the moment of the object acceleration that initiated all of the waves.

Things are little bit more complicated than that in the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory. If you carefully read the original papers (Wheeler and Feynman 1945, 1949), you will find that there are six distinct waves in play:

1. Retarded wave from the emitter
2. Advanced wave from the emitter
3. Retarded wave from the future absorber
4. Advanced wave from the future absorber
5. Retarded wave from the past absorber
6. Advanced wave from the past absorber

All six waves should be taken into account + the boundary conditions of the universe in both time directions, as Hogarth did in his calculations (Hogarth 1962). You're talking about waves #1 and #4, and you are right that they are indistinguishable. But waves #2 do propagate backward in time before the moment of emission (from an anthropocentric view of time), and they violate our naive concept of causality:

The hidden arrow of electromagnetic radiation: unmasking advanced waves http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/13505 (http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/13505)




Hmmmmm...(thinking)

1. Retarded wave from the emitter
2. Advanced wave from the emitter
3. Retarded wave from the future absorber
4. Advanced wave from the future absorber
5. Retarded wave from the past absorber
6. Advanced wave from the past absorber

I'll take another look at the papers, but in a situation of radiation reaction, one should also consider an additional six equations, a source of potential energy


7. Retarded wave from the absorber
8. Advanced wave from the absorber
9. Retarded wave from the future emitter
10. Advanced wave from the future emitter
11. Retarded wave from the past emitter
12. Advanced wave from the past emitter

David
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 06/25/2018 09:37 am
By February 2018, Woodward loaned a good Mach Effect Thruster (accompanied by a specially designed isolation transformer) to Martin Tajmar at TU Dresden, Germany.

But for an unknown reason (do they fully understand what they are doing ?) Tajmar and his team didn't use the mandatory stepup/isolation transformer: Therefore they operated the device at the wrong frequency, one that could never trigger any thrust signature!

Even worse: as the Dresden team saw nothing conclusive, they increased the voltage for too long and the temperature in the PZT stacks, so they also managed to toast the initially good-working device before returning it to Woodward in California four months later.

BTW same kind of casualness in their EmDrive testing, as already reported on these boards in the dedicated thread, for example here (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1823724#msg1823724) and there (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1824560#msg1824560).

The media completely failed to account properly for these events and even reported that Mach effects may finally not exist, on the basis of that failed experiment.

What a pity. Complete story attached as a PPT file.

Hopefully Tajmar can resume another test with a new device and a valid protocol in the near future.

Quote from: Jim Woodward
Having known Martin for years, we decided to LOAN him the device we had been using in our lab as a “demonstrator” for a couple of years.  The device was shipped to him, along with some associated hardware – especially, a stepup/isolation transformer for the power circuit – so that he and his students could test it.  He was to return the device and hardware in a month or two.  It showed up in early June.



Running without the transformer had led them to run at the wrong frequency. But this aside, those in the popular and semi-popular press latched onto his ambiguous low power results and took them to be grounds for claiming that Mach effects had been falsified. Most of the press attention was lavished on the EM drive for there is no plausible physics to explain its operation should real thrust actually be generated in it. Mach effects were collateral damage.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: bad_astra on 06/25/2018 02:02 pm
After that debacle (one cant help but wonder WHY the MET was tested along with EmDrive. Was Tajmar's group just trying to do a clearing-house on anything they could fit in the vacuum chamber? ) I hope that the drive gets a proper test regime from someone else.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Augmentor on 06/27/2018 05:22 am

>Therefore they operated the device at the wrong frequency, one that could never trigger any thrust signature!

Sort of.

The isolation transformer also provide impedance matching. To those familiar with the MEGA drive, 31 kHz means that you have a DC component and that the 36KHz frequency cannot be obtained.

Part of the reason that Tajmar's group published on two different drives was an attempt to show how good his new expensive equipment would perform. So really this was not about testing the two different drives but new equipment testing as well as a new universal experimental setup that was not so universal.

The experimental setup was to test the emDrive. The wrong type of balance was used.

Magnetic dampening has artifacts that may contribute to false negatives or false positives.

The result appeared to be make out the emDrive as a magnetic compass.

IMHO the tests were not valid and the experiment was not valid.

Take your pick...

A) The future requires retesting of both drives. Try, try again.

B) Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

C) Really, it was an interim report.

D) At least the press spelled Tajmar correctly.

 "I don't care what the newspapers say about me as long as they spell my name right."
PT Barnum, Barnum and Bailey Circus

D
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: M.E.T. on 06/27/2018 01:20 pm
Well this is some of the best news I have read in a while. MET is alive and kicking.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/27/2018 03:42 pm
Well this is some of the best news I have read in a while. MET is alive and kicking.

All:

Find attached Jim Woodward's June 2018 critique of Tajmar's spring 2018 Mach Effect Gravity Assist (MEGA)-drive Seville report that Dr. Woodward sent out to his email distribution on June 25, with some editorial clean-ups from me.  I hope you find it informative.

Best, Paul March, Friendswood, TX
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 06/27/2018 04:45 pm
IMHO the tests were not valid and the experiment was not valid.
As you said, the point of the experiments was to demonstrate the quality of the setup. The primary result was they need to improve the magnetic shielding.

Nothing in your post explains why this experiment would be "not valid." Also, your claims about the "wrong type of balance" aren't supported by the paper. The errors seen in the experiments can easily be generated by Earth ambient magnetic fields. (Actually the paper doesn't even claim that it is necessarily magnetic, because the experiment only is enough to know that the thrust wasn't from the drive.)

Take your pick...

A) The future requires retesting of both drives. Try, try again.

B) Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

C) Really, it was an interim report.

D) At least the press spelled Tajmar correctly.
Not really a "take your pick" situation. C is true, and is clear if you read the paper. The word interim  also implies A more or less regardless of the results.

Well this is some of the best news I have read in a while. MET is alive and kicking.
This changes nothing about Tajmar's results which were stated in the paper to be run with too low of a voltage to expect to see a signal over the other effects present.

The new presentation shows strange data, usually with the "force" oscillating significantly while power is applied. Many artifacts in the data are not discussed in it, and generally, until and unless Woodward retracts previous papers he has written that fail at high school level physics (discussed previously in this thread) data from him is not trustworthy (note: I am not claiming he is intentionally messing with data.)

Once Tajmar improves his setup and does more thorough testing, hopefully that will be enough to show some relevant conclusions.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 06/28/2018 10:22 pm
The new presentation shows strange data, usually with the "force" oscillating significantly while power is applied. Many artifacts in the data are not discussed in it

If the allegations Woodward made about the damage caused by Tajmar incorrect operation of the device are true it's not surprising that the data don't look the same as before and that they are "strange", regardless from the reality of the underlying effect. The signal surely looks fainter.

Moreover, it seems to me that this is an unofficial Power Point presentation, not a published paper; there's a more in depth discussion on the noise sources and the way he accounted for them in his book.



[..]until and unless Woodward retracts previous papers he has written that fail at high school level physics (discussed previously in this thread) data from him is not trustworthy (note: I am not claiming he is intentionally messing with data.)

Are you referring to his "Overunity" paper? I'm not aware of any other writing he made that contains glaring mistakes. It would surely benefit his credibility if he removed that article from SSI page.

While I respect the opposite opinion, I think  this single case is not enough to conclude that he does not deserve any thrust (and that he is an incompetent, like you seem to imply).

For instance, both on his own web page and in the NIAC award presentation it is clearly stated that the device operates thanks to some external source of energy/momentum, showing that he understands  this point.

By the way, if some mistake in basic physics was enough to destroy the credibility of a scientist one would expect to have seen this happen with all those scientist in the 1920s-40s that stated with no doubts that a rocket could not fly in a vacuum. Seemingly, this did not happen, and I don't even know if each one of them later corrected his previous remarks.

As for the rest, I agree with your post.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 06/29/2018 06:54 am
Not much to comment on, since we are more in agreement than not.

Moreover, it seems to me that this is an unofficial Power Point presentation, not a published paper; there's a more in depth discussion on the noise sources and the way he accounted for them in his book.
I don't want to spend the time to go into the details now, but I recognize this presentation wasn't intended to answer everything.

Are you referring to his "Overunity" paper? I'm not aware of any other writing he made that contains glaring mistakes. It would surely benefit his credibility if he removed that article from SSI page.
As far as I know it is just the one paper. Trust is easy to lose and can be hard to earn.  Thankfully, we don't need to rely on trust since independent confirmation is a useful tool.

By the way, if some mistake in basic physics was enough to destroy the credibility of a scientist one would expect to have seen this happen with all those scientist in the 1920s-40s that stated with no doubts that a rocket could not fly in a vacuum. Seemingly, this did not happen, and I don't even know if each one of them later corrected his previous remarks.
As far as I am concerned that would have severely impaired their credibility with me. I have heard that claim before about scientists doubting rockets, but don't remember any firm sources. An attempt to google it just led to a bunch of flat earther sites (and a reminder that people today seriously promoting that level of ignorance is a real thing). I suspect it is primarily apocryphal, with a mix of misquotes and selective quotes similar to that whole bumblebee flying thing. If you have actual sources please share, though maybe in PM, since it isn't really on topic.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star One on 06/29/2018 10:16 am
Not much to comment on, since we are more in agreement than not.

Moreover, it seems to me that this is an unofficial Power Point presentation, not a published paper; there's a more in depth discussion on the noise sources and the way he accounted for them in his book.
I don't want to spend the time to go into the details now, but I recognize this presentation wasn't intended to answer everything.

Are you referring to his "Overunity" paper? I'm not aware of any other writing he made that contains glaring mistakes. It would surely benefit his credibility if he removed that article from SSI page.
As far as I know it is just the one paper. Trust is easy to lose and can be hard to earn.  Thankfully, we don't need to rely on trust since independent confirmation is a useful tool.

By the way, if some mistake in basic physics was enough to destroy the credibility of a scientist one would expect to have seen this happen with all those scientist in the 1920s-40s that stated with no doubts that a rocket could not fly in a vacuum. Seemingly, this did not happen, and I don't even know if each one of them later corrected his previous remarks.
As far as I am concerned that would have severely impaired their credibility with me. I have heard that claim before about scientists doubting rockets, but don't remember any firm sources. An attempt to google it just led to a bunch of flat earther sites (and a reminder that people today seriously promoting that level of ignorance is a real thing). I suspect it is primarily apocryphal, with a mix of misquotes and selective quotes similar to that whole bumblebee flying thing. If you have actual sources please share, though maybe in PM, since it isn't really on topic.

I’ve read about this as well that people believed rockets wouldn’t work in a vacuum. If memory serves its even mentioned in passing in the Haynes manual on the Saturn V.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 06/29/2018 01:58 pm
Please correct me if I am wrong, but this is a non-L2 section and can be linked to externally, correct?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 06/29/2018 04:57 pm


The claim that rockets do not work in space traces back to a New York Times editorial from the 1920's. They famously retracted it in 2009.

https://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-amp-space/article/2009-07/new-york-times-nasa-youre-right-rockets-do-work-space

And yes any scientist who do not understand action reaction quickly gets ignored. It is hard to recover from a prat fall like that. Similarly scientists who do not understand the Galilean transform quickly get ignored.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 06/29/2018 05:35 pm
I’ve read about this as well that people believed rockets wouldn’t work in a vacuum. If memory serves its even mentioned in passing in the Haynes manual on the Saturn V.
There are still people that believe they don't work today. I doubt anyone with much credibility misunderstood Newton's laws and thought rockets don't work.

The New York times article was actually retracted in 1969. They republished the retraction for the 40th anniversary in 2009.

Povel sent me some interesting quotes in PM by the way about doubts about the feasibility of space travel (not doubts about the ability for rockets to work in vacuum.)

I won't comment publically on this anymore since this is off topic. I apologize for causing this distraction.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but this is a non-L2 section and can be linked to externally, correct?
Yes, everything in this section is publically viewable on the web. Links to threads/posts work for anyone with or without an account.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 06/29/2018 11:26 pm
After that debacle (one cant help but wonder WHY the MET was tested along with EmDrive. Was Tajmar's group just trying to do a clearing-house on anything they could fit in the vacuum chamber? ) I hope that the drive gets a proper test regime from someone else.

I rather hope it gets a proper test from Tajmar.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star-Drive on 07/01/2018 07:17 pm
Well this is some of the best news I have read in a while. MET is alive and kicking.

All:

Find attached Jim Woodward's June 2018 critique of Tajmar's spring 2018 Mach Effect Gravity Assist (MEGA)-drive Seville report that Dr. Woodward sent out to his email distribution on June 25, with some editorial clean-ups from me.  I hope you find it informative.

Best, Paul March, Friendswood, TX

All: Please note the attached Rev-A revision by Woodward dated June 30, 2018, on the spring 2018 Tajmar MEGA-drive test report. Dr. Woodward added lot more details and pictures with respect to the previous June 08, 2018 rebuttal presentation. 

Best, Paul March 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ThinkerX on 07/01/2018 07:54 pm
Quote
All: Please note the attached Rev-A revision by Woodward dated June 30, 2018, on the spring 2018 Tajmar MEGA-drive test report. Dr. Woodward added lot more details and pictures with respect to the previous June 08, 2018 rebuttal presentation. 

Put bluntly, Woodward is stating that Tajmar's 'thermal event' damaged the mechanism to the point where it produced flawed results?  Or am I missing something?

Also, for whatever reason, while reading the description of how this device works, I kept thinking 'Dean Drive.'

That said, the 'chirping' does sound interesting.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star-Drive on 07/02/2018 02:54 am
Quote
All: Please note the attached Rev-A revision by Woodward dated June 30, 2018, on the spring 2018 Tajmar MEGA-drive test report. Dr. Woodward added lot more details and pictures with respect to the previous June 08, 2018 rebuttal presentation. 

Put bluntly, Woodward is stating that Tajmar's 'thermal event' damaged the mechanism to the point where it produced flawed results?  Or am I missing something?

Also, for whatever reason, while reading the description of how this device works, I kept thinking 'Dean Drive.'

That said, the 'chirping' does sound interesting.


ThinkerX:

"Put bluntly, Woodward is stating that Tajmar's 'thermal event' damaged the mechanism to the point where it produced flawed results?"

Not flawed results, just degraded results where the stack is now producing less thrust than it use to for a given input power.

As to your Dean drive concerns, Woodward has performed extensive stick-slip vibration studies of his PZT stacks in his torque pendulum setup and found little to no sensitivity to such vibrational inputs on the observed thrust signatures.

Best, Paul March
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ThinkerX on 07/02/2018 03:54 am
Quote
ThinkerX:

"Put bluntly, Woodward is stating that Tajmar's 'thermal event' damaged the mechanism to the point where it produced flawed results?"

Not flawed results, just degraded results where the stack is now producing less thrust than it use to for a given input power.

As to your Dean drive concerns, Woodward has performed extensive stick-slip vibration studies of his PZT stacks in his torque pendulum setup and found little to no sensitivity to such vibrational inputs on the observed thrust signatures.

Best, Paul March

Thank you for the clarification.

That still leaves me with a couple other concerns:

1 - what was the 'thermal event?'  if these devices are subject to such, would they still be viable in long term deep space situations?

2 - the measured thrust seems extremely tiny - within the 'noise level,' unless I'm misreading something (very possible).   Is said 'thrust' ('movement?') significantly greater than a photon rocket?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star-Drive on 07/02/2018 05:41 pm
Quote
ThinkerX:

"Put bluntly, Woodward is stating that Tajmar's 'thermal event' damaged the mechanism to the point where it produced flawed results?"

Not flawed results, just degraded results where the stack is now producing less thrust than it use to for a given input power.

As to your Dean drive concerns, Woodward has performed extensive stick-slip vibration studies of his PZT stacks in his torque pendulum setup and found little to no sensitivity to such vibrational inputs on the observed thrust signatures.

Best, Paul March

Thank you for the clarification.

That still leaves me with a couple other concerns:

1 - what was the 'thermal event?'  if these devices are subject to such, would they still be viable in long term deep space situations?

2 - the measured thrust seems extremely tiny - within the 'noise level,' unless I'm misreading something (very possible).   Is said 'thrust' ('movement?') significantly greater than a photon rocket?

ThinkerX:

1. From the displayed photos of the PZT stack returned to Dr. Woodward from Tajmar's lab, see Jim's latest Rev-A presentation, the test article appears to have been exposed to an over-temp and/or over-current episode that literally charred some of the insulation on the PZT-stack's safety green ground wire, distorted the stack's soldered brass electrode wiring and charred the stack's preload cap screws' polyolefin shrink-tubing placed around each cap screw as HV insulation.  (See related slide-16 from Woodward's presentation.)   

2. Dr. Woodward's current torque pendulum's force resolution is on the order of 0.1 micro-Newton (uN) peak-to-peak as demonstrated in many of his force plots in this presentation/report.  That is more than enough sensitivity to resolve the 0.5-to-1.5 uN force signatures in question, i.e., his measurement system's single-shot noise platform is around 0.10uN and much less when Jim makes multiple force measurements and then averages them together.

"Is said 'thrust' ('movement?') significantly greater than a photon rocket?"

A perfectly culminated photon rocket beam has at best a thrust to power figure of merit of 6.6 micro-Newton per kilowatt of RF beam power or uN/kWe.  As tested, while producing 1.3uN peak, this MEGA-drive had a peak thruster efficiency ~211.8X that of a photon rocket, see below slide 39A from Woodward's presentation with my just added notes on this topic.

Added:

BTW, if memory serves, this demonstrator MEGA-drive test article when new was producing over 600 uN/kWe.

Best, Paul March
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 07/02/2018 06:24 pm
Quote
All: Please note the attached Rev-A revision by Woodward dated June 30, 2018, on the spring 2018 Tajmar MEGA-drive test report. Dr. Woodward added lot more details and pictures with respect to the previous June 08, 2018 rebuttal presentation. 

Put bluntly, Woodward is stating that Tajmar's 'thermal event' damaged the mechanism to the point where it produced flawed results?  Or am I missing something?

Also, for whatever reason, while reading the description of how this device works, I kept thinking 'Dean Drive.'

That said, the 'chirping' does sound interesting.

If you keep thinking 'Dean Drive', take a look of 'Henry Bull reaction motor' that I and others discussed in this thread some time ago. You probably will forget Dean Drive.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ThinkerX on 07/03/2018 02:13 am
Quote
If you keep thinking 'Dean Drive', take a look of 'Henry Bull reaction motor' that I and others discussed in this thread some time ago. You probably will forget Dean Drive.





Yet, 'Star-Drive' insists this sort of effect is accounted for:

Quote
As to your Dean drive concerns, Woodward has performed extensive stick-slip vibration studies of his PZT stacks in his torque pendulum setup and found little to no sensitivity to such vibrational inputs on the observed thrust signatures

I will leave this one for those more knowledgeable than myself to mull over.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob Woods on 07/03/2018 06:33 am
Just a reminder to everyone, the NAIC Symposium is happening in Boston Sept. 25-27 and includes  The Phase II funding presentation for the MEGA Drive. Attendance is free and sign-up's are at https://www.nasa.gov/content/niac-symposium (https://www.nasa.gov/content/niac-symposium).


I went to Denver last year and it was three of the best days of my life. Exciting!!!
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star One on 07/03/2018 10:10 pm
Just a reminder to everyone, the NAIC Symposium is happening in Boston Sept. 25-27 and includes  The Phase II funding presentation for the MEGA Drive. Attendance is free and sign-up's are at https://www.nasa.gov/content/niac-symposium (https://www.nasa.gov/content/niac-symposium).


I went to Denver last year and it was three of the best days of my life. Exciting!!!

Out of interest are you going this year?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: BSu on 07/04/2018 03:31 am
Can this (advanced waves) then be used to send a message backward in time to warn of a disaster?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob Woods on 07/04/2018 05:22 pm
Just a reminder to everyone, the NAIC Symposium is happening in Boston Sept. 25-27 and includes  The Phase II funding presentation for the MEGA Drive. Attendance is free and sign-up's are at https://www.nasa.gov/content/niac-symposium (https://www.nasa.gov/content/niac-symposium).


I went to Denver last year and it was three of the best days of my life. Exciting!!!

Out of interest are you going this year?
I have signed up, but not booked a room yet. I'm dealing with some timing and cost issues. I have  grandkids, one in particular that I would like to see go, and that means taking them all. The one is 16, and starting college classes this fall at her local community college. She was deep into science when younger, but has lost that interest in the last couple of years.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/04/2018 06:49 pm
Quote
If you keep thinking 'Dean Drive', take a look of 'Henry Bull reaction motor' that I and others discussed in this thread some time ago. You probably will forget Dean Drive.

Yet, 'Star-Drive' insists this sort of effect is accounted for:

Quote
As to your Dean drive concerns, Woodward has performed extensive stick-slip vibration studies of his PZT stacks in his torque pendulum setup and found little to no sensitivity to such vibrational inputs on the observed thrust signatures

I will leave this one for those more knowledgeable than myself to mull over.

The Harry Bull Reaction Motor is not really a slip-stick effect (asymmetrical frictional resistance) like the classic Dean Drive. Instead, it relies upon one of the collisions being elastic and the other inelastic since there is a damper on one side and not on the other.

I ran some simulations a while back to see how something like this might produce a thrust signature on a torsional pendulum. I also built an "asymmetric shaker" device using a voice coil actuator and a ~50g stainless steel reaction mass that generated ~2uN at ~10KHz. Since then I've built a device that I hope will generate ~10uN+ and also improved the simulation. You can see that here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edSkbf-ta98

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star One on 07/04/2018 07:20 pm
Just a reminder to everyone, the NAIC Symposium is happening in Boston Sept. 25-27 and includes  The Phase II funding presentation for the MEGA Drive. Attendance is free and sign-up's are at https://www.nasa.gov/content/niac-symposium (https://www.nasa.gov/content/niac-symposium).


I went to Denver last year and it was three of the best days of my life. Exciting!!!

Out of interest are you going this year?
I have signed up, but not booked a room yet. I'm dealing with some timing and cost issues. I have  grandkids, one in particular that I would like to see go, and that means taking them all. The one is 16, and starting college classes this fall at her local community college. She was deep into science when younger, but has lost that interest in the last couple of years.

Thanks for the update.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Augmentor on 07/05/2018 06:12 am
IMHO the tests were not valid and the experiment was not valid.
As you said, the point of the experiments was to demonstrate the quality of the setup. The primary result was they need to improve the magnetic shielding.

Nothing in your post explains why this experiment would be "not valid." Also, your claims about the "wrong type of balance" aren't supported by the paper. The errors seen in the experiments can easily be generated by Earth ambient magnetic fields. (Actually the paper doesn't even claim that it is necessarily magnetic, because the experiment only is enough to know that the thrust wasn't from the drive.)

Take your pick...

A) The future requires retesting of both drives. Try, try again.

B) Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

C) Really, it was an interim report.

D) At least the press spelled Tajmar correctly.
Not really a "take your pick" situation. C is true, and is clear if you read the paper. The word interim  also implies A more or less regardless of the results.

Well this is some of the best news I have read in a while. MET is alive and kicking.
This changes nothing about Tajmar's results which were stated in the paper to be run with too low of a voltage to expect to see a signal over the other effects present.

The new presentation shows strange data, usually with the "force" oscillating significantly while power is applied. Many artifacts in the data are not discussed in it, and generally, until and unless Woodward retracts previous papers he has written that fail at high school level physics (discussed previously in this thread) data from him is not trustworthy (note: I am not claiming he is intentionally messing with data.)

Once Tajmar improves his setup and does more thorough testing, hopefully that will be enough to show some relevant conclusions.


Tajmar tested four different systems in this "interim" report.

1. New test equipment in a recently custom design room with world class accuracy
2. New experimental rig with something old and something new
3. emDrive although in a limited way
4. MEGA Thruster - Mach Effect Gravitational Assist Thruster

#1 The test equipment is very precise. The question remains whether it is accurate? (see experimental setup)
The assumption is that the experimental setup is correct and rigorous, and that the test equipment can measure small thrusts down to and below 1 uN.

#2 The experimental setup was flawed? Magnetic shielding is only one of many flaws. 
Others have commented on this. The question remains were they testing a theory or verifying an experimental device?

#3 emDrive theories abound including particle physics, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, quantum field theory and quantum vacuum. Even if #1 and #2 are perfect, the paper lacked rigor in identifying all the plausible, possible and improbable theories and identifying clearly the theory it was testing or not.

#4 MEGA: Tajmar's team failed to follow Woodward's instructions and use the supplied isolation transformer that provided impedance matching and was would for a resonant frequency.  So any result in this paper from Tajmar et al on MET is bogus. A DC component was introduced resulting in 31 kHz, and the 36 kHz resonant frequency was not obtained. So #4 was a failure.  However, Tajmar is talking with Woodward and expected to resolve issues. After all, Tajmar did test Mach Effect Thrusters and obtained positive results about 2 years ago.

There is this nagging question as to whether McCulloch and Tajmar are promoting yet another drive: McCulloch Quantized Inertia drive. Was there a conflict of interest that was not acknowledged?

So, the wheels came off in the interim report. Many issues have been identified by numerous sources. Tajmar's team will present in early September. Hopefully, the accuracy of their experimental setup and data will improve warranting the level of precision of their test equipment.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ThinkerX on 07/05/2018 07:57 am
Quote
The Harry Bull Reaction Motor is not really a slip-stick effect (asymmetrical frictional resistance) like the classic Dean Drive. Instead, it relies upon one of the collisions being elastic and the other inelastic since there is a damper on one side and not on the other.

I ran some simulations a while back to see how something like this might produce a thrust signature on a torsional pendulum. I also built an "asymmetric shaker" device using a voice coil actuator and a ~50g stainless steel reaction mass that generated ~2uN at ~10KHz. Since then I've built a device that I hope will generate ~10uN+ and also improved the simulation. You can see that here:

Thank you.

My first thought is while this device might produce 'thrust' while attached to a pendulum in a vacuum chamber, I have doubts it will move a actual spacecraft away from earths atmosphere.

Even if it did work in space, I wonder about long term damage from the vibrations.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: GeneralRulofDumb on 07/19/2018 12:38 pm
Quote
The Harry Bull Reaction Motor is not really a slip-stick effect (asymmetrical frictional resistance) like the classic Dean Drive. Instead, it relies upon one of the collisions being elastic and the other inelastic since there is a damper on one side and not on the other.

I ran some simulations a while back to see how something like this might produce a thrust signature on a torsional pendulum. I also built an "asymmetric shaker" device using a voice coil actuator and a ~50g stainless steel reaction mass that generated ~2uN at ~10KHz. Since then I've built a device that I hope will generate ~10uN+ and also improved the simulation. You can see that here:

I guess if this would work, we would be flying through space on washing machines set to a high spin cycle.
Or on jack hammers.
Devices like these only (seem to) produce 'thrust' when fixed to a solid base, i.e. through friction or springs.
However there's nothing in outer space to affix them to.

MET seems to use FOAM as a means to 'propel against'.
Accelerate a vessel in outer space with a MET on board in one direction, and all the matter in the universe (connected through inertia) accelerates in the other direction.
A bit like accelerating your car accelerates the earth (or a piece of a tectonic plate) in the opposite direction, immeasurably as it may be.
This also would mean no violation of over unity energy creation.

Anyway, it might be that pursuing this 'Harry Bull Reaction Motor' has its merits and therefore might warrant creating its own discussion group.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ThinkerX on 07/19/2018 11:59 pm
Quote
I guess if this would work, we would be flying through space on washing machines set to a high spin cycle.
Or on jack hammers.
Devices like these only (seem to) produce 'thrust' when fixed to a solid base, i.e. through friction or springs.
However there's nothing in outer space to affix them to.

MET seems to use FOAM as a means to 'propel against'.
Accelerate a vessel in outer space with a MET on board in one direction, and all the matter in the universe (connected through inertia) accelerates in the other direction.
A bit like accelerating your car accelerates the earth (or a piece of a tectonic plate) in the opposite direction, immeasurably as it may be.
This also would mean no violation of over unity energy creation.

Anyway, it might be that pursuing this 'Harry Bull Reaction Motor' has its merits and therefore might warrant creating its own discussion group.

The closest valid real world comparison I can make is using planetary flyby's to increase a spacecraft's velocity or alter course - something NASA seems to have a knack for.  That process, like the one claimed here, is essentially a transfer of momentum (kinetic energy) - huge for the spacecraft, effectively negligible for the planet. 

But, I keep seeing issues arising from especially powerful local gravitational sources for this mechanism.  (aka, the moon)
 



Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: GeneralRulofDumb on 07/20/2018 08:15 am
The closest valid real world comparison I can make is using planetary flyby's to increase a spacecraft's velocity or alter course - something NASA seems to have a knack for.  That process, like the one claimed here, is essentially a transfer of momentum (kinetic energy) - huge for the spacecraft, effectively negligible for the planet. 

But, I keep seeing issues arising from especially powerful local gravitational sources for this mechanism.  (aka, the moon)

I don't think that's a valid or even useful comparison.
Slingshotting using a planets' (or moons') gravity well relies on gravity.
The MET relies on inertia for it to work.
Gravity and inertia are often mentioned synonymously, but they are definitely not the same.
Although they both are directly related to a bodies mass, they constitute two very different phenomenons.

The real question is: what is inertia end why do bodies with mass exhibit it ?
Is all matter in the universe connected through inertia ?
If so, we should be able to use a MET to 'grab onto' all matter and create propellantless thrust.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 07/21/2018 03:57 am
Quote
The Harry Bull Reaction Motor is not really a slip-stick effect (asymmetrical frictional resistance) like the classic Dean Drive. Instead, it relies upon one of the collisions being elastic and the other inelastic since there is a damper on one side and not on the other.

I ran some simulations a while back to see how something like this might produce a thrust signature on a torsional pendulum. I also built an "asymmetric shaker" device using a voice coil actuator and a ~50g stainless steel reaction mass that generated ~2uN at ~10KHz. Since then I've built a device that I hope will generate ~10uN+ and also improved the simulation. You can see that here:

I guess if this would work, we would be flying through space on washing machines set to a high spin cycle.
Or on jack hammers.
Devices like these only (seem to) produce 'thrust' when fixed to a solid base, i.e. through friction or springs.
However there's nothing in outer space to affix them to.

MET seems to use FOAM as a means to 'propel against'.
Accelerate a vessel in outer space with a MET on board in one direction, and all the matter in the universe (connected through inertia) accelerates in the other direction.
A bit like accelerating your car accelerates the earth (or a piece of a tectonic plate) in the opposite direction, immeasurably as it may be.
This also would mean no violation of over unity energy creation.

Anyway, it might be that pursuing this 'Harry Bull Reaction Motor' has its merits and therefore might warrant creating its own discussion group.

No, the MET still has several problems here that lead to local power generation.

Imagine an electric car traveling at some speed. The amount of energy needed to accelerate more depends on how fast the car is already going. Thus you can measure how fast the car is going by feeding a measured amount of energy into the motor and measuring the acceleration force it causes. Or you could tap the regenerative braking and measure the amount of energy created. This does not violate conservation of energy because you are just tapping into the difference in velocity between the earth and the car. It creates the illusion of a preferred frame. But that frame is not universal.

If the MET is reacting against something then it should be able to do the same thing. You should be able to generate a huge amount of energy locally that you can use any way you choose. You can claim that it does not violate conservation of energy but it is still effectively free infinite energy. You have also created a preferred frame that is the same for all. Also if your velocity with respect to the preferred frame is high then it can take a huge amount of energy to get trivial amounts of acceleration. Or by going in the other direction you can get huge amounts of acceleration with huge amounts of free energy. Just like a braking electric car.

You can attempt to get around this by saying that the MET acts the same in all frames of reference. That means, unlike the car, constant power means constant acceleration. This gives a violation of conservation of energy that cannot be easily fixed by reference to something it is pushing against. If you are pushing against something then how fast you are moving matters. If it does not matter then you break physics.

You could fix all of this by just saying the MET reacts against only local masses. For example a MET on the surface of the earth could accelerate upwards by pushing against the earth with some hypothetical inertial field. This way you could conserve momentum and energy and still not have any preferred frames.  It is pure science fiction and the experimental evidence for anything MET like is so weak as to be properly ignored. But at least this is consistent with the experimental evidence such as it is. And it does not immediately break all of physics or create an infinite energy supply. 

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob Woods on 07/21/2018 04:42 am
Imagine an electric car traveling at some speed. The amount of energy needed to accelerate more depends on how fast the car is already going.
Only at relativistic speeds where mass is increasing, otherwise Newton rules. F=ma.


This is why the MEGA drive expects to be limited to a small, but still significant fraction of c.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 07/21/2018 04:54 am
Imagine an electric car traveling at some speed. The amount of energy needed to accelerate more depends on how fast the car is already going.
Only at relativistic speeds where mass is increasing, otherwise Newton rules. F=ma.


This is why the MEGA drive expects to be limited to a small, but still significant fraction of c.
No, ppnl's statement is true at all speeds. In the non-relativistic situation, kinetic energy is 0.5*m*v^2 which is nonlinear with velocity.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob Woods on 07/21/2018 05:04 am
Imagine an electric car traveling at some speed. The amount of energy needed to accelerate more depends on how fast the car is already going.
Only at relativistic speeds where mass is increasing, otherwise Newton rules. F=ma.


This is why the MEGA drive expects to be limited to a small, but still significant fraction of c.
No, ppnl's statement is true at all speeds. In the non-relativistic situation, kinetic energy is 0.5*m*v^2 which is nonlinear with velocity.
My bad. Should not post after beer.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: soms42 on 07/21/2018 01:59 pm
"This is why the MEGA drive expects to be limited to a small, but still significant fraction of c."

This is weird. Speed is relative to an observer, so it can never be limited (except by c).

edit:
Let me expain the a little bit. When a mach drive is accelerating a space ship, the space ship keeps on accelerating getting relativistic velocities relative to the non-accelerated observer.
There is no magical speed limit, except for the available energy on the spaceship needed to power the mach-drive.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 07/22/2018 02:17 am
"This is why the MEGA drive expects to be limited to a small, but still significant fraction of c."

This is weird. Speed is relative to an observer, so it can never be limited (except by c).

edit:
Let me expain the a little bit. When a mach drive is accelerating a space ship, the space ship keeps on accelerating getting relativistic velocities relative to the non-accelerated observer.
There is no magical speed limit, except for the available energy on the spaceship needed to power the mach-drive.

Yes that is true. But remember the energy you need goes up with the square of the velocity. So getting up to even a small fraction of the speed of light is going to be very very hard.

And you still have that problem with the prefered frame of reference.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 07/23/2018 05:57 pm
Physicist Mike McCulloch thinks that the "Woodward effect" showing an anomalous thrust with Mach Effect Thrusters (METs) is actually an effect of quantised inertia, relying on the dampening of Unruh radiation, making these thrusters "horizon drives":

• Mike McCulloch (25 June 2018): "Does QI Predict The Woodward Effect?" (http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2018/06/does-qi-predict-woodward-effect.html)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: soms42 on 07/23/2018 07:16 pm
"This is why the MEGA drive expects to be limited to a small, but still significant fraction of c."

This is weird. Speed is relative to an observer, so it can never be limited (except by c).

edit:
Let me expain the a little bit. When a mach drive is accelerating a space ship, the space ship keeps on accelerating getting relativistic velocities relative to the non-accelerated observer.
There is no magical speed limit, except for the available energy on the spaceship needed to power the mach-drive.

Yes that is true. But remember the energy you need goes up with the square of the velocity. So getting up to even a small fraction of the speed of light is going to be very very hard.

And you still have that problem with the prefered frame of reference.

The applied energy is in the reference frame of the accelerated object, so E=.5mv² does not apply this way.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 07/23/2018 10:45 pm
"This is why the MEGA drive expects to be limited to a small, but still significant fraction of c."

This is weird. Speed is relative to an observer, so it can never be limited (except by c).

edit:
Let me expain the a little bit. When a mach drive is accelerating a space ship, the space ship keeps on accelerating getting relativistic velocities relative to the non-accelerated observer.
There is no magical speed limit, except for the available energy on the spaceship needed to power the mach-drive.

Yes that is true. But remember the energy you need goes up with the square of the velocity. So getting up to even a small fraction of the speed of light is going to be very very hard.

And you still have that problem with the prefered frame of reference.

The applied energy is in the reference frame of the accelerated object, so E=.5mv² does not apply this way.
The energy is applied, period. The energy coming from the energy source is not frame dependent in general so specifying a frame changes nothing.

The "frame of the accelerated object" is by definition an accelerating frame. An accelerating frame is not an inertial reference frame and simply shouldn't be used unless you want a headache from the corrections you need to apply. Instead, it is easier to just pick an inertial frame to calculate from and 0.5*m*v^2 applies.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ThinkerX on 07/24/2018 12:39 am
Quote
The "frame of the accelerated object" is by definition an accelerating frame. An accelerating frame is not an inertial reference frame and simply shouldn't be used unless you want a headache from the corrections you need to apply. Instead, it is easier to just pick an inertial frame to calculate from and 0.5*m*v^2 applies.

Ok, my brain just melted here trying to grasp all this.  (Then again, long annoying day at work)

Could Woodward's device very roughly be considered the equivalent of a sail on an old fashioned sailboat?  Doing little else but capturing inertial force?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Augmentor on 07/24/2018 04:20 am
Quote
The "frame of the accelerated object" is by definition an accelerating frame. An accelerating frame is not an inertial reference frame and simply shouldn't be used unless you want a headache from the corrections you need to apply. Instead, it is easier to just pick an inertial frame to calculate from and 0.5*m*v^2 applies.

Ok, my brain just melted here trying to grasp all this.  (Then again, long annoying day at work)

Could Woodward's device very roughly be considered the equivalent of a sail on an old fashioned sailboat?  Doing little else but capturing inertial force?

Perhaps after a few beers or a bottle of wine.

A sailboat captures momentum from external sources.  Mach effects requires separation from the Machian universe for a transient moment. So Mach effect craft are more like an electric motor boat.

The brilliance of Woodward's device? The MEGA captures momentum from internal sources in part by disconnecting from external sources.

The method of doing is a calculation within General Relativity, not a new theory.

Woodward's MEGA (formerly MET) is a resonant closed system where mechanical acceleration is achieved at the molecular level in a dielectric, typically PZT. During resonance, a second source of energy, electricity applied to a capacitor (PZT) makes a transient change in the oscillating mass, an acoustic particle-wave,  in a rather short amount of time. The transient momentum is transferred to a bulk mass at one end, and the mass is then recycled with a return trip.

So there is a external acceleration within the universe, and in addition, an internal change resulting in transient  mass and therefore momentum. Normally, we would say this is Newtonian, perhaps non-Newtonian, yet at this point, not relativistic.

The relativistic change is due to the local separation from the Machian universe and occurs at the molecular and atomic level aka the mesoscopic level of physics where both macro effects are produced by micro effects. Charge is invariant (does not vary in direction or magnitude). Bonds get stretched (van der Waals, covalent), magnetic field lines disconnect and reconnect, and atoms get energized.

For now, begin with the resonance of the capacitor can be described as a directionally forced, damped harmonic oscillator commonly found in micro and nano mechanical resonators.

m (x'' + (2 pi f(0)/Q)  x' + 2pi f(0)^2  x) = F cos (f t)

Then one needs to simply add transient mass in one direction, calculate the change in momentum to the bulk mass at one end.

A more meaningful equation addresses the non-relativistic kinematics with an equation of motion. For relativistic kinematic solution, please see the NASA NIAC report where Dr. Fearn did the math for coupled oscillators.

The result is that for a kinematically accelerating system (PZT capacitor), electrically induced internal changes within the PZT cell produce a local acceleration. While the macro system is accelerating, an energy pulse produces an internal acceleration, a nested forces calculation that provides for what Woodward calculates in STARGATES and the MSAS book.

F' is the change in force  d^2(mv)/dt^2 = (d/dt (d(m v)/dt) = d/dt (m a) = F'

Woodward derives the following in his book, and in the STARGATES paper.
For nested systems especially where relativistic effects at the micro level occur,
then one has to calculate the induced change in force resulting in:

F'  = A a^2 + B j v

v is velocity
a is acceleration
j is jerk/jolt == a change in acceleration
A and B are constants to highlight kinematics. However, they could be functions too.

The MEGA is a motor boat that slowly accelerates, for now. The fun part is
the MEGA accelerates not just for seconds or minutes like a chemical rocket
nor for weeks or months like a Lorentz electric rocket, but for accelerates
for years and decades.

Fueled by fusion, the MEGA motor boat needs more power. The current path
is to amplify the power signal input per unit, increase the efficiency of the GI
output, and scale by arrays with multiple units to useful thrust and control
levels.

Jump Rope Rhyme

Motorboat, motorboat, go so slow
Motorboat, motorboat, go so fast
Motorboat, motorboat step on the gas!
VROOOOOOM!

Sailships? I like tall ships. Project Starshot? It may work if the
lasers and masers don't turn the craft into a burnt s'more.

David


Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: soms42 on 07/24/2018 06:13 pm
"This is why the MEGA drive expects to be limited to a small, but still significant fraction of c."

This is weird. Speed is relative to an observer, so it can never be limited (except by c).

edit:
Let me expain the a little bit. When a mach drive is accelerating a space ship, the space ship keeps on accelerating getting relativistic velocities relative to the non-accelerated observer.
There is no magical speed limit, except for the available energy on the spaceship needed to power the mach-drive.

Yes that is true. But remember the energy you need goes up with the square of the velocity. So getting up to even a small fraction of the speed of light is going to be very very hard.

And you still have that problem with the prefered frame of reference.

The applied energy is in the reference frame of the accelerated object, so E=.5mv² does not apply this way.
The energy is applied, period. The energy coming from the energy source is not frame dependent in general so specifying a frame changes nothing.

The "frame of the accelerated object" is by definition an accelerating frame. An accelerating frame is not an inertial reference frame and simply shouldn't be used unless you want a headache from the corrections you need to apply. Instead, it is easier to just pick an inertial frame to calculate from and 0.5*m*v^2 applies.

I am starting to belief this is a confusion of tongues.
Of course, for the non accelerated observer the energy of the accelerated spaceship increases with  0.5*m*v^2 . However, the applied power in the spaceship is constant.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Jim Davis on 07/24/2018 06:46 pm
Of course, for the non accelerated observer the energy of the accelerated spaceship increases with  0.5*m*v^2 . However, the applied power in the spaceship is constant.

The problem is that different observers see different increases in the kinetic energy of the accelerated spaceship. So if the applied power in the spaceship is constant, energy is not being conserved in all reference frames. Indeed, it is only being conserved in one reference frame.

That is a problem.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ThinkerX on 07/24/2018 10:34 pm
Quote
The problem is that different observers see different increases in the kinetic energy of the accelerated spaceship. So if the applied power in the spaceship is constant, energy is not being conserved in all reference frames. Indeed, it is only being conserved in one reference frame.

That is a problem.

Seems to me you'd run into that frame problem with other, less controversial drives - like, say, a Buzzard Ramjet.  Say you had a workable such ramjet (yes, whole can of space worms, there, but...) and say said ramjets controls have just two speeds: 'stop' and 'full,' with all fuel external to the craft.  From a frame perspective, wouldn't you have the same issues as with the Mach Drive? 

With the frame issue, its almost like we're getting into an area where even ordinary rockets can't work.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 07/24/2018 11:01 pm
Quote
The problem is that different observers see different increases in the kinetic energy of the accelerated spaceship. So if the applied power in the spaceship is constant, energy is not being conserved in all reference frames. Indeed, it is only being conserved in one reference frame.

That is a problem.

Seems to me you'd run into that frame problem with other, less controversial drives - like, say, a Buzzard Ramjet.  Say you had a workable such ramjet (yes, whole can of space worms, there, but...) and say said ramjets controls have just two speeds: 'stop' and 'full,' with all fuel external to the craft.  From a frame perspective, wouldn't you have the same issues as with the Mach Drive? 

With the frame issue, its almost like we're getting into an area where even ordinary rockets can't work.
The fuel is a medium that has its own kinetic energy in the Bussard ramjet. The energy of the fuel is frame dependent. To produce a constant force, the ramjet would need to output a variable amount of energy depending on its speed relative to the medium. All frames agree on the amount of energy output needed to produce a given force, because with the medium moving separately from the craft, the terms cancel out.

Might be more clear if you pick some numbers and work out an example. With the change in speed of the propellant and the ship being in different directions, the kinetic energy changes balances to give a consistent result for all frames.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 07/24/2018 11:07 pm
Quote
The problem is that different observers see different increases in the kinetic energy of the accelerated spaceship. So if the applied power in the spaceship is constant, energy is not being conserved in all reference frames. Indeed, it is only being conserved in one reference frame.

That is a problem.

Seems to me you'd run into that frame problem with other, less controversial drives - like, say, a Buzzard Ramjet.  Say you had a workable such ramjet (yes, whole can of space worms, there, but...) and say said ramjets controls have just two speeds: 'stop' and 'full,' with all fuel external to the craft.  From a frame perspective, wouldn't you have the same issues as with the Mach Drive? 

With the frame issue, its almost like we're getting into an area where even ordinary rockets can't work.

Ordinary rockets carry their reaction mass with them. That means in the early stage of a rocket accelerating most of the energy is pumped into the kinetic energy of the unused fuel. To reach orbit like 90% of your weight is fuel. To go faster the amount of fuel quickly increasses to the point that it becomes impractical. This is called tyranny of the rocket equation. At no point does a rocket violate conservation of momentum or energy from the point of view of any frame of reference.

A  Buzzard Ramjet is a little different but again it never violates conservation of momentum or energy from the point of view of any frame of reference.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Jim Davis on 07/25/2018 06:39 pm
With the frame issue, its almost like we're getting into an area where even ordinary rockets can't work.

Oh, no. Rockets (and Bussard ramjets and all other know propulsion devices) conserve energy and momentum in all frames. I'll do the math for a low speed rocket to demonstrate but the conclusions hold for other devices at all speeds.

The control volume encloses the ship and its exhaust at all times. Nothing crosses the boundaries of the control volume.

The conservation of mass equation is given by

M_I = m + m_e

where

M_I = initial mass of ship
m = mass of ship after time, t
m_e = mass of exhaust after time, t 

Differentiating

0 = dm + dm_e (Equation 1)

The conservation of momentum is given by

M_I V_I = m v + Integral[(v - v_e) dm_e]

where

V_I = initial velocity of ship
v = velocity of ship after time, t
v_e = velocity of exhaust with respect to ship

Differentiating

0 = m dv + v dm + (v - v_e) dm_e (Equation 2)

Substitute Equation 1 into Equation 2

0 = m dv + v dm - v dm + v_e dm

which reduces to

0 = m dv + v_e dm

or

dv = - v_e dm / m  (Equation 3)

which can be integrated to give the familiar low speed rocket equation.

The energy equation is given as

E_I + M_I (V_I)^2 / 2 = e + m v^2 / 2 + Integral[(v - v_e)^2 / 2 dm_e]

where

E_I = initial non-kinetic energy of ship
e = non-kinetic energy of ship after time, t

Differentiating

0 = de + m v dv + v^2 / 2 dm + (v - v_e)^2 / 2 dm_e

expanding terms

0 = de + m v dv + v^2 / 2 dm + v^2 / 2 dm_e + (v_e)^2 / 2 dm_e - v v_e dm_e

Substitute Equation 1 into the above

0 = de + m v dv + v^2 / 2 dm - v^2 / 2 dm - (v_e)^2 / 2 dm + v v_e dm

which reduces to

0 = de + m v dv - (v_e)^2 / 2 dm + v v_e dm

Substitute Equation 3 into the above

0 = de - v v_e dm - (v_e)^2 / 2 dm + v v_e dm

which reduces to

de = (v_e)^2 / 2 dm

Differentiating with respect to time, t, gives

P = de / dt = (v_e)^2 / 2 dm / dt

where

P = power consumption of the ship

So for a rocket power consumption depends only on v_e, which all frames of reference agree on, and mass consumption dm / dt, again which all frames of reference agree on. Energy is conserved in all frames.

Note the importance of the dm_e terms in the above which allow all conservation laws to be obeyed.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 07/26/2018 03:38 pm
No, the MET still has several problems here that lead to local power generation.

Only if you take as an axiom that power in excess of power input locally is generated locally.

That is, you must presume the impossibility of a Machian universe to claim so.  The MET is never disconnected from the Machian universe.

Were the operation of an MET to generate net power locally, the difference is made up from the momentum of the sum of matter in motion in the light cone of the observable universe.

It is not a transmitter like a rocket, it is a receiver like a sail.  Were there no wind, and sails yet moved ships, they would be over unity power generators.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Augmentor on 07/26/2018 03:44 pm
Jim Davis,

Ah, I recall that from the textbooks on exhaust propulsion.

Non-exhaust propulsion does not lose mass. 

M_I = m + m_e

where

M_I = initial mass of ship
m = mass of ship after time, t
m_e = mass of exhaust after time, t 

For m_e = 0

M_I = m

Wouldn't a conservation of energy approach be a better way for non-exhaust propulsion.

F = d(mv)/dt 

F' = d^2(mv)/dt

Also, one needs to include the power source contributions including path dependancies to change in momentum and change in force. After all, a real system is defined by power&propulsion, a coupled system.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Augmentor on 07/26/2018 04:00 pm
No, the MET still has several problems here that lead to local power generation.

Only if you take as an axiom that power in excess of power input locally is generated locally.

That is, you must presume the impossibility of a Machian universe to claim so.  The MET is never disconnected from the Machian universe.

Were the operation of an MET to generate net power locally, the difference is made up from the momentum of the sum of matter in motion in the light cone of the observable universe.

It is not a transmitter like a rocket, it is a receiver like a sail.  Were there no wind, and sails yet moved ships, they would be over unity power generators.

Word salad.

As a whole unit, the MET is not disconnected from the Machian universe; due to frame dragging,  parts of the dielectric are transiently disconnected including molecules, atoms, and elementary particles as well as bonds and fields.

In general, the external universe of the dielectric remains connected while internally there are transient changes that produce a change in the effective mass which results in a change in momentum transiently.

MET creates the Newtonian momentum change of the whole dielectric mass, and while accelerating, a relativistic momentum change is produced within the dielectric.

The resultant change in force of the nested accelerations result in the equation Woodward derived from GRT, a calculation, not a new theory.

F' = A a1 a2 + B v1 j2

v1 and a1 are the whole dielectric mass
a2 and j2 are the the v and a adjusted to the rest frame of the dielectric




Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Jim Davis on 07/26/2018 05:20 pm
Wouldn't a conservation of energy approach be a better way for non-exhaust propulsion.

Unfortunately, for reactionless (as opposed to non-exhaust) drives, energy is not conserved in all reference frames.

See:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1830452#msg1830452
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 07/26/2018 08:05 pm
No, the MET still has several problems here that lead to local power generation.

Only if you take as an axiom that power in excess of power input locally is generated locally.

That is, you must presume the impossibility of a Machian universe to claim so.  The MET is never disconnected from the Machian universe.

Were the operation of an MET to generate net power locally, the difference is made up from the momentum of the sum of matter in motion in the light cone of the observable universe.

It is not a transmitter like a rocket, it is a receiver like a sail.  Were there no wind, and sails yet moved ships, they would be over unity power generators.

Um, no. If your local space ship has local kinetic energy in excess of local energy expenditures then that is local energy that can be used to do local work. It makes no difference if the ultimate source of that energy is a hypothetical Machian universe, energy from a parallel universe or a UFO secretly beaming energy into it just to screw with us. Locally it still looks like local energy is being produced that can be used to power our local civilization. Indeed that seems to be the killer app for this technology if it works. Space travel is just one of the ways we can use that energy.

You are tripping over the phrase "generating energy". Any process that makes energy available locally can be said to be generating energy. That is true of a coal plant that transforms the chemical energy in coal to electrical energy, a Machian device that can scrape energy from distant space and bastard aliens that secretly beam energy into our experiments just for s***'s and giggles. If you can use it to turn on your lights then it is local energy production. I simply use "generate energy" in the sense of saying a generator generates energy to light your lights. In fact it is only transforming energy but we don't usually talk that way.

If it generates that energy without connection to a distant or local source then it also violates conservation of energy. The Machian universe is a (poor) attempt to get around that problem. But it is at least an improvement over those who do not see the problem at all. I'm looking at you Shawyer.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ThinkerX on 07/27/2018 04:50 am
Thanks to those who responded to my prior posts.

To me, at this point, the Mach Drive seems deeply flawed unless its operation is more comparable to a 'sailboat' than a 'motorboat.'

The former (sailboat analogy) *might* escape the various 'frame' issues, as all of the motive power comes from elsewhere, though there may be issues with the underlying physics.  The 'motorboat' analogy implies that a significant portion of present day physics is wrong, or in need of major revision.   

Would this be a fair assessment?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 07/27/2018 06:43 am
Thanks to those who responded to my prior posts.

To me, at this point, the Mach Drive seems deeply flawed unless its operation is more comparable to a 'sailboat' than a 'motorboat.'

The former (sailboat analogy) *might* escape the various 'frame' issues, as all of the motive power comes from elsewhere, though there may be issues with the underlying physics.  The 'motorboat' analogy implies that a significant portion of present day physics is wrong, or in need of major revision.   

Would this be a fair assessment?

Well either would work and both would require massive amounts of new physics so there isn't much difference between them as far as these issues go. But I like the sailboat analogy better because it makes it clear that there are some directions that are easy to sail in and some directions that it is hard to sail in. Well that's true of the motor boat as well but it isn't nearly as obvious.

The sailboat analogy also works with my suggestion that the drive only reacts against local objects. You could catch the gravitational gradient of a passing planet like catching the wind. It would be like, but far more useful than a gravitational sling shot. You could even generate useful energy from a passing planet.

Of course there is no sign of the physics theory that would allow this. And the physical evidence is so thin as to be nonexistent.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 07/27/2018 05:02 pm
...No one responding to my recent comment has ever bothered to read any description of how the MET works.

Also, for that matter, a motorboat's propeller is reacting against water.  The MET is reacting against the medium it is in, the gravinertial field of the observable universe.  I defy you to show where Woodward or Fearn claim otherwise.

No one suggesting the only energy available to an MET is the electrical power used to operate it has the least idea of what they are talking about.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: M.E.T. on 07/27/2018 05:11 pm
Yes, the MET generates local energy by “milking” it from all the mass in the rest of the observable universe. That’s pretty much one of its founding principles.

No need to make that out as something to be avoided in embarrasment. The entire universe is its closed system, with instantaneous transfer of energy between all mass in the universe, simultaneously.

That’s how I have always understood it to work.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 07/27/2018 05:12 pm
No, the MET still has several problems here that lead to local power generation.

Only if you take as an axiom that power in excess of power input locally is generated locally.

That is, you must presume the impossibility of a Machian universe to claim so.  The MET is never disconnected from the Machian universe.

Were the operation of an MET to generate net power locally, the difference is made up from the momentum of the sum of matter in motion in the light cone of the observable universe.

It is not a transmitter like a rocket, it is a receiver like a sail.  Were there no wind, and sails yet moved ships, they would be over unity power generators.

Um, no. If your local space ship has local kinetic energy in excess of local energy expenditures then that is local energy that can be used to do local work. It makes no difference if the ultimate source of that energy is a hypothetical Machian universe, energy from a parallel universe or a UFO secretly beaming energy into it just to screw with us. Locally it still looks like local energy is being produced that can be used to power our local civilization. Indeed that seems to be the killer app for this technology if it works. Space travel is just one of the ways we can use that energy.

You are tripping over the phrase "generating energy". Any process that makes energy available locally can be said to be generating energy. That is true of a coal plant that transforms the chemical energy in coal to electrical energy, a Machian device that can scrape energy from distant space and bastard aliens that secretly beam energy into our experiments just for s***'s and giggles. If you can use it to turn on your lights then it is local energy production. I simply use "generate energy" in the sense of saying a generator generates energy to light your lights. In fact it is only transforming energy but we don't usually talk that way.

If it generates that energy without connection to a distant or local source then it also violates conservation of energy. The Machian universe is a (poor) attempt to get around that problem. But it is at least an improvement over those who do not see the problem at all. I'm looking at you Shawyer.


Um, so what?

Are you or are you not claiming the MET is an "over unity" device which fails conservation?  Are you claiming this makes it an impossibility, something which cannot work?

These are two questions.  They are "yes" or "no" questions.

Please answer both.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 07/27/2018 05:32 pm
Yes, the MET generates local energy by “milking” it from all the mass in the rest of the observable universe. That’s pretty much one of its founding principles.

No need to make that out as something to be avoided in embarrasment. The entire universe is its closed system, with instantaneous transfer of energy between all mass in the universe, simultaneously.

That’s how I have always understood it to work.

"No need to make that out as something to be avoided in embarrassment."

I believe that is exactly what some here are trying to do.  They ignore it's theory of operation and act as if it can locally generate energy, pretending it is a device which violates conservation.

The fact it can make net power available locally has nothing to do with generating power, but with collecting it and making available locally.

The fact the universe is Machian is almost beyond reasonable question.  I have yet to hear of any test of it's being Machian which Mach's conjecture even vaguely fails.

The interesting questions of physics it raises is not does it work at this point, the differing apparatus (I think 6 now) which have actually confirmed it are operating far above their noise floor and survive rigorous tests of their validity.  How does its interactions with the observable universe effect the universe?  What is the effect of quantization? Is there any reason to think the effect is any more or less dependent on local masses than is gravity? -- I suspect it is exactly as dependent on local mass as is gravity OR that the galaxy rotational velocity problem is an aspect of how it is not scaling with distance as does gravity.

Has anyone looked at whether the galaxy rotational velocity problem is influenced by mass density in a galaxy? Or with two closely adjacent galaxies (colliding)?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 07/27/2018 06:39 pm
No, the MET still has several problems here that lead to local power generation.

Only if you take as an axiom that power in excess of power input locally is generated locally.

That is, you must presume the impossibility of a Machian universe to claim so.  The MET is never disconnected from the Machian universe.

Were the operation of an MET to generate net power locally, the difference is made up from the momentum of the sum of matter in motion in the light cone of the observable universe.

It is not a transmitter like a rocket, it is a receiver like a sail.  Were there no wind, and sails yet moved ships, they would be over unity power generators.

Um, no. If your local space ship has local kinetic energy in excess of local energy expenditures then that is local energy that can be used to do local work. It makes no difference if the ultimate source of that energy is a hypothetical Machian universe, energy from a parallel universe or a UFO secretly beaming energy into it just to screw with us. Locally it still looks like local energy is being produced that can be used to power our local civilization. Indeed that seems to be the killer app for this technology if it works. Space travel is just one of the ways we can use that energy.

You are tripping over the phrase "generating energy". Any process that makes energy available locally can be said to be generating energy. That is true of a coal plant that transforms the chemical energy in coal to electrical energy, a Machian device that can scrape energy from distant space and bastard aliens that secretly beam energy into our experiments just for s***'s and giggles. If you can use it to turn on your lights then it is local energy production. I simply use "generate energy" in the sense of saying a generator generates energy to light your lights. In fact it is only transforming energy but we don't usually talk that way.

If it generates that energy without connection to a distant or local source then it also violates conservation of energy. The Machian universe is a (poor) attempt to get around that problem. But it is at least an improvement over those who do not see the problem at all. I'm looking at you Shawyer.


Um, so what?

Are you or are you not claiming the MET is an "over unity" device which fails conservation?  Are you claiming this makes it an impossibility, something which cannot work?

These are two questions.  They are "yes" or "no" questions.

Please answer both.

I do not believe that any of the proposed drives are a thing at all. I believe that the experimental results are just noise and unaccounted for systemic error.

But assuming that the experimental results are real then in principle you can develop a theory in which it is not an over unity device.  The problem is most people fail in an attempt to do this. Shawyer for example seems to be unable to understand the Galilean transform. This inevitably makes his drive an over unity device.

Does the Machian theory result in an over unity device? Not necessarily but I doubt that the theory is coherent enough to even answer that question. And it isn't clear that its proponents understand the Galilean transform any better than Shawyer. For example do you understand that the amount of energy the drive needs seems to depend on where the earth is in its orbit?

Does the fact that the Machian theory seem to allow you access to a nearly infinite amount of energy disprove it? As a logical point no. As a practical matter however it should be taken as a warning that there is something wrong. And if people constantly insist that no energy is available locally then clearly some have not worked out the implications of their own theory. And worse seem unable to do so.

In short the problem isn't that the various drives are over unity though some clearly are. The problem is that the evidence is crap and the proposed theories are mostly junk science. It's a bigfoot hunt. It's cold fusion but with truly tiny results in a noisy environment. It's a fuzzy picture of the Loch Ness monster. It's another UFO sighting over Roswell. I'm sorry if this seems harsh but this is a phenomena that happens over and over. As you get older it just gets... old.



Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 07/27/2018 07:13 pm
No, the MET still has several problems here that lead to local power generation.

Only if you take as an axiom that power in excess of power input locally is generated locally.

That is, you must presume the impossibility of a Machian universe to claim so.  The MET is never disconnected from the Machian universe.

Were the operation of an MET to generate net power locally, the difference is made up from the momentum of the sum of matter in motion in the light cone of the observable universe.

It is not a transmitter like a rocket, it is a receiver like a sail.  Were there no wind, and sails yet moved ships, they would be over unity power generators.

Um, no. If your local space ship has local kinetic energy in excess of local energy expenditures then that is local energy that can be used to do local work. It makes no difference if the ultimate source of that energy is a hypothetical Machian universe, energy from a parallel universe or a UFO secretly beaming energy into it just to screw with us. Locally it still looks like local energy is being produced that can be used to power our local civilization. Indeed that seems to be the killer app for this technology if it works. Space travel is just one of the ways we can use that energy.

You are tripping over the phrase "generating energy". Any process that makes energy available locally can be said to be generating energy. That is true of a coal plant that transforms the chemical energy in coal to electrical energy, a Machian device that can scrape energy from distant space and bastard aliens that secretly beam energy into our experiments just for s***'s and giggles. If you can use it to turn on your lights then it is local energy production. I simply use "generate energy" in the sense of saying a generator generates energy to light your lights. In fact it is only transforming energy but we don't usually talk that way.

If it generates that energy without connection to a distant or local source then it also violates conservation of energy. The Machian universe is a (poor) attempt to get around that problem. But it is at least an improvement over those who do not see the problem at all. I'm looking at you Shawyer.


Um, so what?

Are you or are you not claiming the MET is an "over unity" device which fails conservation?  Are you claiming this makes it an impossibility, something which cannot work?

These are two questions.  They are "yes" or "no" questions.

Please answer both.

I do not believe that any of the proposed drives are a thing at all. I believe that the experimental results are just noise and unaccounted for systemic error.

But assuming that the experimental results are real then in principle you can develop a theory in which it is not an over unity device.  The problem is most people fail in an attempt to do this. Shawyer for example seems to be unable to understand the Galilean transform. This inevitably makes his drive an over unity device.

Does the Machian theory result in an over unity device? Not necessarily but I doubt that the theory is coherent enough to even answer that question. And it isn't clear that its proponents understand the Galilean transform any better than Shawyer. For example do you understand that the amount of energy the drive needs seems to depend on where the earth is in its orbit?

Does the fact that the Machian theory seem to allow you access to a nearly infinite amount of energy disprove it? As a logical point no. As a practical matter however it should be taken as a warning that there is something wrong. And if people constantly insist that no energy is available locally then clearly some have not worked out the implications of their own theory. And worse seem unable to do so.

In short the problem isn't that the various drives are over unity though some clearly are. The problem is that the evidence is crap and the proposed theories are mostly junk science. It's a bigfoot hunt. It's cold fusion but with truly tiny results in a noisy environment. It's a fuzzy picture of the Loch Ness monster. It's another UFO sighting over Roswell. I'm sorry if this seems harsh but this is a phenomena that happens over and over. As you get older it just gets... old.

Woodward's measurement are far above the noise floor of his instrumentation.  With no more evidence than a perceivably religious faith he must be wrong, you contest this.  Pathological skepticism is what gets old.

Until and unless someone actually follows his instructions and fails to replicate his results, his results stand.  His results back up the theory the universe is Machian (and not his only), and back up the proposition this can be exploited for propulsion.

As a practical matter, that an MET makes available energy from elsewhere is no more surprising than that solar cells work, or that windmills do.  Even a coal electric power plant is not generating energy, it is releasing locally as heat and electricity (and to some trivial degree as noise acoustical and electrical) potential energy of chemical reactants fixed elsewhere by photosynthesis and derived ultimately from fusion in the Sun.  You are abjectly wrong to claim either an MET or a coal plant are generating energy regardless of how much locally available energy they are making available, and really it shows a fundamental lack of understanding of basic physics on your part.  You don't account for what you don't want to.

There are no Galilean complications because the entire observable universe creates the gravinertial field which mediates gravity and inertia, and most of the universe is very far away indeed, and whichever direction you go, much is moving away from us quite fast indeed and for that matter, some towards us -- we are in the very flat and faint area of effect for most of the universe's mass, and this is not dependent on location, proximity to local mass, or velocity.  Because the MET reacts as a Feynman absorber would in the Machian universe, it is reacting with the whole Machian universe.   It doesn't need more energy depending on where the Earth is. I have yet to see you account for the universe's mass, distribution, or movement of either in any of your terms.

Now you have failed to answer simple "yes" or "no" questions with either.  Will you do so?  Or will you obfuscate with further religious cant and actual "word salad"?

Are you claiming an MET working implies a potentially over unity device?

Are you claiming this means it is less likely to work, that it violates conservation?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 07/27/2018 08:57 pm
Woodward's measurement are far above the noise floor of his instrumentation.
You assert this with no evidence.

For example :
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1834972#msg1834972

That experiment shows wild fluctuations in thrust with no explanation. The only thing it proves is that noise increases when he turns it on. Picking the peak out of all the oscillations as the thrust "value" is obviously the wrong answer even if the device worked. The only reasons to do so are incompetence or deception.

In favor of incompetence is that Woodward still hasn't retracted a paper that fails at simple physics.

With no more evidence than a perceivably religious faith he must be wrong, you contest this.  Pathological skepticism is what gets old.
If anyone has pathological behavior here it is you. You insist that the only reason to doubt experiments with results best explained as experimental error is "religious faith."

Until and unless someone actually follows his instructions and fails to replicate his results, his results stand.
Other way around, unless clear data replicable by other scientists is produced and potential error sources eliminated, his results are not enough evidence on their own.

As a practical matter, that an MET makes available energy from elsewhere is no more surprising than that solar cells work, or that windmills do.
Except for the causality problems that quickly lead to contradictions. This needs to be explained much more thoroughly than it appears Woodward is capable of.

Even a coal electric power plant is not generating energy, it is releasing locally as heat and electricity (and to some trivial degree as noise acoustical and electrical) potential energy of chemical reactants fixed elsewhere by photosynthesis and derived ultimately from fusion in the Sun.  You are abjectly wrong to claim either an MET or a coal plant are generating energy regardless of how much locally available energy they are making available, and really it shows a fundamental lack of understanding of basic physics on your part.
No, what you are saying here shows a lack of understanding of ppnl's post. He was clearly trying to differentiate his colloquial use of "generating energy" from the concept of breaking conservation of energy.

There are no Galilean complications because the entire observable universe creates the gravinertial field which mediates gravity and inertia, and most of the universe is very far away indeed, and whichever direction you go, much is moving away from us quite fast indeed and for that matter, some towards us -- we are in the very flat and faint area of effect for most of the universe's mass, and this is not dependent on location, proximity to local mass, or velocity.  Because the MET reacts as a Feynman absorber would in the Machian universe, it is reacting with the whole Machian universe.
You are describing non-local interactions with no coherent explanation of the details.

It doesn't need more energy depending on where the Earth is. I have yet to see you account for the universe's mass, distribution, or movement of either in any of your terms.
What you are asking for here is what would need to be provided by supporters of this device. If energy is generated locally, but still conserved globally, for this to work, you need to account for how the device affects the rest of the universe to create this balance. To be consistent with relativity (pick your type) this interaction would need to be a function of those things.

Now you have failed to answer simple "yes" or "no" questions with either.  Will you do so?
You asked questions that were wrong. The correct answer was not yes or no. Ppnl was not commenting on those things, but a "no" would have been sounded like he was denying those statements. The statements you asked about are irrelevant to what he said, so he responded appropriately.

  Or will you obfuscate with further religious cant and actual "word salad"?
He defined his terms, you used word salad arguments to turn what he said inside out. Here is a question for you: will you apologize to ppnl for this? (Hint: this is another example of a yes/no question that is best answered without the words yes or no)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 07/27/2018 11:20 pm
Woodward's measurement are far above the noise floor of his instrumentation.
You assert this with no evidence.

For example :
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1834972#msg1834972

That experiment shows wild fluctuations in thrust with no explanation. The only thing it proves is that noise increases when he turns it on. Picking the peak out of all the oscillations as the thrust "value" is obviously the wrong answer even if the device worked. The only reasons to do so are incompetence or deception.


I don't know if the "measurement are far above the noise floor of his instrumentation"; judging by some scope traces shown in his papers and books the difference before and after the input signal is turned on seems significant. Many of these are averaged combination of test runs, made explicitly to lower down the signal/noise ratio.


Woodward provides some evidence of this assertion in his papers and especially in the book.
Whether this is enough or not it can only be decided by reading these sources and discussing them.



As for that graph, it should be noted that the blue trace is the input signal. Given this, it's not really particularly surprising that the supposed thrust signal looks like that.
Moreover, the input signal undergoes a frequency sweep. For a rather more clear example of the signals he obtained with a fully functioning device, see here:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1757130#msg1757130 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1757130#msg1757130)

The post by Paul March you referred to talks about the graph as displaying the peak value of thrust, not the average value, which would be wrong.
Even more importantly, the graph in the post you linked has been modified by Star-Drive; in the original presentation Woodward doesn't state that 1.3 uN is the (average) "value", nor that it is the peak value. He doesn't comment on it at all.

So I would be careful in making accusations of incompetence or deception here.

In favor of incompetence is that Woodward still hasn't retracted a paper that fails at simple physics.

I sent a message to flux_capacitor (which seems to have some interaction with Woodward) to ask him if s/he could ask Woodward to do something about that paper. I haven't received any answer yet.

Regardless, I keep thinking that judging Woodward entirely over this half-hidden not peer-reviewed paper while at the same time ignoring the content of his peer-reviewed articles is quite unfair.


Other way around, unless clear data replicable by other scientists is produced and potential error sources eliminated, his results are not enough evidence on their own.

What do you mean by "clear data" exactly? Or, equivalenty, what are the elements that you think make the data obtained by Woodward unrealiable?
Have you read any paper or the relevant book section where he accounts for error sources? If so, why do you think that's inadequate? And if not so, how can you say for sure that his procedures have flaws?
Sorry for all this question, but I think it is important to focus the criticism in the sharpest way possible.

If energy is generated locally, but still conserved globally, for this to work, you need to account for how the device affects the rest of the universe to create this balance. To be consistent with relativity (pick your type) this interaction would need to be a function of those things.

I totally agree with this, energy conservation is literally the first issue that comes up everytime someone hears about this.
If the device exchanges energy and momentum with the distant universe it should be possible to write down a balance of it and detail the precise mechanism that makes this possible.

I have only seen some rather vague handwaving from Woodward and Fearn ("Gravity assist" with the rest of the universe) and some sligthly less vague handwaving from Lance Williams presentation to Aerospace Corporation.
This needs to change. With half a million dollars of budget over a 2 years period it should be possible to fix this (not that it wasn't possible before).
 

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ThinkerX on 07/28/2018 12:34 am
Quote
Woodward's measurement are far above the noise floor of his instrumentation.

And this is the one thing that makes me wonder if there might not be something to this device.  Precise measurements, accounting for errors, goes a long ways.

My big gripe, though, is when I see the pics of this device and descriptions of how it operates, I keep thinking 'Dean Drive.'  (or equivalent) To me, it seems like a Dean Drive type device could pass all the initial tests, right up until tested untethered in space.

Quote
If energy is generated locally, but still conserved globally, for this to work, you need to account for how the device affects the rest of the universe to create this balance. To be consistent with relativity (pick your type) this interaction would need to be a function of those things.
Quote

Woodward comes up with a coherent, non-insane means of accounting for this, then eve Meberbs might agree the device is valid. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 07/28/2018 02:43 am
I don't know if the "measurement are far above the noise floor of his instrumentation"; judging by some scope traces shown in his papers and books the difference before and after the input signal is turned on seems significant. Many of these are averaged combination of test runs, made explicitly to lower down the signal/noise ratio.
I don't want to spend much time on this, which is why I just went back to the most recent relevant picture I could find in the thread, which loooks worse than some others for good reason. The post you linked me to has a much better picture, but it illustrates signals deep in the "noise." This is not the standard "noise" but instead is errors and biases in the measurement equipment are comparable to the supposed "signal."

I have attached a version of the plots with lines added to show the steady state value before, during, and after operation. The graph on the left shows more change between before and after than before and during. The one on the right is better, but I disagree with the placement of the pre-placed line for the "after" case. It does not appear to be an average over the section that it is drawn over, and I illustrate where I would place the line based on where it looks to reach steady state (I'd like a bit longer of data though I averaged over a bit too short of a period.)

Even more importantly, the graph in the post you linked has been modified by Star-Drive; in the original presentation Woodward doesn't state that 1.3 uN is the (average) "value", nor that it is the peak value. He doesn't comment on it at all.
I didn't realize that. My bad on that part then.
Other way around, unless clear data replicable by other scientists is produced and potential error sources eliminated, his results are not enough evidence on their own.

What do you mean by "clear data" exactly? Or, equivalenty, what are the elements that you think make the data obtained by Woodward unrealiable?
Have you read any paper or the relevant book section where he accounts for error sources? If so, why do you think that's inadequate? And if not so, how can you say for sure that his procedures have flaws?
Sorry for all this question, but I think it is important to focus the criticism in the sharpest way possible.
Clear data means many things in many situations, an exhaustive definition is impossible in my opinion. I describe above what I see when I look at some of this specific data. Full interpretation would require more knowledge of the setup than I have, but the source of the errors has to be understood and eliminated, or the signal clearly raised much higher to draw any real conclusions. No amount of discussion of errors can prove that the error causing the change between before and after isn't causing the signal in the middle too. I don't have time to look into his papers in detail, but enough people are paying attention, if conclusive data existed in them, it would be well known, and everyone would want to replicate and apply the effect.

The answer to your questions here also gets into why the paper I always bring up is a problem. With the mistakes in that paper, if Woodward was able to convince himself to write it despite any competence he may have demonstrated elsewhere, it also means he could have a blind spot for an error in his experiment that may not be easily recognizable from just published data. Retracting his statements in that paper would actually do a lot to gain him credibility, at least for me.

I wish I could answer your questions in all the detail they deserve, but I have to draw the line somewhere and have other things to do in my life.
If energy is generated locally, but still conserved globally, for this to work, you need to account for how the device affects the rest of the universe to create this balance. To be consistent with relativity (pick your type) this interaction would need to be a function of those things.

I totally agree with this, energy conservation is literally the first issue that comes up everytime someone hears about this.
If the device exchanges energy and momentum with the distant universe it should be possible to write down a balance of it and detail the precise mechanism that makes this possible.

I have only seen some rather vague handwaving from Woodward and Fearn ("Gravity assist" with the rest of the universe) and some sligthly less vague handwaving from Lance Williams presentation to Aerospace Corporation.
This needs to change. With half a million dollars of budget over a 2 years period it should be possible to fix this (not that it wasn't possible before).
I should mention that General Relativity has some weirdness with global conservation laws that make answering this question harder than it sounds. Given that there is a theory predicting the effect I'd expect they can at least provide a partial answer, but a full answer would likely need more than 2 years to come up with.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 07/28/2018 07:22 am


Are you claiming an MET working implies a potentially over unity device?


I thought I made this very clear. Let me try again.

Of course it implies a potentially over unity device. It does not however prove an over unity device. That would depend on the theory you use to explain it. And even if you pick a theory that requires over unity I'm ok with that as long as you understand that that is what you are doing and are able to work out the implications. After all Einstein's theory violates conservation of energy as it was understood before.

The problem isn't over unity or local power production. The problem is theories that are over unity yet the proponents claim that it is not. I even gave the example of Shawyer's theory. This whole thread is a record of person after person denying over unity or power production when the theory they support clearly is.

Does the Machian theory require over unity? As I said before I doubt that a coherent theory exists that could answer that. Potentially such a theory could work. But the key is it really doesn't matter to me if the theory is over unity or not. What matters to me is that you can work out the consequences of the theory like Einstein did.

Ok, lets work on some consequences using the motor boat analogy.  The first problem is that a boat moving through the water would quickly come to a halt due to friction. Not a big problem as we can just say that the boat travels without friction like an object moving through space. But we have a propeller that is able to interact with the water and produce thrust. That fixes the analogy.

Ok, next thing. How much energy does it take to accelerate the boat? Well kinetic energy goes with the square of the velocity so the boat would need ever increasing power to get constant acceleration. If your MET gets constant acceleration with constant power then the boat analogy fails. That's ok with me as long as you understand that it does fail and why. This also means you can get huge amounts of energy from your drive solving all of our energy needs on Earth. That's fine as long as you are willing to deal with the implications. It is hard to see this as anything other than over unity but maybe you can find some way around that. If you want to keep the boat analogy you will have to accept ever increasing power for constant acceleration. That also fixes the over unity issue.

Ok, lets keep the boat analogy and ask what happens when you turn on your drive while the boat is already traveling at several miles per second with respect to the water. Well accelerating the boat more would require huge amounts of energy. And going in the other direction would not only be free but would produce huge amounts of energy as a byproduct. In fact at several miles per second there is enough energy to rip your propeller off and vaporize it. Again you are free to accept this consequence or reject the boat analogy. As long as you understand the consequences of your choice either is fine with me. But remember the Earth is at least traveling at many miles per second through your Machian "water" medium so there is enough energy there to melt the entire earth.

And finally your Machian water would seem to produce a universal frame of reference in violation of relativity. Again as long as you understand this and can deal with the consequences then it is fine with me.

Quote
Woodward's measurement are far above the noise floor of his instrumentation.

Yeah not as far above the floor as Pons and Fleischmann's measurements. Their results were also reproduced many times along with measurements of neutrons, gamma rays, tritium...


Quote
Until and unless someone actually follows his instructions and fails to replicate his results, his results stand.

Yeah, that's not how that works. It is up to the experimenter to convince others. So far Woodward has failed to convince. You do not have to be concerned with my skepticism but rather the skepticism of the entire scientific community. I'm irrelevant. Back when all this started on this forum that in ten years there would be diehard supporters but the scientific community would largely ignore the whole thing. That was like six years ago so four more to go. I predict in 20 years the status will remain the same. This is how junk science works. It never really goes away.


Quote
As a practical matter, that an MET makes available energy from elsewhere is no more surprising than that solar cells work...

 Actually it is surprising how solar cells work. It took Einstein to explain why the number of electrons increased with the intensity of light but the energy of electrons did not. Classical electrodynamics could not explain it and quantum mechanics was required. Quantum mechanics is probably the most surprising theory ever. But surprising is good.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: M.E.T. on 07/28/2018 01:59 pm
Just with regard to the universal frame of reference bit. I thought that was implicit to the theory. The MET is travelling at a speed relative to all the matter in the universe, simultaneously. That’s why when you switch it off and switch it on again the frame of reference remains whatever it is relative to every other bit of matter in the universe, which is where the required acceleration energy is also drawn from.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ppnl on 07/29/2018 03:46 am
Just with regard to the universal frame of reference bit. I thought that was implicit to the theory. The MET is travelling at a speed relative to all the matter in the universe, simultaneously. That’s why when you switch it off and switch it on again the frame of reference remains whatever it is relative to every other bit of matter in the universe, which is where the required acceleration energy is also drawn from.

Reading this I can't tell if you have any grasp of the situation or not. Lets take one sentence out and dissect it:

Quote
That’s why when you switch it off and switch it on again the frame of reference remains whatever it is relative to every other bit of matter in the universe, which is where the required acceleration energy is also drawn from.


I literally cannot attach any physical meaning to this.

In traditional physics frames of reference do not exist. They are fictions. Like Sheldon's spot on the couch they are arbitrary points, chosen merely for convenience against which you measure the rest of the universe. Sheldon could have chosen a different spot on the moon for example but that would be inconvenient. If I am in a spaceship I can kick a rock out the airlock and then wherever I go and whatever I do I can measure my velocity against that rock. At a later time I can kick a different rock out the airlock and start measuring my velocity against it. That is a change in frame of reference. But that change isn't something that the ship did. It is something I did with pencil and paper doing my calculations. I may get different values for velocity and kinetic energy than I would have if I had continued to use the first rock. The Galilean transform is there to show that despite the different numbers both measurements are are describing exactly the same physical situation. Absolute motion does not exist. Kinetic energy is also frame dependent.   

If you accept the above then "...frame of reference remains whatever it is relative to..." is simply word salad. The frame of reference always remains whatever it is until you change it with pencil and paper. It is just an arbitrarily chosen coordinate system. Your choice of coordinate system has no physical consequence.

Now imagine a boat on a lake. The water gives us the illusion of a preferred frame. If you are motionless in the water then you can increase your velocity with a propeller. Ignoring friction losses the amount of energy you need goes up with the square of velocity. You can use the propeller to convert your kinetic energy to electrical energy but if you started out motionless in the water you cannot get more energy out than you put in. But lets say the boat starts out at a high velocity. Now to go faster you would need a huge amount of energy. But to go slower you need no energy at all and in fact can generate a huge amount of energy as a byproduct.

This is what a preferred frame looks like. It is just a local illusion but if you had a universal frame that you could push against this is what it would look like.

Now imagine you have a spaceship with a MET drive. Does it push against a preferred frame? If so then it must work like the boat. How fast  is it going relative to the frame? If you are going pretty fast then going in one direction is like hitting a brick wall. But you can go in the other direction like a bat out of hell while generating huge amounts of power as a byproduct. Is that the result you want your theory to produce?

There are other options that reject a preferred frame but they also have consequences you will have to accept. That's all fine as long as you can work out the consequences. And hunting bigfoot can be fun even if you don't believe in bigfoot but it would be best to not buy the "I want to Believe." shirt and get obsessive. Rejecting the consensus of the scientific community is a sign of being obsessive.

 


Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 07/29/2018 09:16 pm


Are you claiming an MET working implies a potentially over unity device?


I thought I made this very clear. Let me try again.

Of course it implies a potentially over unity device.

No, and it excludes the possibility of that by sourcing what would be the "excess energy" which is "over unity" from the gravinertial field of the observable universe.

Thank you for confirming you have been wasting our time here and that you have not the first clue what you are talking about, which is Mach's Conjecture, and the propulsive implications of absorber theory with respect to it.

You are presuming the falsity of the concept, and so of course can not make a relevant statement about it -- you are presuming the MET does not work as described, abnd building your argument around that presumption.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 07/29/2018 10:51 pm
You are presuming the falsity of the concept, and so of course can not make a relevant statement about it -- you are presuming the MET does not work as described, abnd building your argument around that presumption.
Ppnl did no such thing. You however apparently refuse to actually read the content of his posts.

You have not demonstrated an understanding of any of the concepts that you listed in your post.

Also to be clear:
Of course it implies a potentially over unity device.

No, and it excludes the possibility of that by sourcing what would be the "excess energy" which is "over unity" from the gravinertial field of the observable universe.
Saying that something is potentially true does not "exclude the possibility" of anything including its exact opposite.

This kind of blatantly obvious starwman is the type of argument made by someone who has no valid arguments left, but refuses to change his view anyway.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 07/30/2018 03:05 pm
You are presuming the falsity of the concept, and so of course can not make a relevant statement about it -- you are presuming the MET does not work as described, abnd building your argument around that presumption.
Ppnl did no such thing. You however apparently refuse to actually read the content of his posts.

You have not demonstrated an understanding of any of the concepts that you listed in your post.

Also to be clear:
Of course it implies a potentially over unity device.

No, and it excludes the possibility of that by sourcing what would be the "excess energy" which is "over unity" from the gravinertial field of the observable universe.
Saying that something is potentially true does not "exclude the possibility" of anything including its exact opposite.

This kind of blatantly obvious starwman is the type of argument made by someone who has no valid arguments left, but refuses to change his view anyway.

PPNL has many times refrained from in any way qualifying the claim the MET is necessarily an over unity device.  Their suddenly being careful when called out on it doesn't change that.  That is a fact and not a strawman argument.

PPNL has done nothing to but assert by implication the universe is not Machian, and has done so with no reasons given for the assertion at all.

While my recall of all 76 pages of comments on the topic is not eidetic, I believe no one has ever shown Woodward's math with respect to the MET is incorrect.

It is not possible it is an over unity device, and everyone who has asserted it is or even could be, has done no math showing that to be possible, because no one stating or implying that has shown there is no energy input from the gravinertial field of the observable universe.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 07/30/2018 03:46 pm
PPNL has many times refrained from in any way qualifying the claim the MET is necessarily an over unity device.  Their suddenly being careful when called out on it doesn't change that.  That is a fact and not a strawman argument.
The only fact involved here is that you misrepresented ppnl's statement. You refusing to read the detailed qualifications of statements in his posts, and then asserting that he hasn't qualified his statements is simply an argument in bad faith.

PPNL has done nothing to but assert by implication the universe is not Machian, and has done so with no reasons given for the assertion at all.
He has not made that assertion anywhere that I have seen.

While my recall of all 76 pages of comments on the topic is not eidetic, I believe no one has ever shown Woodward's math with respect to the MET is incorrect.
Seriously? Woodward wrote a paper that failed fundamentally at discussing energy conservation, claiming that there is no local generation of energy that needs an explained source to prevent from being over unity. His basic math on this exact topic is very, very wrong, and that has been shown in detail.

It is not possible it is an over unity device, and everyone who has asserted it is or even could be, has done no math showing that to be possible, because no one stating or implying that has shown there is no energy input from the gravinertial field of the observable universe.
You are the one making an assertion here burden of proof is on you. I have seen no explanation of where the energy comes from except for a handwaved "it comes from the rest of the universe." Unless there is an actual quantitative description of how the drive interacts with the rest of the universe, it will appear to be an over unity device. Whether or not it actually is depends on the details of that description, which is the responsibility of the device's supporters to provide. (proof of these (conditional) statements has been provided repeatedly)

Also, for completeness, GR has gravitational waves which are limited to the same energy/momentum ratio as photons, so your explanation for where the energy comes from can't simply be "gravitational waves."
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: D_Dom on 07/30/2018 05:03 pm
OK, will try a warning before my usual heavy handed slash and burn, please be excellent to each other. Responding to a post that exceeds the bounds of civil discourse risks having your post excised as well.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Jim Davis on 07/30/2018 05:14 pm
A recent test of general relativity:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0265-1 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0265-1)

found that general relativity holds even under very extreme conditions.

Does this test have any implications for Woodward's theories? Would Woodward have predicted different results? The authors do not reference Woodward specifically but they do reference other theories which incorporate Mach's principle.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Rodal on 07/31/2018 02:55 pm
A recent test of general relativity:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0265-1 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0265-1)

found that general relativity holds even under very extreme conditions.

Does this test have any implications for Woodward's theories? Would Woodward have predicted different results? The authors do not reference Woodward specifically but they do reference other theories which incorporate Mach's principle.

Excellent article and excellent question   :)  .

The article:

Universality of free fall from the orbital motion of a pulsar in a stellar triple system

Anne M. Archibald, Nina V. Gusinskaia, Jason W. T. Hessels, Adam T. Deller, David L. Kaplan, Duncan R. Lorimer, Ryan S. Lynch, Scott M. Ransom & Ingrid H. Stairs

Nature  04 July 2018

behind a paywall  at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0265-1

is available in a version at ArXiv as follows:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1807.02059.pdf

5 Jul 2018

Testing the universality of free fall by tracking a pulsar in a stellar triple system

Anne M. Archibald, Nina V. Gusinskaia, Jason W. T. Hessels, Adam T. Deller, David L. Kaplan, Duncan R. Lorimer, Ryan S. Lynch, Scott M. Ransom & Ingrid H. Stairs


Let's calculate this !  (hat tip to Marshall Eubanks, any mistakes below are my responsibility)

CALCULATION FOR THE PULSAR IN THE TRIPLE STAR SYSTEM


The answer is that the frequencies involved in the pulsar stellar triple system are too low, and the pulsar's mass density too large, for the Woodward effect to have any observable effect.




Data
 
Semi-major axis of the pulsar orbit projected along line of sight (from the above paper, table E.2)
(see https://www3.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/staff/pfreire/orbits/index.html for example)

 (a' Sin[ i ])/c= 1.217 sec <- [here call this symbol a' for the semi-major axis -instead of "a" used normally and in the above paper-  to distinguish it from the acceleration symbol ].

Inclination of the pulsar orbit relative to the invariant plane (from the above paper, table E.3):

 i = 39.262°

Density of pulsar (average of the range 3.7×10^17 to 5.9×10^17 kg/m^3 listed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star#Density_and_pressure ):

ρ = 4.8 x 10^17 kg/m^3

Mass of pulsar (from the above paper, table E.3):

m = 1.44 M_Sun
    = 1.44 x (1.989 × 10^30 kg)
    = 2.86 × 10^30 kg

Period of pulsar orbit (from the above paper, table E.2)

T = 1.629 days

therefore,

Frequency of pulsar orbit = 7.105x10^(-6) Hz

(hence this will turn out to be too slow to result in an observable effect, it is 5x10^9 times smaller than the frequencies [>35,000 Hz] involved in Woodward tests, and the effect is proportional to the frequency to the fourth power)



Solution

Calculation of semi-major axis of pulsar orbit

inclination of the pulsar orbit relative to the invariant plane:

i = 39.262°

Sin[ i ] = Sin [39.262°]
           = 0.6329

hence the semi-major axis of the pulsar's elliptical orbit is:

a' =(c 1.217 s)/(Sin[ i ])
   = (299 792 458 m/s x 1.217 s)/0.6329
   =  5.765 x 10^8 m

Calculation of orbital acceleration of pulsar

a = a'  ω^2
   = (5.765 x 10^8 m) (2 π 7.105x10^(-6) (1/s) )^2
   = 1.149 m/s^2

Calculation of Woodward's prediction for zero-to-peak fluctuation in inertial mass of the pulsar due to Mach's effect

Δm = m a^2 /(G ρ  c^2)

and calculation of Woodward's prediction of ratio of zero-to-peak-fluctuation-in-inertial-mass to the initial mass of the pulsar

(Δm)/m = a^2 /(G ρ  c^2)
                 = a' ^2  ω^4 /(G ρ  c^2)


substituting   m= 2.86 × 10^30 kg ; a = 1.149 m/s^2 ;  ρ = 4.8 x 10^17 kg/m^3

G = 6.67408 × 10^(-11) m^3 kg^(-1) s^(-2)
c = 299 792 458 m/s

then     

Δm = 1.31 x 10^6 kg

and:

Δm/m = 4.59 x 10^(-25)

Which is way too small to be observable.


Notice that the predicted effect here is proportional to the 4th power of the frequency  ω^4 (since it is proportional to the square of the acceleration, and the acceleration is proportional to the square of the angular frequency).   The orbital frequency of the outer "cool old" white dwarf  (orbital period of 327 days) is smaller than the orbital period of the pulsar (orbital period of 1.6 days), and hence its predicted Woodward effect is much smaller.

--------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the excellent question!

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NO-IXFTxHHk/Usro8fh43xI/AAAAAAAAP_w/aVe0bB28zqY/s1600/Hessels_Arecibo_News_1_2.jpg)

(http://www.scinexx.de/redaktion/wissen_aktuell/bild15/einsteinpulsar2g.jpg)
this last image from Scinexx-de
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 07/31/2018 06:10 pm
I don't know if the "measurement are far above the noise floor of his instrumentation"; judging by some scope traces shown in his papers and books the difference before and after the input signal is turned on seems significant. Many of these are averaged combination of test runs, made explicitly to lower down the signal/noise ratio.
I don't want to spend much time on this, which is why I just went back to the most recent relevant picture I could find in the thread, which loooks worse than some others for good reason. The post you linked me to has a much better picture, but it illustrates signals deep in the "noise." This is not the standard "noise" but instead is errors and biases in the measurement equipment are comparable to the supposed "signal."

In some papers there's indication that this baseline drop between before and after is related to the length of the input pulse.
If you notice, in that picture the duration of the pulse is of the order of 10 seconds. Fearn and Wanser [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259623549_Experimental_tests_of_the_Mach_Effect_Thruster
 (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259623549_Experimental_tests_of_the_Mach_Effect_Thruster)]compared this drop with that obtained for shorter 1-2 seconds pulses and found out that the drop was much larger for longer inputs.

Moreover they wrote:

Quote
The baseline does return to pre-pulse values after a few more seconds, which we could not show due to restrictions in our data acquisition system. [pg. 8]

"A few more seconds" is not particularly precise, but it seems to imply that the baseline returns to the original value in a time shorter than the duration of the signal of interest.

Interestingly, the graphs 3a-b show that the drop is in the same direction for both the forward and reversed configuration, while the "thrust" signal reverses. This means that, at least for the case displayed, the procedure Woodward uses for isolating only the reversing part of the signal by subtracting forward and reverse runs automatically takes care of this bias.

In the papers I read it is not mentioned any possible cause, but it doesn't appear to be always present; for example the other picture I posted doesn't show any. You can also have a look the the most recent results from the damaged device (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1834754#msg1834754 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1834754#msg1834754)), starting from page 46 for the pulses result; I don't see such drop in any of the data.


As for the second graph, you can find longer run results here -> http://ssi.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ssi_estes_park_proceedings_201609.pdf (http://ssi.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ssi_estes_park_proceedings_201609.pdf), page 91 (though honestly the picture is like a miniature).

Given all this,  I personally find difficult to confidently state that "errors and biases in the measurement equipment are comparable to the supposed "signal"", and I'm not sure what makes you reach this conclusion so quickly, since this is definetely not so for every single run.


[..] the source of the errors has to be understood and eliminated, or the signal clearly raised much higher to draw any real conclusions.

I think these are all things that are being sought after by Woodward and the NIAC team.



I don't have time to look into his papers in detail, but enough people are paying attention, if conclusive data existed in them, it would be well known, and everyone would want to replicate and apply the effect.

Are you sure? Up until very recently there was practically no interest whatsoever. I have the impression this situation had (has) much less to do with the possible merit of the idea and much more with the context the idea belongs to and was first developed in.

Certainly there are no "conclusive" data so far:  The devices have been tested only in an handful of laboratories with not always correct procedures.
But one thing is to say that the data needs to be refined and another is to consider all the current data completely unreliable on the base on some partial scopes.


I should mention that General Relativity has some weirdness with global conservation laws that make answering this question harder than it sounds. Given that there is a theory predicting the effect I'd expect they can at least provide a partial answer, but a full answer would likely need more than 2 years to come up with.

Yes, and moreover in GR the concept of "gravitational energy" is somewhat problematic too. Indeed, this is an issue that goes well beyond Woodward and his device and that it is being researched, so maybe I was unfair. Still, openly acknowledging that there's a a problem here that will need to be dealt with and starting doing some work in that direction can only be helpful.


The answer to your questions here also gets into why the paper I always bring up is a problem. With the mistakes in that paper, if Woodward was able to convince himself to write it despite any competence he may have demonstrated elsewhere, it also means he could have a blind spot for an error in his experiment that may not be easily recognizable from just published data. Retracting his statements in that paper would actually do a lot to gain him credibility, at least for me.

While I understand this point and I agree about the necessity for him to do something about that paper, I think that the fact that he is not working alone and has never worked completely alone on his device makes it at least believable that any blind spots of equal "magnitude" of that he displayed for some time in that paper should have been accounted for.
(For an quite impartial account of Woodward ex-collaborator, see http://www.otherhand.org/home-page/physics/graduate-studies-in-physics-at-cal-state-university-fullerton/ (http://www.otherhand.org/home-page/physics/graduate-studies-in-physics-at-cal-state-university-fullerton/))


As a side note, hoping to not sound patronizing (and apologizing in case it does), I'd like to add the following.

You have absolutely the right to spend your time according to your necessities and desires, and I won't blame you for this.
 
And yet, I think that the attitude you showed in the previous comment is at least worth some general reflection.
You jumped extremely fast to the conclusion (incompetence and/or will to deceive by Woodward), without taking time to analyze the informations you were using. This is something that I've actually seen happen quite a number of times around this whole subject over the past years, and it keeps happening.

For example, I've seen a number of physicist (or at least self-proclaimed physicist) over reddit argue sometimes with short sometimes with extremely long comments over the perceived problems and flaws of Woodward hypothesis/experiments; none of them seemed to have gone much deeper than the wikipedia page, and those who went reading Woodward webpage or tried reading his papers seemed to consistently miss the point/ misunderstand the actual content whenever they tried exposing and criticizing it.

I could bring some example in a later post, don't want to write a poem here for now.

Anyway, the fact that this attitude seems so prevalent makes me hard to believe that the criticism on this subject from the scientific community (with the exclusion of the concern over energy conservation), if the comments I saw from some of his members are representative, is based on something more than just a brief reading of, at best, the abstract/first pages of Woodward 1990 paper.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 08/01/2018 01:44 am
In the papers I read it is not mentioned any possible cause, but it doesn't appear to be always present; for example the other picture I posted doesn't show any.
This is a good summary of the first half of your post. You can talk about all of the different strange aspects of this shift all you want, but you aren't going to be able to come up with an explanation with the limited available information, and it the experimenters don't have an answer either.

Given all this,  I personally find difficult to confidently state that "errors and biases in the measurement equipment are comparable to the supposed "signal"", and I'm not sure what makes you reach this conclusion so quickly, since this is definetely not so for every single run.
Everything you said is an argument in favor of my statement. There is an uncharacterized signal of unknown origin that is not representative of a working drive. It not being in every run makes it more of a problem not less. The magnitude of this is clearly comparable to the signal that is being claimed to exist.  I come to the conclusion quickly because it is sitting right there in the data for anyone to see if they know what they are talking about and aren't letting biases cloud their view.

I don't have time to look into his papers in detail, but enough people are paying attention, if conclusive data existed in them, it would be well known, and everyone would want to replicate and apply the effect.

Are you sure? Up until very recently there was practically no interest whatsoever. I have the impression this situation had (has) much less to do with the possible merit of the idea and much more with the context the idea belongs to and was first developed in.
Dr. Rodal just posted in this thread (with a nice answer to a question). There are third parties that pay attention even if you don't know they are still there, or were ever there to begin with. You seem to be basing the relevant awareness of these things on your personal awareness or the activity on these forums. If there is truly solid data that gets produced, news will spread quickly enough where it matters.

Certainly there are no "conclusive" data so far:  The devices have been tested only in an handful of laboratories with not always correct procedures.
agreed.

 
And yet, I think that the attitude you showed in the previous comment is at least worth some general reflection.
You jumped extremely fast to the conclusion (incompetence and/or will to deceive by Woodward), without taking time to analyze the informations you were using. This is something that I've actually seen happen quite a number of times around this whole subject over the past years, and it keeps happening.
I didn't jump to a conclusion based on just the information stated there, but all of the previous evidence. And while that mistake was not made by Woodward, the facts of how wrong it is remain true. (I should note that incompetence or ignorance are both easily fixable if the person is willing to learn and I don't feel they should be viewed as insults, everyone starts that way in a new field, and even experienced people do something incompetent once in a while.)

Anyway, the fact that this attitude seems so prevalent makes me hard to believe that the criticism on this subject from the scientific community (with the exclusion of the concern over energy conservation), if the comments I saw from some of his members are representative, is based on something more than just a brief reading of, at best, the abstract/first pages of Woodward 1990 paper.
Unlike most devices in this category there is potentially some solid theory behind this, but there are still holes that need to be explained (see ppnl's recent posts). They are valid and easy to bring up, but hard to answer. There are plenty of people online who don't know what they are talking about, and some will end up on either side of an issue like this. There aren't a whole lot of people actually capable of sensibly discussing the issues in the full context of GR.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob Woods on 08/01/2018 02:12 am
Jose' !!!


Good to see you back. You HAVE been missed.  8)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Rodal on 08/01/2018 05:30 pm
Follow-up to the calculations based on the following article, on the observed PSR J0337+1715 triple star system with the Westerbork Synthesis Radio Telescope (WSRT), the Robert C. Byrd Green Bank Telescope (GBT), and the William E. Gordon telescope at the Arecibo  Observatory (AO). They have over 800 observations spanning approximately six years, which total about 1200 hours on this source.

Universality of free fall from the orbital motion of a pulsar in a stellar triple system
Anne M. Archibald, Nina V. Gusinskaia, Jason W. T. Hessels, Adam T. Deller, David L. Kaplan, Duncan R. Lorimer, Ryan S. Lynch, Scott M. Ransom & Ingrid H. Stairs
Nature  04 July 2018
behind a paywall  at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0265-1

which is also available in a version at ArXiv as follows:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1807.02059.pdf
5 Jul 2018
Testing the universality of free fall by tracking a pulsar in a stellar triple system
Anne M. Archibald, Nina V. Gusinskaia, Jason W. T. Hessels, Adam T. Deller, David L. Kaplan, Duncan R. Lorimer, Ryan S. Lynch, Scott M. Ransom & Ingrid H. Stairs


Let's calculate now the Woodward effect for the "Young-hot" white-dwarf companion to the pulsar in the inner orbit of the 3-star system  (thanks to Marshall Eubanks for consulting questions, any mistakes below are my responsibility) which is promising to have a greater effect than the pulsar because of its smaller mass density and smaller total mass

CALCULATION FOR THE WHITE-DWARF INNER COMPANION TO THE PULSAR IN THE TRIPLE STAR SYSTEM



Data
 
Semi-major axis of the inner-white-dwarf orbit projected along line of sight (from the above paper, table E.2)

(see https://www3.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/staff/pfreire/orbits/index.html for example)
The semi-major axis should be proportional to the ratio of the masses with the pulsar:

 (a' Sin[ i ])/c=(PulsarMass/InnerWhiteDwarfMass) 1.217 sec <- [here call this symbol a' for the semi-major axis -instead of "a" used normally and in the above paper-  to distinguish it from the acceleration symbol ].

Inclination of the  inner-white-dwarf orbit relative to the invariant plane (from the above paper, table E.3):

 i = 39.262°

Density of inner-white dwarf (typical density of 1×10^9 kg/m^3 listed in a variety of sources: e.g.http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/W/white+dwarf):

ρ = 1 x 10^9 kg/m^3

Mass of inner-white dwarf (from the above paper, table E.3):

m = 0.1973 M_Sun
    = 0.1973 x (1.989 × 10^30 kg)
    = 3.924 × 10^29 kg

Period of inner-white dwarf orbit (should be the same as the one for the companion pulsar, from the above paper, table E.2)

T = 1.629 days

therefore,

Frequency of inner-white dwarf orbit = 7.105x10^(-6) Hz



Solution

Calculation of ratio of pulsar mass to inner-white dwarf mass
(from Table E3 in article)

(PulsarMass/InnerWhiteDwarfMass) = (1.4359 M_Sun) /(0.1973 M_Sun)
                                                    = 7.278

Calculation of semi-major axis of inner-white dwarf orbit

inclination of the inner-white dwarf orbit relative to the invariant plane:
(from Table E3 in article)

i = 39.262°

Sin[ i ] = Sin [39.262°]
           = 0.6329

hence the semi-major axis of the inner-white dwarf's elliptical orbit is:

a' =((1.4359 M_Sun) /(0.1973 M_Sun)) (c 1.217 s)/(Sin [39.262°])
   = 7.278x (299 792 458 m/s x 1.217 s)/0.6329
   =  4.195 x 10^9 m

Calculation of orbital acceleration of inner-white dwarf

a = a'  ω^2
   = (4.195 x 10^9 m) (2 π 7.105x10^(-6) (1/s) )^2
   = 8.361 m/s^2

Calculation of Woodward's prediction for zero-to-peak fluctuation in inertial mass of the inner-white dwarf due to Mach's effect

Δm = m a^2 /(G ρ  c^2)

and calculation of Woodward's prediction of ratio of zero-to-peak-fluctuation-in-inertial-mass to the initial mass of the pulsar

(Δm)/m = a^2 /(G ρ  c^2)
                 = a' ^2  ω^4 /(G ρ  c^2)


substituting   m= 3.924 × 10^29 kg ; a = 8.361 m/s^2;  ρ = 1 x 10^9 kg/m^3
G = 6.67408 × 10^(-11) m^3 kg^(-1) s^(-2)
c = 299 792 458 m/s

then     

Δm = 4.57 x 10^15 kg

and:


Δm/m = 1.17 x 10^(-14)

Which, although orders of magnitude larger than the effect on the pulsar (calculated in the last post as Δm/m = 4.59 x 10^(-25) ), it is still way too small to be observable (particularly for an orbit such as this which is pretty circular, with eccentricity parameter (e sin ω)  3.518595 × 10^(−2) ).   
For an effect that has a chance of being observable one needs to find a system with very elliptic orbits.


--------------------------------------------------------
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NO-IXFTxHHk/Usro8fh43xI/AAAAAAAAP_w/aVe0bB28zqY/s1600/Hessels_Arecibo_News_1_2.jpg)

Image courtesy of one of the co-authors: Jason Hessels https://www.astron.nl/astronomy-group/people/jason-w-t-hessels/jason-w-t-hessels

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 08/06/2018 04:13 pm
Everything you said is an argument in favor of my statement. There is an uncharacterized signal of unknown origin that is not representative of a working drive. It not being in every run makes it more of a problem not less. The magnitude of this is clearly comparable to the signal that is being claimed to exist.  I come to the conclusion quickly because it is sitting right there in the data for anyone to see if they know what they are talking about and aren't letting biases cloud their view.


I wrote that the papers I read don't mention any possible cause. Since I didn't read each and every single paper in detail, I can't exclude that the signal is characterized somewhere.

I fail to see how the signal not being present in every run is a problem. If, say, in 10 runs there's only a couple of them that show such noise and the others do not I'd consider this a quite decent result.
I don't know if the proportion is something like this of course, I know only about the data that are publicly available.
They might be cherrypicking only the best looking results, but then this is equivalent of accusing them of dishonesty, and there's no proof of that.

One should also consider that they are not testing a single device, they built a number of them, and for every set of runs they apply an averaging + subtraction of forward and reverse signals, which usually takes care of all the non reversing spurious signals. Some devices might simply be more noisy than others.


Dr. Rodal just posted in this thread (with a nice answer to a question). There are third parties that pay attention even if you don't know they are still there, or were ever there to begin with. You seem to be basing the relevant awareness of these things on your personal awareness or the activity on these forums. If there is truly solid data that gets produced, news will spread quickly enough where it matters.

Wasn't Dr. Rodal part of NIAC Phase I grant? Judging by its answers he seems to be involved also with Phase II grant. If so, I don't consider him to be a "third party".

Ideally a third party is a group or an institution that has never been involved with Woodward (and/or preferably with exotic propulsion, since sadly, as you noticed, the standard for these researches is quite low) that verifies indipendently both his theoretical and experimental results.

Even if you consider dr. Rodal as third party, he's only been involved in this quite recently.

Woodward started working on this in the '90s, and he received virtually no attention by the scientific community. While it is true that ultimately the experiments are the deciding factor, one should not forget that they are motivated by a calculation that could, in principle, be disproved by simply using pen and paper.

Assuming that the calculation is correct, there has been no interest by the physicists community, and I suspect that this is because Woodward immediately branded his idea as "exotic propulsion", which is something no physicist is working on and that is seen, with good reasons, as outlandish.

By the way, it seems that for Phase II people from the Johns Hopkins University will be involved

Quote
For this next phase of their research,Woodward and Fearn will collaborate with experts from industry and academia, including those at Johns Hopkins University , in hopes of successfully developing a breakthrough technology. Machinist Jonathan Woodland in the Physics Department and a student researcher also will be involved in the project.

http://news.fullerton.edu/2018sp/woodward-fearn-interstellar-researchers.aspx (http://news.fullerton.edu/2018sp/woodward-fearn-interstellar-researchers.aspx)

I wonder if the experts from academia are physicists with a background in GR.
 

And while that mistake was not made by Woodward, the facts of how wrong it is remain true.

I agree, but who made such mistake is quite important I'd say, especially if it is used to further confirm our own evaluation of Woodward.

I should note that incompetence or ignorance are both easily fixable if the person is willing to learn and I don't feel they should be viewed as insults, everyone starts that way in a new field, and even experienced people do something incompetent once in a while.

Agreed, but you wrote

Quote
Picking the peak out of all the oscillations as the thrust "value" is obviously the wrong answer even if the device worked. The only reasons to do so are incompetence or deception.

Which is different from incompetence/ignorance.

Unlike most devices in this category there is potentially some solid theory behind this, but there are still holes that need to be explained (see ppnl's recent posts). They are valid and easy to bring up, but hard to answer.

Indeed, there might be substance in this.
Regarding ppnl's post, I would like to add two things:

- The issue can be associated with the fact that Woodward's equation is seemingly Lorentz covariant, which means that the mass fluctuation has the same magnitude for all inertial observers and cannot depend on the velocity of the mass fluctuating element relative to some "absolute" frame. The mass fluctuation resulting from the effect, taken alone, doesn't cause a force directly, it must be "rectified" by a push/pull of different frequency.

- In the previous post I cited this 2014 paper by Fearn at al. - > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259623549_Experimental_tests_of_the_Mach_Effect_Thruster (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259623549_Experimental_tests_of_the_Mach_Effect_Thruster)

I noticed that there's an approximate derivation of Woodward's equation from "a modified PPN wave equation for the gravitational field" right after the introduction.

Interestingly, the derivation seems to at least partially try addressing the energy conservation issue.
It still looks rather handwavy, but it is definetely better than all the purely verbal handwave I thought constituted the entire discussion on this.

There are plenty of people online who don't know what they are talking about, and some will end up on either side of an issue like this. There aren't a whole lot of people actually capable of sensibly discussing the issues in the full context of GR.

Sure, but one would hope that any physicist, when asked about this, would at least read a couple of the peer-reviewed papers published by Woodward and the others before expressing their informed opinion, especially given how they rely on issues within the modern foundations of physics, such as Mach's principle and the origin of inertia, that are still not settled.

Maybe, like you said, this in only something that happens online.
Afterall it's probably correct to assume that NIAC granted Woodward more than half a million dollars after hopefully having his works and results reviewed by a team of physicists (there were many other proposals presented at NIAC that I doubt could be evaluated by a team purely composed by engineers).
For what it is worth, in the book it is also mentioned how Woodward originally had his math checked by two general relativist friends of him, Ron Crowley and Stephen Goode.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 08/06/2018 05:01 pm
I wrote that the papers I read don't mention any possible cause. Since I didn't read each and every single paper in detail, I can't exclude that the signal is characterized somewhere.
I can't say that hasn't been done either, but my concerns stand uncontested unless someone shows the characterization. (Which then could be evaluated.)

I fail to see how the signal not being present in every run is a problem. If, say, in 10 runs there's only a couple of them that show such noise and the others do not I'd consider this a quite decent result.
It means that you don't know what is going on with your measurement apparatus. If you can't say why something is only there sometimes, you can't say with any confidence that the signal that is always there isn't just a more consistent version of the same effect, given that it is comparable in magnitude. The more unexplained aspects the behavior has, the less confidence.

Dr. Rodal just posted in this thread (with a nice answer to a question). There are third parties that pay attention even if you don't know they are still there, or were ever there to begin with. You seem to be basing the relevant awareness of these things on your personal awareness or the activity on these forums. If there is truly solid data that gets produced, news will spread quickly enough where it matters.

Wasn't Dr. Rodal part of NIAC Phase I grant? Judging by its answers he seems to be involved also with Phase II grant. If so, I don't consider him to be a "third party".
Point is that there are others looking, and as you mention, the NIAC grant is actually better evidence of that.

Woodward started working on this in the '90s, and he received virtually no attention by the scientific community. While it is true that ultimately the experiments are the deciding factor, one should not forget that they are motivated by a calculation that could, in principle, be disproved by simply using pen and paper.
I am not sure it can be disproved with just pen and paper. General Relativity is not consistent with all statements of Mach's principle, so it could differ from "standard" GR by having a different assumption (hypothesis), and then you would have to determine whether differences that arise from that are true. This would need an experiment. 

And while that mistake was not made by Woodward, the facts of how wrong it is remain true.

I agree, but who made such mistake is quite important I'd say, especially if it is used to further confirm our own evaluation of Woodward.
Of course, which is why I admitted that it was an error on my part, and I shouldn't have made it.

I should note that incompetence or ignorance are both easily fixable if the person is willing to learn and I don't feel they should be viewed as insults, everyone starts that way in a new field, and even experienced people do something incompetent once in a while.

Agreed, but you wrote

Quote
Picking the peak out of all the oscillations as the thrust "value" is obviously the wrong answer even if the device worked. The only reasons to do so are incompetence or deception.

Which is different from incompetence/ignorance.
I do not see what is different between "incompetence" and "incompetence."  I wrote "or" in the original statement, not "and." The "deception" is there for completeness or my statement of possible explanations, but it should not be the default assumption. "Don’t ascribe to malice what can be plainly explained by incompetence."
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 08/09/2018 04:05 pm
I wrote that the papers I read don't mention any possible cause. Since I didn't read each and every single paper in detail, I can't exclude that the signal is characterized somewhere.

Just jumping in with the POV of communication.  The "signal", if there is one, is not dependent upon your having read "each and every single paper".  Some years ago, I figured out some unwarranted assumptions in Woodward's earlier papers, but since then the "theory" has evolved beyond my understanding, and I typically lurk and try to keep up.  I'm just suggesting that perhaps you should keep reading.

Quote
Wasn't Dr. Rodal part of NIAC Phase I grant? Judging by its answers he seems to be involved also with Phase II grant. If so, I don't consider him to be a "third party". ...

Even if you consider Dr. Rodal as third party, he's only been involved in this quite recently.

Just thinking in terms of communication again.  The quality of the mathematical analyses is independent of the time frame that the analyses was made.  Often, in fact, it is the recent analysis which can debunk or prove the earlier analysis.  Therefore, Jose's "recent" involvement does not factor into the mathematical results he reports.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Stormbringer on 08/11/2018 03:14 am
phonons have negative mass?

https://www.livescience.com/63305-sound-waves-negative-gravity-mass.html

if so couldn't you just make a really powerful subwoofer or something in a enclosure to maintain a medium for sound and produce enough phonon activity to do something useful (propulsion wise?)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 08/11/2018 03:28 am
phonons have negative mass?

https://www.livescience.com/63305-sound-waves-negative-gravity-mass.html

if so couldn't you just make a really powerful subwoofer or something in a enclosure to maintain a medium for sound and produce enough phonon activity to do something useful (propulsion wise?)
No, all it says is if they did their math right, sound waves will have a tendency to deflect slightly upwards. All forces would still be balanced within the medium, gravity still pulls the system of "medium plus sound wave" downwards just as strongly.

Note: Unlike photons which don't have a medium, sound waves are inseparable from the medium they propagate through, and are just a useful concept to avoid writing down the equations of motion for 10^23 individual particles.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 08/17/2018 02:31 pm
Meberbs:

Just out of curiosity, we all know that the "vacuum" of space isn't exactly a vacuum, what with dust and so forth.  Is it possible for there to be some kind of "sound" passing thru the medium of space?  I'm not trying to prove anything, so don't worry!
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 08/17/2018 03:37 pm
Meberbs:

Just out of curiosity, we all know that the "vacuum" of space isn't exactly a vacuum, what with dust and so forth.  Is it possible for there to be some kind of "sound" passing thru the medium of space?  I'm not trying to prove anything, so don't worry!
My guess was yes since it is a medium and pushing off interstellar gas has been proposed more than once. According to google, that is correct:

https://gizmodo.com/there-actually-is-sound-in-outer-space-1738420340

Restriction is basically wavelength must be less the the mean distance between particles. I assume there would be related restrictions on the minimum size of a practical detection device, and the low density would probably also keep the amplitude small as well. (for some definition of small amplitude)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: soms42 on 08/21/2018 03:35 pm
I have read Woodwards book "making starships and stargates" and view all lectures on the subject that i could find (most via nextbigfuture) and am trying to make sense out of it. One of the problems  i encountered was a remark of Dr Fearn. In some lecture (i forgot to note which one) she says that the energy required for the dP/dt (in woodwards formula for delta m) must come from the force causing the acceleration of the mass in which the energy is stored.

Why is this?
Is there a fundamental reason for this or is it just a limitation of the experimental setup?

I mean i think it does not matter how power is transfered to the accelerated object: the (normal relativitic) calculation should show no change in the momentum of the whole system.

Any thoughts?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 08/24/2018 04:14 pm
I have read Woodwards book "making starships and stargates" and view all lectures on the subject that i could find (most via nextbigfuture) and am trying to make sense out of it. One of the problems  i encountered was a remark of Dr Fearn. In some lecture (i forgot to note which one) she says that the energy required for the dP/dt (in woodwards formula for delta m) must come from the force causing the acceleration of the mass in which the energy is stored.

Why is this?
Is there a fundamental reason for this or is it just a limitation of the experimental setup?

I mean i think it does not matter how power is transfered to the accelerated object: the (normal relativitic) calculation should show no change in the momentum of the whole system.

Any thoughts?

You should try to find that source again and quote it here with a link, in order for someone to actually address it.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: soms42 on 08/25/2018 08:57 am
You should try to find that source again and quote it here with a link, in order for someone to actually address it.

I am searching but up to now no result.  I will add it when i find it.

Edit:
I found something. Not the exact quote that triggered me, but it explains what was said:

From "Making Stargates: The Physics of Traversable Absurdly Benign Wormholes" just before equation 42 ( ;D  ):
Quote
The second consideration that must be kept in mind is that the accelerating force can produce both changes in internal energy of the object accelerated and changes in its bulk velocity which do not contribute to internal energy changes. Only the part of the accelerating force that produces internal energy changes contributes to Mach effects.

Full text: https://ac.els-cdn.com/S1875389211005724/1-s2.0-S1875389211005724-main.pdf?_tid=b9488dd7-f4bb-42f1-b58e-1b04d408eec6&acdnat=1535190455_5c0b94ea94a18b18a5265a632f9e8995 (https://ac.els-cdn.com/S1875389211005724/1-s2.0-S1875389211005724-main.pdf?_tid=b9488dd7-f4bb-42f1-b58e-1b04d408eec6&acdnat=1535190455_5c0b94ea94a18b18a5265a632f9e8995)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 08/25/2018 04:43 pm
I found something. Not the exact quote that triggered me, but it explains what was said:

From "Making Stargates: The Physics of Traversable Absurdly Benign Wormholes" just before equation 42 ( ;D  ):
Quote
The second consideration that must be kept in mind is that the accelerating force can produce both changes in internal energy of the object accelerated and changes in its bulk velocity which do not contribute to internal energy changes. Only the part of the accelerating force that produces internal energy changes contributes to Mach effects.

For me this means that in order for Mach effects (i.e. transient mass fluctuations, suitable for propellantless propulsion) to appear in a thruster, the internal energy in the object must change while the object is also undergoing a proper acceleration at the same time.

In other words, (proper) acceleration alone is not enough, although the acquired velocity means the object has gained additional kinetic energy ½mv². That gained energy alone due to accelerating cannot trigger any mass fluctuation according to Woodward. The internal energy state of the object must also change (e.g. charging/discharging capacitors with some voltage and electric current).

This is also related to Nembo Buldrini's "bulk acceleration conjecture" that I have already quoted in a previous post (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1766405#msg1766405).
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 08/25/2018 04:50 pm
Talk by physicist Mike McCulloch "How a unification of relativity & quantum mechanics gets rid of dark matter" given at the ANPA (Alternative Natural Philosophy Association) conference, Rowland's Castle, East Hampshire, UK, August 13, 2018.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RCG_4JG6Hg

At 31:11 McCulloch discusses the possibility that the propellantless propulsion due to the "Woodward effect" would be actually caused by his theory of quantised inertia, i.e. the vibration of the PZT stack and the presence of a larger mass at one end create different relativistic horizons producing inhomogeneities in the ambient Unruh radiation pressure, hence a change in inertia in the PZT discs, following Woodward's scheme "push heavy, pull light".

According to him, MEGA drives work, but they are rather "horizon drives" than Mach effect thrusters.

He has also said today here (https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1033353300765302787), here (https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1033351367891603459) and there (https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1033382862123401218) (tweets attached), that he is presently writing a paper proposing another experiment to test quantised inertia in the case of the Woodward (Mach) effect. According to him, increasing the wavelength would change the direction of thrust.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: soms42 on 08/26/2018 08:43 am
I found something. Not the exact quote that triggered me, but it explains what was said:

From "Making Stargates: The Physics of Traversable Absurdly Benign Wormholes" just before equation 42 ( ;D  ):
Quote
The second consideration that must be kept in mind is that the accelerating force can produce both changes in internal energy of the object accelerated and changes in its bulk velocity which do not contribute to internal energy changes. Only the part of the accelerating force that produces internal energy changes contributes to Mach effects.

For me this means that in order for Mach effects (i.e. transient mass fluctuations, suitable for propellantless propulsion) to appear in a thruster, the internal energy in the object must change while the object is also undergoing a proper acceleration at the same time.

In other words, (proper) acceleration alone is not enough, although the acquired velocity means the object has gained additional kinetic energy ½mv². That gained energy alone due to accelerating cannot trigger any mass fluctuation according to Woodward. The internal energy state of the object must also change (e.g. charging/discharging capacitors with some voltage and electric current).

I totally agree, but this does not address why the energy has to be transferred via the accelerating force. Of course, when the energy is transferred that way, it implies that the internal state changes. However, this state change can also be done by using a completely rigid capacitor and applying external power, instead of the dielectric in which the internal state changes due to compression. But according to Woodward that would not work.
I think that for the mega-drive the external power applied power is only used to resonate the device and make a mechanically assymetric compression cycle for the dielectric.

Quote
This is also related to Nembo Buldrini's "bulk acceleration conjecture" that I have already quoted in a previous post (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1766405#msg1766405).

Interesting set-up.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 08/26/2018 02:36 pm
I found something. Not the exact quote that triggered me, but it explains what was said:

From "Making Stargates: The Physics of Traversable Absurdly Benign Wormholes" just before equation 42 ( ;D  ):
Quote
The second consideration that must be kept in mind is that the accelerating force can produce both changes in internal energy of the object accelerated and changes in its bulk velocity which do not contribute to internal energy changes. Only the part of the accelerating force that produces internal energy changes contributes to Mach effects.

For me this means that in order for Mach effects (i.e. transient mass fluctuations, suitable for propellantless propulsion) to appear in a thruster, the internal energy in the object must change while the object is also undergoing a proper acceleration at the same time.

In other words, (proper) acceleration alone is not enough, although the acquired velocity means the object has gained additional kinetic energy ½mv². That gained energy alone due to accelerating cannot trigger any mass fluctuation according to Woodward. The internal energy state of the object must also change (e.g. charging/discharging capacitors with some voltage and electric current).

I totally agree, but this does not address why the energy has to be transferred via the accelerating force. Of course, when the energy is transferred that way, it implies that the internal state changes. However, this state change can also be done by using a completely rigid capacitor and applying external power, instead of the dielectric in which the internal state changes due to compression. But according to Woodward that would not work.
I think that for the mega-drive the external power applied power is only used to resonate the device and make a mechanically assymetric compression cycle for the dielectric.

Quote
This is also related to Nembo Buldrini's "bulk acceleration conjecture" that I have already quoted in a previous post (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1766405#msg1766405).

Interesting set-up.

There are some reasons why I think just the acceleration of matter can induce the mach effect.  For instance a generator of electricity can be used as a motor in reverse.  An object that falls into a gravitational well may have its effective mass modified by gamma.  Similar to when a relativistic object that has its effective mass modified by gamma, which may eventually give it its own gravitational pull. 

So by modifying the rate of acceleration left to right on an object that is osculating you may change the effective mass similar to it existing in a gravitational well.  That is by modifying the rate of acceleration on an object you modify the vacuum around the object responsible for gravity similar to how gravity around a planet modifies effective mass - electric generator/motor effect or reversibility.  The effective mass being modified may also be connected to the bending of light around gravitational objects. 

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

I was considering the modification of the dielectric how a low density is favorable in the equation of modification of effective mass.  It appears a low density is desirable.   I was considering using air in a cavity.  That is the cavity is the anchor and the air is where the mach effect occurs.  You set up an acoustic resonance in the cavity that matches the change in acceleration desirable in the mach effect by using the mach effect frequency series. 

I also think the gravity impulse generator if the effect is real may be related to the mach effect.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0209/0209023.pdf
or google "gravity impulse generator"
1st experiment I think by Podkletnov and Modanese

In the mach effect they say, something carries the momentum to the rest of the universe.  If there is anything that carries the rest of this momentum I think it is related to the gravity impulse wave that seems to come out of their gravity impulse generator.  I was thinking it would be interesting to point such a device at the ligo set up and see what it detects if the effect is real.  Not sure it would detect that wavelength however. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 08/26/2018 08:34 pm
@meberbs

I can't say that hasn't been done either, but my concerns stand uncontested unless someone shows the characterization. (Which then could be evaluated.)

In the paper I cited previously it appears that the drift of the signal is ascribed to the thermal behaviour of the device, which heats up rather severly during functioning.

Quote
We have found, by experimentally heating the stack at the ground contact that during the run the compressed stack actually shrinks in size lengthwise and therefore shows a negative thermal expansion at room  temperature  or just  above.The  negative thermal  expansion is  what  we see  during  a normal 14 second run discussed here.

In other papers and in the book other runs are shown together with the temperature and there clearly seems to be a correlation between it and the drifting signal.
I don't know if some further tests have been done specifically, but Woodward and the others seem to be fairly confident this is the cause.

It means that you don't know what is going on with your measurement apparatus. If you can't say why something is only there sometimes, you can't say with any confidence that the signal that is always there isn't just a more consistent version of the same effect, given that it is comparable in magnitude. The more unexplained aspects the behavior has, the less confidence.

Fair enough, I think you are right.


I am not sure it can be disproved with just pen and paper. General Relativity is not consistent with all statements of Mach's principle, so it could differ from "standard" GR by having a different assumption (hypothesis), and then you would have to determine whether differences that arise from that are true. This would need an experiment.

What you are saying on Mach's principle and GR is true; however, for obtaining his equation Woodward relies only on the postulated "machian" fact that inertial forces are gravitational interaction with the rest of the universe.
This, according to him and Sciama, approximately translates to the condition Phi/c^2 = 1, which seems to be satisfied in our universe, as far as our observations can tell.

If one accepts this postulate then, by using a Lorentz-invariant generalization of Newton's mechanics, a field equation for inertial force for a test particle can be written and the Woodward equation is obtained.

Clearly, Woodward's effect, in case it exists, would be a sort of higher order effect that can nonetheless be recovered in a low velocity linear approximation of GR. This type of approximation is routinely used by physicist, for example in the study of gravitational waves, so there surely isn't any lack of experts.

Given all this I find puzzling the lack of any sort of professional criticism, be it positive or negative, from the physics community.


I do not see what is different between "incompetence" and "incompetence."  I wrote "or" in the original statement, not "and." The "deception" is there for completeness or my statement of possible explanations, but it should not be the default assumption. "Don’t ascribe to malice what can be plainly explained by incompetence."

Agree. I just think that it is better to not even ventilate the possibility of a scam, given the total lack of any proof.



@JohnFornaro

Just jumping in with the POV of communication.  The "signal", if there is one, is not dependent upon your having read "each and every single paper".  Some years ago, I figured out some unwarranted assumptions in Woodward's earlier papers, but since then the "theory" has evolved beyond my understanding, and I typically lurk and try to keep up.  I'm just suggesting that perhaps you should keep reading.

Thank you, I think I'll keep doing it. As a side note, Woodward has the merit of having made me interested in GR and its foundational issues, so I hope my understanding of it and of Woodward ideas will get better with time.

I also found out some incoherences in the book(*), what were the unwarranted assumptions you found?


Just thinking in terms of communication again.  The quality of the mathematical analyses is independent of the time frame that the analyses was made.  Often, in fact, it is the recent analysis which can debunk or prove the earlier analysis.  Therefore, Jose's "recent" involvement does not factor into the mathematical results he reports.

Of course. What I meant with that paragraph is that Dr. Rodal cannot be considered a third party since, as far as I know, he is a member of Woodward's team. He's also not a physicist.

Even though Woodward published in a quite prestigious (but also with a very low impact factor) journal of physics since the early '90s there has been virtually no sign of interest coming from that community.




_________________________________________________________________________________________________

(*)Namely:

1. His treatment of the Coriolis force as a "truly" fictitious force in contrast to "inertial forces" which according to him are real gravitational ones.
I say it is incoherent because Coriolis force is just part of the inertial forces "family", as anyone can verify by opening a physics book, and if the latters can be ascribed to gravitational action of the universe so can the former.

In fact, the 1953 paper by Sciama which constitutes the first stone on which his hypothesis is built on, shows how linear acceleration inertial forces, centrifugal and Coriolis forces can be shown to be due to the action of the rest of the universe.

Even the usual treatment of Mach's principle (the movement of a Foucault pendulum relative to the ground if the Earth is spinning or if the "fixed stars" are spinning) considers the case of Coriolis force!

Overall this incoherence doesn't subtract anything from his theoretical results, but it is still pretty strange.


2. His treatment of the dependency of his effect on acceleration.
While it is seemingly correct from the mathematical point of view, to me it appears to contradict his previous description of a "model" working device (one that obeys the "bulk acceleration conjecture").

This connects with the question of soms42. More on  that later.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 08/27/2018 02:03 pm
Of course. What I meant with that paragraph is that Dr. Rodal cannot be considered a third party since, as far as I know, he is a member of Woodward's team. He's also not a physicist.

I dunno if Rodal is a member of Woodward's team or not.  That he may not be a physicist is irrelevant to the correctness of his math on these matters.  My understanding is that he has been broadly correct in the cases where he engages with the math.

Quote
what were the unwarranted assumptions you found?

From Woodward, "Are the Past and the Future Really Out There?"

"From Sciama’s explorations of Mach’s principle, dating back to his earliest paper on the subject in (1953), it is clear that the gravitational action of the chiefly distant matter on local accelerated objects that causes inertial reaction forces is radiative. That is, it involves signals propagating at lightspeed. This presents us with a bit of a problem."

The "problem" being, that if inertia is radiative from the CG of the universe, how is it manifested immediately on the object one is trying to accelerate?

Woodward goes on:

"For some time now I have argued that Mach’s principle does in fact lead to testable predictions of this sort."

He then discusses generally the parameters of such an experiment, but here's where I tuned out:

"Since the second term on the RHS of Equation (11) is hopelessly small in all but very special “just so” conditions, it seems that it can be ignored."

How can a term be ignored on the basis that it "seems" so?

A few years ago, there were a few avatars here arging the "push heavy, pull light" argument of mass fluctuations as if it were settled science, although no results were ever published which demonstrated mass fluctuations on the principles that Woodward laid out in this paper.  Woodward again:

"Do the experimental results reported here constitute conclusive corroboration of Mach’s principle? Frankly, no. They are part of a work in progress..."

My understanding is that this line of experimentation has been abandoned in favor of the copper frustrum experiments now being explored.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 08/28/2018 01:03 pm
Of course. What I meant with that paragraph is that Dr. Rodal cannot be considered a third party since, as far as I know, he is a member of Woodward's team. He's also not a physicist.

I dunno if Rodal is a member of Woodward's team or not.  That he may not be a physicist is irrelevant to the correctness of his math on these matters.  My understanding is that he has been broadly correct in the cases where he engages with the math.

Quote
what were the unwarranted assumptions you found?

From Woodward, "Are the Past and the Future Really Out There?"

"From Sciama’s explorations of Mach’s principle, dating back to his earliest paper on the subject in (1953), it is clear that the gravitational action of the chiefly distant matter on local accelerated objects that causes inertial reaction forces is radiative. That is, it involves signals propagating at lightspeed. This presents us with a bit of a problem."

The "problem" being, that if inertia is radiative from the CG of the universe, how is it manifested immediately on the object one is trying to accelerate?

I think the radiative part is the same part that gives the vacuum its temperature.  That is a lot of energy fluctuating in all directions that makes a noise.  It seems to not be there but some times is there giving us a noise floor.  I think if a quantum wave function exists that noise floor induces the random quality of where that particle exist with in that wave function.  That is the particle may with the energy of the vacuum exist where a noise fluctuation spikes with enough energy within its wave function.  This allowing tunneling, where an electron is in orbit, the Casimir force ect.   This would be random radiation that travels at c with in the vacuum but exists here now from all the distant matter and gives our vacuum its quality. 

By pushing on the vacuum we would be pushing on what is local and any changes we induce should radiate out to distant matter.  I suspect the gravity pulse generator if it is real, is a manifestation of such a phenomena.

I admit I don't know if it could be due to acceleration of just normal matter (push hard pull light), acceleration of charge (they accelerated charge), or some how the superconductive spheres with their massive emulation of a massive electron orbital some how may have increased interaction with the vacuum or if it was the massive acceleration.  I remember reading some time ago that it was odd how the charge went from one sphere to the next.  That instead of flowing through a single bolt it formed a cloud with volume.  Volume was part of the mach effect equation for change in mass so that got me thinking.  Also low density appeared to be part of those equations.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/e62b998a10ec8b78115845895fb3f412789ad871)
I think the positive part is pushing off the vacuum (rocket like) and the negative part is from warping the vacuum (gravitational) by inducing slope and is why he suggest the negative part is for wormholes and warp.  Maybe they work against each other.  Same way by shooting water out the back you might get thrust but if you create a massive flow rate you end up pushing upstream against the flow. 

Some might argue you can't induce a flow in the vacuum but I think I might disagree.  Consider for instance the frame dragging effect where the vacuum seems to rotate.  Also the event horizion is a lot like a flow where light cant escape and something at its edge cant exceed its speed. 
Quote

Woodward goes on:

"For some time now I have argued that Mach’s principle does in fact lead to testable predictions of this sort."

He then discusses generally the parameters of such an experiment, but here's where I tuned out:

"Since the second term on the RHS of Equation (11) is hopelessly small in all but very special “just so” conditions, it seems that it can be ignored."

How can a term be ignored on the basis that it "seems" so?

A few years ago, there were a few avatars here arging the "push heavy, pull light" argument of mass fluctuations as if it were settled science, although no results were ever published which demonstrated mass fluctuations on the principles that Woodward laid out in this paper.  Woodward again:

"Do the experimental results reported here constitute conclusive corroboration of Mach’s principle? Frankly, no. They are part of a work in progress..."

My understanding is that this line of experimentation has been abandoned in favor of the copper frustrum experiments now being explored.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: sanman on 08/30/2018 07:48 pm
From Woodward, "Are the Past and the Future Really Out There?"

"From Sciama’s explorations of Mach’s principle, dating back to his earliest paper on the subject in (1953), it is clear that the gravitational action of the chiefly distant matter on local accelerated objects that causes inertial reaction forces is radiative. That is, it involves signals propagating at lightspeed. This presents us with a bit of a problem."

The "problem" being, that if inertia is radiative from the CG of the universe, how is it manifested immediately on the object one is trying to accelerate?

From what I understood, local spacetime (or its arrangement, rather) reflects/represents the arrangement of the distant matter (the CG of the universe). So by interacting with local spacetime, you're effectively interacting with the image of the distant matter as radiated/conveyed across the great distance of space. All of that is subject to lightspeed, of course.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/01/2018 03:18 pm
"Since the second term on the RHS of Equation (11) is hopelessly small in all but very special “just so” conditions, it seems that it can be ignored."

How can a term be ignored on the basis that it "seems" so?
I think the radiative part is the same part that gives the vacuum its temperature.

By pushing on the vacuum we would be pushing on what is local

I think the positive part is pushing off the vacuum (rocket like) and the negative part is from warping the vacuum (gravitational) by inducing slope

Woodward's Transient Mass Equation (TME):
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/e62b998a10ec8b78115845895fb3f412789ad871)
contains what he calls the "impulse term" (LHS) and the "wormhole term" (RHS). Using them for propellantless propulsion or spacetime engineering do not imply to "push on the vacuum". BTW Woodward considers the "vacuum" as for what it is in general relativity : just vacuum. That is, some rarefied volume of e.g. interstellar medium with almost no particles within, i.e. "empty space", which is not in fact "empty" but is just "space full of contiguous photons".

• The "impulse term" (https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/19167cd6dff321b808dc8a9eb1b3ba3d17819506) shows that the inertial mass of say, 1kg of matter, that undergoes a proper acceleration and a modification of its internal energy (at the same time) transiently varies due to a Mach effect: it oscillates, plus or minus, around its rest mass value of 1kg. According to this term, such variation of the mass is quite small. But these mass oscillations, although weak, can still be used for propellantless propulsion, using the principle "push when it's heavier, pull when it's lighter". This leads to devices known as Mach Effect Thrusters (METs) or MEGA (Mach Effect Gravity Assist) drives, which are actually "impulse engines".

• The "wormhole term" (https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/3ceb32d818832f09b978defd11225e85d33e619f) is always negative. Woodward says that in general and for most applications (especially apparatuses that we are able to build nowadays, with the state-of-the-art current technology), this term can be considered negligible, because in these situations it is incredibly, infinitely small, so its effect has almost no measurable consequence on the way the impulse term is working in METs.

But with "just so" conditions, i.e. with the appropriate level of (very high) power, the perfect applied frequencies and the ideal piezoelectric material, the equation shows that for a high oscillation value of the mass, at a very high amplitude and rate (fast transients) when the mass value approaches zero, then the effect of the impulse term can become very large, very quickly, in a nonlinear way. The quadratic wormhole term is actually driven by the linear impulse term, and can be revealed only in extreme situations. In such very particular cases, the mass would become not only negative, but also largely negative. Therefore huge amounts of exotic matter could theoretically be transiently generated, opening the door to warp drives (in the sense of the Alcubierre drive) and even possibly "absurdly benign traversable wormholes" (stargates), which explain the title of Woodward's book:

(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51O5%2Bv52V-L._SX348_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg) (https://www.amazon.com/Making-Starships-Stargates-Interstellar-Exploration/dp/1461456223/)

Making Starships and Stargates: The Science of Interstellar Transport and Absurdly Benign Wormholes  (https://www.amazon.com/Making-Starships-Stargates-Interstellar-Exploration/dp/1461456223/)

in which all this is greatly detailed.

Both techniques (propellantless propulsion with impulse engines, and spacetime engineering for warp drives and traversable wormholes) are based on relativistic mechanics (Machian general relativity), and have nothing to do with a "negative power of the vacuum" nor other real or virtual quantum thingies.

I suggest that if you have questions about this, to carefully read the section Transient mass fluctuation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect#Transient_mass fluctuation) of the wikipedia page Woodward effect first, because all what I've just exposed here in a compact form is already available there with more specific explanations.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/01/2018 03:31 pm
For the record, here are the published arguments of Woodward & Fearn against White's concept of "pushing on the virtual particles of the quantum vacuum" (2016): Breakthrough Propulsion I: The Quantum Vacuum (http://ayuba.fr/mach_effect/woodward2016a.pdf)

And here is Woodward's latest take (email from September 1, 2018) on McCulloch's theory of quantised inertia and more generally on all "wave" or "quantum" theories which try to explain inertia from some "shadow effect" of electromagnetic nature: NSF EmDrive Thread 11, Reply #375 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1852195#msg1852195). [UPDATE: McCulloch's short answers (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1852203#msg1852203)]
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 09/01/2018 05:12 pm
Quoting from my post in the other thread

I'm not completely sure why Woodward is discussed here and not in the relevant thread. Could the discussion be moved over there please?

Anyway


No link available as Jim Woodward sent this criticism by email, to his private mailing list. However you can ask to register to be a member of this mailing-list and receive Woodward's updates (as well as being able to give your own wise points of view), sending a message to Jim to his publicly-known email address jwoodward [at] fullerton.edu

Thank you for this info, I sent you a pm some months ago asking if you could submit a question of mine to Woodward, guess I'll ask him directly.

I'm rather skeptical of McCulloch, his theory has been criticized numerous times already by multiple physicists.
The whole business of a "cosmological Casimir effect" makes no sense, since horizons in relativity do not act at all like metal plates.

@Monomorphic


I also have detailed simulations I will be publishing in a week or so that show the woodward-mach effect "thrust" can be reproduced using only mechanical vibrations.  ;)

I'd be rather curious to see these simulations.

Keep in mind that Woodward & co. have spent quite alot of time addressing the "Dean drive" criticism at the best of their possibilities, including measuring the accelerations at the center column of the thrust balance, as it is detailed in the book flux_capacitor linked to in the other thread.

Moreover, using only the "slip" of the "slip & stick" effect it is not possible to simulate genuine-looking steady thrust signals, that is signal with averages different from zero.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/01/2018 05:35 pm
Quoting from my post in the other thread

I'm not completely sure why Woodward is discussed here and not in the relevant thread. Could the discussion be moved over there please?

Well, MacCulloch claims his theory explains the EmDrive but also Mach effect thrusters (which are classically explained as using the "Woodward effect", a Mach effect in general relativity), so information regarding QI crosses both threads. I do agree however that what is specifically related to Woodward should be posted in this thread and not in the EM Drive thread.

Quote
I'm rather skeptical of McCulloch, his theory has been criticized numerous times already by multiple physicists.
The whole business of a "cosmological Casimir effect" makes no sense, since horizons in relativity do not act at all like metal plates.

I keep thinking it was indeed a mistake for McCulloch to initially advertise his theory of quantised inertia as a "macroscopic Casimir effect" (as in MiHsC, which stood for Modification of inertia by a Hubble-scale Casimir effect). It was just a symbolic image, a direct comparison, but it durably introduced the wrong idea that his theory of inertia was due to some electromagnetic (photonic) radiation pressure on matter, like a macroscopic version of the Casimir effect. It is not.

McCulloch explains the nature of inertia in matter as a result of an asymmetric Unruh radiation pressure around accelerating objects. An accelerating particle would "see" more Unruh radiation in front of it than on its back, feeling some resistance to acceleration.

Why more or less of that Unruh radiation? As a particle accelerates, a relativistic Rindler information horizon (event horizon) expands in the direction of acceleration, and contracts behind it. Since a non-fitting partial wave would allow an observer to infer what lies beyond the event horizon, it would not be a horizon anymore. This logical assumption disallows Unruh waves that don't fit behind an accelerating object. As a result more Unruh radiation pressure hits the object coming from the front than from the rear and this imbalance pushes it back against its acceleration, resulting in the effect we observe as inertia.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 09/01/2018 06:08 pm
McCulloch explains the nature of inertia in matter as a result of an asymmetric Unruh radiation pressure around accelerating objects. An accelerating particle would "see" more Unruh radiation in front of it than on its back, feeling some resistance to acceleration.

I'm not particularly well informed or interested in McCulloch theory, but I've just quickly read through the paper he linked to in his reply to Woodward. However I spotted two problems:

- The first and foremost problem is that Unruh radiation is basically Hawking radiation in a different set of coordinates, and as such it is absolutely miniscule.
True, it is not purely electromagnetic, but I don't see how it could account for the inertial resistance experienced by a body when it is accelerated.

- Secondly, for low acceleration instead of the Rindler horizon he considers the Hubble horizon as the "damping" agent.
But as even Woodward remarks in his book, one can forget about "quantum vacuum" and obtain the Casimir effect by simply considering the effect of charges on the two metal plates, as Milonni showed.

In other words, it is the physical makeup of the plates themselves which imposes a cut off. This is not possible with the Hubble horizon. It's not physically the same thing. And it is not possible to transpose the mathematics of the regular Casimir Effect onto what McCulloch suggests.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/01/2018 07:06 pm
McCulloch explains the nature of inertia in matter as a result of an asymmetric Unruh radiation pressure around accelerating objects. An accelerating particle would "see" more Unruh radiation in front of it than on its back, feeling some resistance to acceleration.

I'm not particularly well informed or interested in McCulloch theory, but I've just quickly read through the paper he linked to in his reply to Woodward. However I spotted two problems:

- The first and foremost problem is that Unruh radiation is basically Hawking radiation in a different set of coordinates, and as such it is absolutely miniscule.
True, it is not purely electromagnetic, but I don't see how it could account for the inertial resistance experienced by a body when it is accelerated.

Unlike classical (photon) radiation pressure which is applied only to a surface, Unruh radiation pressure affects each particle individually within a volume (with some dampening depending on the conductivity of the material) and the resulting force on a bunch of mass is the accumulated value. The magnitude of the effect has been quantitatively calculated in the first "Casimir" paper.

Quote
- Secondly, for low acceleration instead of the Rindler horizon he considers the Hubble horizon as the "damping" agent.
But as even Woodward remarks in his book, one can forget about "quantum vacuum" and obtain the Casimir effect by simply considering the effect of charges on the two metal plates, as Milonni showed.

In other words, it is the physical makeup of the plates themselves which imposes a cut off. This is not possible with the Hubble horizon. It's not physically the same thing. And it is not possible to transpose the mathematics of the regular Casimir Effect onto what McCulloch suggests.

It is rather the basic principles of any waves in general no matter what they are made of, not specifically "the mathematics of the quantum case of the Casimir effect with EM waves fitting or not between two conductive plates very close from each other". As I already said, this prior "Casimir image" was a bit awkward and does not cleverly reflect the fundamental QI mechanism at work in McCulloch's theory.

PS: I do not especially support McCulloch's quantised inertia more or less than Woodward's own theory or anything else. Just wish his peers would let him expose and discuss. Especially as his QI theory makes many testable predictions so ti will be easily falsified with experiments.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 09/01/2018 11:53 pm
Quoting from the other thread (I'm trying to not spread the discussion across multiple pages, sorry if it is annoying)

Yes, I have read all about their attempts at addressing Dean Drive criticisms. They seem to be under the false impression that vibrations need to reach the central flexure bearing in order for there to be a problem. That is not the case. The vibrations only have to cause an asymmetric translational shift in the faraday cage contents.

An asymmetric shift inside the faraday cage is produced everytime the device is turned on.
However, lacking any type of significant slip & stick effect on the central flexure bearing, it can only result in an asymmetric vibration at the same frequency of the the oscillations of the device.

Assuming that the device is firmly attached to the faraday cage mounted on the arm, the only way it could display a spurious steady signal is by having the balance itself react in some non-linear way.



The biggest testable experimental prediction I can make is that, all things being equal, identical Mach effect devices mounted at a greater distance from the center pivot will produce less apparent "thrust" than those mounted closer. But that already seems to be the case when MET's have been tested on larger torsional pendulums than the one woodward uses.   Woodward will claim something about the experiment wasn't performed correctly, but my position is that this is a fundamental property of dean drives mounted to torsional pendulums.


I don't understand the logic behind your prediction.

If the balance arm that you modeled as a rod is rotated around its center point (which presumably is also its center of mass) it will necessary require a stronger force to rotate a greater angle in the same time.
Since the distance between the central pivot / axis of rotation and the point of application of the force gets smaller, to obtain a greater angle of rotation a greater force is required compared to the case in which the point of application of the force is at greater distance from the pivot.

If instead of applying a force all you are doing is changing the shape of the device mounted on top so that the arm moves while the overall center of mass stays put you will still obtain a smaller angle of rotation if you mount it closer to the axis:
the central bearing acts like a torsional damped spring, producing a restoring couple, so the system is not really isolated.
 
The situation is similar to standing on a scale while doing curls with a pair of dumbell:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/384676/measuring-weight-with-weighing-scale-doing-dumbbells (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/384676/measuring-weight-with-weighing-scale-doing-dumbbells)


Actually, it is possible to simulate the genuine-looking steady thrust signal using only vibrations. I have the feeling that once everyone sees how it is done, they will all be surprised how simple it really is. However, I couldn't have figured it out without running the simulations myself.

Not sure if this what you are thinking, but surely anharmonic oscillations are a wortwhile thing to investigate.

Still, one would need to show that the conditions in Woodward device are just right for this non-linear effects to manifest.

Rubber pads and similar are renowned for their non-linear behaviour and according to him, during his test for Dean drive effect, a number of rubber pads for vibrations isolation were removed, including a "Sorbothane applied to the interior of the Faraday cage", which was not restored after the test was concluded.
Beside altering the level of vibration detected this didn't alter the thrust signal significally.

On a side note, I saw your more detailed model simulation you posted un 4th of July. It's really well done, but the "thrust signal", that is, the periodic displacement of the thrust balance arm, is in the opposite direction of what Woodward obtains.


I'm looking forward to see your presentation later in September.



@flux_capacitor
Again, I'm not very informed, but in this paper he posted in the reply to Woodward he writes:

Quote
This model assumes that the inertia of an object is due to the Unruh radiation it sees whenit accelerates.
The relativistic Rindler horizon that appears in the opposite direction to its acceleration damps the Unruh radiation on that side of the object producing an anisotropic radiation pressure that looks like inertial mass [16].
So inertia arises in this model from the interplay of relativity (horizons) and quantum mechanics (Unruh waves). Also, when accelerations are extremely low the Unruh waves become very long and are also damped, this time equally in all directions, by the Hubble horizon (Hubble-scale Casimir effect).

From this it seems that for making the Unruh radiation strong enough he needs horizons to act like the plates in the Casimir effect and "damp" it.
In one case the horizon in question is the Rindler one and in the other is Hubble horizon.

But these two horizon are not at all equivalent, in particular the Hubble one is not even a true cosmological horizon, considering how we can receive information from outside of it.

Moreover I found out that Unruh radiation actually exerts no pressure, in the sense that the stress energy tensor of an unaccelerated observer in a vacuum is zero, and it remains zero when it is transformed into an accelerated frame.
It follows that energy density and pressure of Unruh radiation are zero.

This is quite over my head, but it doesn't exactly help giving credit to McCulloch idea.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/02/2018 11:14 am
@flux_capacitor
Again, I'm not very informed, but in this paper he posted in the reply to Woodward he writes:

Quote
This model assumes that the inertia of an object is due to the Unruh radiation it sees whenit accelerates.
The relativistic Rindler horizon that appears in the opposite direction to its acceleration damps the Unruh radiation on that side of the object producing an anisotropic radiation pressure that looks like inertial mass [16].
So inertia arises in this model from the interplay of relativity (horizons) and quantum mechanics (Unruh waves). Also, when accelerations are extremely low the Unruh waves become very long and are also damped, this time equally in all directions, by the Hubble horizon (Hubble-scale Casimir effect).

From this it seems that for making the Unruh radiation strong enough he needs horizons to act like the plates in the Casimir effect and "damp" it.
In one case the horizon in question is the Rindler one and in the other is Hubble horizon.

But these two horizon are not at all equivalent, in particular the Hubble one is not even a true cosmological horizon, considering how we can receive information from outside of it.

It depends how McCulloch defines his cosmological horizon wrt to a true event horizon (Hubble sphere, particle horizon?) and wrt to the cosmic expansion, conformal time and present/future events. BTW, questioned about the instantaneity of inertial reaction forces arising in accelerated matter, versus the limitation of the speed of light, and the related question of the propagation speed of Unruh waves (do their propagation velocity = c, do they need retarded & advanced solutions like the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory used by Woodward with Mach effects?) McCulloch answers that the phase speed of a monochromatic wave (non-infomation carrying) is not limited to c by relativity. It seems that he is thinking about some superluminal action but I don't get it since information is not carried as he admits, and I am not sure he has already published a working mechanism of this idea.

Quote
Moreover I found out that Unruh radiation actually exerts no pressure, in the sense that the stress energy tensor of an unaccelerated observer in a vacuum is zero, and it remains zero when it is transformed into an accelerated frame.
It follows that energy density and pressure of Unruh radiation are zero.

This is quite over my head, but it doesn't exactly help giving credit to McCulloch idea.
Obviously McCulloch would not agree with your statement. The reality and mechanisms of the "Unruh effect" and its weirdness (the Unruh temperature is seen by an accelerated observer, but not by another unaccelerated observer yet measuring temp of the first one from some distance) are still largely unanswered, as shown by this interesting question on Physics Stack Exchange: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/296415/unruh-effect-temperature-and-energy-density
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 09/15/2018 02:10 pm
Posting this here from the other thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1854984#msg1854984 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1854984#msg1854984))

[..]As for the mach effect thruster, it is also not doing well. Several high level physics heavy presentations, including one by Dr. Rodal, that make the claim that the mach effect thruster cannot work as Woodward describes and is likely a self-interaction effect. Tajmar's group thinks it doesn't work and will report tomorrow.  Then in my presentation I showed how Woodward's thrust signature can be generated in a simulation of the device using first principles and simple mechanics - and how everything equals out to zero at the end.  I was also able to build a crude 3 DOF device that produced the same "thrust" signature.

First, congratulations for your presentation.
The presentations you are referring to are those of Lance Williams and Rodal?
The results you obtained are very relevant, but I have some questions:

- Do you think the central bearing of the thrust balance plays no role?
I'm asking because the bearing is basically a torsional spring, so I'm not completely sure that you can model the device or the Faraday's cage as moving on a frictionless base.

- Have you built the simulated drive using the same sizes of the real one?

- On slide 49 you show a graph with "no Elastic modulus". What do you mean with this condition?
A null elastic modulus means that the material cannot withstand any arbitrary small force. If you meant that the device components are perfectly rigid, the elastic modulus should be infinite.

- It seems you excited the simulated drive with one single driving signal, correct? If so I wonder what would happen using the "two signals" Woodward uses for running his device (techincally he feeds only one, but the stack has both piezoelectric and electrostrictive response)

- On slide 62 you show two "thrust" signals at 200 and 1 kHz . Do they show how the signal changes direction by simply varying the frequency?
(I get from the same slide that you didn't simulate the components under compression. If so this could have non-negligible results on the final signal, considering that in the real drive the rubber gasket and pzt stack are compressed under 3000 psi (at least according to a Rodal's post of the last year) and this could make the gasket virtually rigid.)

- Finally, what was the reaction of Woodward and Fearn? Did they have any comment/criticism over your work? Was there any discussion at the end of your presentation?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/15/2018 07:28 pm
First, congratulations for your presentation.
The presentations you are referring to are those of Lance Williams and Rodal?
The results you obtained are very relevant, but I have some questions:

Thank you. Yes, I am referring to those presentations.

- Do you think the central bearing of the thrust balance plays no role?
I'm asking because the bearing is basically a torsional spring, so I'm not completely sure that you can model the device or the Faraday's cage as moving on a frictionless base.

Yes, I think the central bearing plays the least role of the ~5 degrees of freedom in the system. That is because the torsional spring rate is VERY low and the angular displacement extremely small.

- Have you built the simulated drive using the same sizes of the real one?

Yes, the simulated drive uses the same sizes for the three main masses. I took a little liberty by making the rubber appear thicker. This is so I could make it visibly jiggle without the parts hitting each other.

- On slide 49 you show a graph with "no Elastic modulus". What do you mean with this condition?
A null elastic modulus means that the material cannot withstand any arbitrary small force. If you meant that the device components are perfectly rigid, the elastic modulus should be infinite.

"No Elastic Modulus" means the spring rate is linear, not dynamic.

- It seems you excited the simulated drive with one single driving signal, correct? If so I wonder what would happen using the "two signals" Woodward uses for running his device (techincally he feeds only one, but the stack has both piezoelectric and electrostrictive response)

I'm not exactly sure how I would set this up right now, but it is a good idea.

- On slide 62 you show two "thrust" signals at 200 and 1 kHz . Do they show how the signal changes direction by simply varying the frequency? (I get from the same slide that you didn't simulate the components under compression. If so this could have non-negligible results on the final signal, considering that in the real drive the rubber gasket and pzt stack are compressed under 3000 psi (at least according to a Rodal's post of the last year) and this could make the gasket virtually rigid.)

The 1Khz signal is interesting because of the reversal. I'm not sure I'm ready to comment on it until I can duplicate it again. It could have been a problem with the solver accuracy.

- Finally, what was the reaction of Woodward and Fearn? Did they have any comment/criticism over your work? Was there any discussion at the end of your presentation?

The presentations by me and Tajmar's group were received very well by those in attendance. So well that Woodward called a special rebuttal session on Wednesday night.  He recycled a number of his "Dean Drive" arguments. I said their definition of a Dean Drive wasn't comprehensive enough (I had prepared a rebuttal to these points beforehand as I knew they were coming). We soon reached an impasse when he claimed my simulation was breaking conservation of momentum. Heidi stepped in and pointed out that the simulation I was running was not capable of breaking conservation of momentum.  I agreed to send them and Tajmar's group a copy of my files so they can check.



Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 09/15/2018 09:08 pm
Thank you for your answers. The situation looks pretty dire.

I remember Lance Williams showed in the 2016 Ester Park conference how he could get something similar to the Woodward's equation from GR. Did he show this is not the case anymore?

I don't know what kind of evidence the Tajmar's group showed (especially considering the allegations that they ran the device incorrectly to the point of damaging it), but the only way I see Woodward and Fearn could rebut your results is by showing that the system has actually less degrees of freedom than those you assumed in your simulation.

Personally, I'm not completely sure about the rubber gasket, seeing how you didn't model the fact that it is under static compression. Couldn't this effectively suppress one spring in the drive mechanical model?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/16/2018 11:42 am
I remember Lance Williams showed in the 2016 Ester Park conference how he could get something similar to the Woodward's equation from GR. Did he show this is not the case anymore?

His presentation was titled "Bringing the Mach Effect Out of the Cold." While that was ostensibly the theme of the presentation, there was an underlying "This could be a totally wrong interpretation" theme.

I don't know what kind of evidence the Tajmar's group showed (especially considering the allegations that they ran the device incorrectly to the point of damaging it), but the only way I see Woodward and Fearn could rebut your results is by showing that the system has actually less degrees of freedom than those you assumed in your simulation.

Tajmar's group was accused of not following directions, but their analysis of the device was second-to-none that I have seen to date. They also had a second experiment where they spun the MET on a device to try and detect the "transient mass fluctuations." It was also negative.

Personally, I'm not completely sure about the rubber gasket, seeing how you didn't model the fact that it is under static compression. Couldn't this effectively suppress one spring in the drive mechanical model?

Woodward acknowledged that morning that the device did not work very well until the rubber gasket was used. He claimed this was to dampen the vibrations that reach the center column, but Tajmar's group did some analysis with and without the rubber and the vibrations were not damped as claimed by Woodward. Mike McDonald from the Navy pointed out the apparent contradiction of the thing that is supposed to dampen vibrations making the device work better.  Bottom line is there is a big difference between with and without the rubber gasket and that needs to be modeled.

I do not think compression will suppress one spring/damper. My intuition tells me that it would increase the spring stiffness throughout the device.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 09/16/2018 04:59 pm
Tajmar's group was accused of not following directions, but their analysis of the device was second-to-none that I have seen to date. They also had a second experiment where they spun the MET on a device to try and detect the "transient mass fluctuations." It was also negative.

If they actually didn't follow the directions it wouldn't be surprising they obtained no result; I don't know if they denied this accusation, but so far I have seen no counter proofs.

Woodward acknowledged that morning that the device did not work very well until the rubber gasket was used. He claimed this was to dampen the vibrations that reach the center column, but Tajmar's group did some analysis with and without the rubber and the vibrations were not damped as claimed by Woodward. Mike McDonald from the Navy pointed out the apparent contradiction of the thing that is supposed to dampen vibrations making the device work better.  Bottom line is there is a big difference between with and without the rubber gasket and that needs to be modeled.

Of what order of magnitude we are talking here for the vibrations?
The testing rig Tajmar used is claimed to be extremely sensitive, with just a fraction of nN of background noise (at least according to 2016 proceedings). The gasket might simply be insufficient to dampen the vibrations at that level.


I do not think compression will suppress one spring/damper. My intuition tells me that it would increase the spring stiffness throughout the device

But the more stiff a spring is the less it deforms, with the result of constraining the movement more and more.
It doesn't look obvious to me that this, for certain values of stiffness, doesn't amount to an effective suppression of the DOF associated with that spring . At the very least I think it should decrease the final measured displacement.

By the way, another thought occured to me.
If I understood correctly, in your presentation you showed how the actual device should produce "thrust" signals even at very low frequency, where the theory predicts almost no thrust.
This should be not too difficult to verify, and it would directly contradict the theorized frequency scaling assuming the effect was genuine.

The other obvious thing would be for Woodward to remove the rubber gasket altogether.
Since the time it was added there has seemingly been an evolution of the understanding on how the device should be run, so maybe, if the thrust is genuine, its removal wouldn't affect the signal as much as before.

I also noticed that in the book there seems to be another "type" of genuine signals, without transients. It's unclear to me why they look this different. I wonder if your simulation can reproduce these too.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/17/2018 01:52 pm
Of what order of magnitude we are talking here for the vibrations?
The testing rig Tajmar used is claimed to be extremely sensitive, with just a fraction of nN of background noise (at least according to 2016 proceedings). The gasket might simply be insufficient to dampen the vibrations at that level.

It's hard to say exactly, but it is very tiny. The Philtec has a max resolution of 2nm. But my understanding is Woodward operates his at 2,000 samples per second. So that will be closer to the 13nm resolution setting. I asked him about this and he said he built his LDS amplifier custom so as to not have to purchase Philtec's more expensive equipment. He didn't know the final resolution but said it was sampling at 2,000Hz. Then there is a bunch of noise to account for. So your guess is as good as mine, but I think it is <100nm. 

But the more stiff a spring is the less it deforms, with the result of constraining the movement more and more.
It doesn't look obvious to me that this, for certain values of stiffness, doesn't amount to an effective suppression of the DOF associated with that spring . At the very least I think it should decrease the final measured displacement.

Yes, I agree. A simulated device under compression will likely result in decreased amplitude of the final signal.

The other obvious thing would be for Woodward to remove the rubber gasket altogether.
Since the time it was added there has seemingly been an evolution of the understanding on how the device should be run, so maybe, if the thrust is genuine, its removal wouldn't affect the signal as much as before.

It's really almost impossible to separate this special case motion from genuine thrust on a torsional pendulum. I would suggest a frictionless linear track or levitating rotary test rig. Tajmar's group presented on a YBCO levitating rotary rig that can support ~40kg. I will be watching that build closely as I consider my next steps in this area.

I also noticed that in the book there seems to be another "type" of genuine signals, without transients. It's unclear to me why they look this different. I wonder if your simulation can reproduce these too.

There are a number of signals claimed to be genuine thrust. Most of the odd ones are created with chirps, which I have not simulated yet. I couldn't help but notice how that signal looks similar to the 1KHz signal I found.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 09/21/2018 01:33 pm
I don't think the story is over for the mach effect.  The more I think about it the more it seems to make sense.  For instance we have already detected gravitational waves so this is already confirmed to exist.  We know gravitational waves carry off momentum and allow the orbit of black holes to decay.  An object traveling in a circular path experiences acceleration.

The change in mass of in the mach effect is negative but what is it.  I think its a property of the vacuum being dragged with the material object.  When an object accelerates it Lorentz contracts.  However if this Lorentz contraction has to do with the vacuum then different levels of acceleration may cause the vacuum time to catch up to properly Lorentz contract. 

A Lorentz contraction would represent the object accumulating positive energy and the object would gain a sort of gravitational field which Lorentz contracts it.  This field would associate with a positive vacuum energy and increases the objects effective mass. 

Let us say it takes time for the vacuum to catch up.  In order for this to happen as the object accelerates there should be in the vacuum a negative effective mass which interferes with the object gaining a positive effective mass so they cancel.  If acceleration stops the effect should drop to zero as the vacuum catches up.  This negative effective mass may be the mach effect, and may take the effective form of a gravitational wave traveling off at the speed of light.  It would represent the stretching of space.  It would increase the noise floor in its respective dimension and increase the passage of time. 

I also suspect time has 3 dimensions as does space.  Notice there are 3 dimensions in which an object can be relatively compressed in time (also space/time).  I suspect that time is actually the noise floor of the vacuum.  If you compress the volume of an object to zero dimension time should stop and normally when an object is infinitely compressed by gamma time does stop. 

That noise floor of the vacuum should also aid radioactive decay.  The unstable electric nucleus would decay when a noise spike appears in the field of the a nucleus particle which gives it enough energy to tunnel out. 

(Edit) The vacuum being like a slightly stretched rubber band.  If you stretch it more its thermal energy increases increasing the passage of time and space (space expansion).  Allowing it to contract would cause a thermal cooling slowing time (contraction).

The the mach effect gravity wave would be a negative energy bump on a flat plane.  By modulating the rate of gravity waves being sent out in both directions by an accelerated object (the rocket effect in the mach effect) the local vacuum may start to be effected causing a local slope in space time but of the negative energy type.  It would speed up time but that is exactly what we need to counter act the Lorentz effect which slows time. 

Still mulling it over but its interesting.

(Edit) I also think the mach effect may be best a hieved by resonance in a high q cavity with multiple frequencies resonating ions and achieving massive energy storage.  I think optimal damping is not through rubber but rater through the same effect that bleeds off energy from black holes.  The damping effect of generating gravitational waves.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/25/2018 12:32 pm
NIAC 2018 should start streaming soon: https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2018

Woodward will be presenting at 2:30 Eastern Time this afternoon.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/25/2018 07:18 pm
This is the new "thrust" signal from Woodward without the rubber pads and with brass washers instead. I'm not sure why he is claiming this as a refutation of the simulations presented at Estes Park.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/25/2018 10:11 pm
This is the new "thrust" signal from Woodward without the rubber pads and with brass washers instead. I'm not sure why he is claiming this as a refutation of the simulations presented at Estes Park.

After removing the dynamic spring constant from the rubber and using a much greater linear stiffness to simulate the brass washers, I too get a similar signal as the newest thrust signal. The reversed direction is the same and the magnitude is also much greater  - just like in Woodward's recent tests.  ???

It looks like there may be some noise, thermal drift, or twisting of the pendulum, which would explain the curve downward as I am not set up to simulate those parameters.   I added a linear ramp to the data to illustrate. I would have preferred to add a curve to the data, but I couldn't figure that out in excel. With a curve, the signals would be nearly identical.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: M.E.T. on 09/25/2018 10:57 pm
This is the new "thrust" signal from Woodward without the rubber pads and with brass washers instead. I'm not sure why he is claiming this as a refutation of the simulations presented at Estes Park.

After removing the dynamic spring constant from the rubber and using a much greater linear stiffness to simulate the brass washers, I too get a similar signal as the newest thrust signal. The reversed direction is the same and the magnitude is also much greater  - just like in Woodward's recent tests.  ???

It looks like there may be some noise, thermal drift, or twisting of the pendulum, which would explain the curve downward as I am not set up to simulate those parameters.   I added a linear ramp to the data to illustrate. I would have preferred to add a curve to the data, but I couldn't figure that out in excel. With a curve, the signals would be nearly identical.

What does this mean then? Is the Mach Effect still alive?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 09/25/2018 11:01 pm
I wonder why the washers changed the intensity this much.
Woodward was also a bit cryptic regarding the functioning of the device with no gasket/washers, maybe due to time constraints. It will be interesting to see if Heidi Fearn can make the device produce unequivocal signals on Tajmar's rig too.


@Monomorphic
I'd like to point out that you are looking at that recent signal and the one I posted previously incorrectly.

While both of them seem superficially to be "reversed" signals they are infact, respectively, a forward directed signal and the average of the difference between forward and reverse runs ("Av. F-R" on top of the slide).

In the first case the signal is not "reversed" (contrary to your 1 kHz signal, which actually reverses compared to lower frequency signal obtained in the same simulation); it is pointing along the direction expected by Woodward (toward the brass mass).
In the second case the graph contains no information whatsoever about the direction of the signals that have been used to create it.

As such, your 1 kHz and your latest signal from simulation are actually quite different from those Woodward obtained
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/25/2018 11:25 pm
I wonder why the washers changed the intensity this much.
Woodward was also a bit cryptic regarding the functioning of the device with no gasket/washers, maybe due to time constraints. It will be interesting to see if Heidi Fearn can make the device produce unequivocal signals on Tajmar's rig too.

It should be pointed out that I never made the claim that removing the rubber would eliminate the effect. That was the simplest way to simulate the system and the first place to logically start. In reality, there is a complex interplay of non-linear material parameters, including the spring modulus of the PZT. There were three testable predictions in my presentation, which were not addressed today.

I think this will all be resolved if Heidi and Tajmar can get a clear signal on the Dresden torsional pendulum, and then they perform the same test on the new superconducting levitating test rig Tajmar is building now - which is one of the tests I recommended during my presentation.   
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 09/26/2018 02:10 am
I don't think the story is over for the mach effect.

I know it's not.  Tajmar's most recent work on the topic was so laughably ill done it could almost be performance art of some kind.  Consider he deliberately did not employ the provided transformer which provided impedance matching, and then when he saw no signal exposed the device to an out of spec high voltage, damaging it.  Difficult to credit it happened.

The most cogent detractors seem to go on about Dean drives although there is nothing in the system where there is a frictional bearing surface, on top of which it's in a vacuum, it can't be rectifying any interactions with a medium, there isn't any.  Turning the device though several orthagonal 90 degree ranges obviates any potential magnetic interaction.

With no objections raised is there any there, there, to use an idiom now astonishingly over 80 years old.

Potentially more information on recent developments here:

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/09/mach-effect-propulsion-now-at-60-millinewtons-per-kilowatt.html
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob Woods on 09/26/2018 06:14 am
WOODWARD:


https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2018/videos/180771871
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: sanman on 09/26/2018 06:54 am
I wonder why the washers changed the intensity this much.

But so the change is due to the lack of damping, right? I remember them saying how the damping was crucial to getting the thrust.


I wanted to ask - would the Oberth Effect apply to Mach Thruster acceleration?

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/26/2018 10:08 am
Tajmar's most recent work on the topic was so laughably ill done it could almost be performance art of some kind. 

I'm sorry, but I have to take exception to this statement. I thought their work was very well presented and certainly wasn't "performance art." 

This idea that they didn't match impedance because they failed to use a specific transformer is a big stretch. They showed tons of data on impedance matching.  Tajmar even had a second experiment which was not a torsional pendulum that attempted to detect the mass fluctuations directly. It also came up negative.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: xanmarus on 09/26/2018 10:25 am
I'm sorry, but I have to take exception to this statement. I thought their work was very well presented and certainly wasn't "performance art." 
I'm little bit confused by this post
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1823724#msg1823724
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/26/2018 10:36 am
I'm little bit confused by this post
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1823724#msg1823724

That was their EMDrive experiment from the previous workshop, not the recent Mach effect work. Tajmar's team addressed most of the concerns raised by me and others at the most recent workshop with regard to the EMDrive. They dedicated several slides to it.  In the end, it didn't make a difference.  I have no doubt Tajmar will address these "impedance" claims in due time.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 09/26/2018 12:33 pm
Monomorphic, Heidi Fearn is traveling to Martin Tajmar's lab to assist him in correctly conducting an attempt to replicate her and Woodward's work.  I do not believe Woodward will be proven "mistaken" in the flat claim the proper impedance matching transformer was not used, or that his provided test article was overheated.  In the event the incidentals available in Dr. Tajmar's lab are in fact correct for the work, and her recent claims of 60mN are replicated, what say you?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/26/2018 01:17 pm
Monomorphic, Heidi Fearn is traveling to Martin Tajmars lab to assist him in correctly conducting an attempt to replicate her and Woodward's work.  I do not believe Woodward will be proven "mistaken" in the flat claim the proper impedance matching transformer was not used, or that his provided test article was overheated.  In the event the incidentals available in Dr. Tajmar's lab are in fact correct for the work, and her recent claims of 60mN are replicated, what say you?

There was some confusion at the workshop about the transformer Woodward sent. I am doing this from memory, I believe this was captured on video, but that will not be posted for a month or two. When he was asked about the transformer, Tajmar said he didn't see one in the box that was sent.  Woodward replied that he was sure he sent it but it was very small and could have been missed.  I don't think there was a picture taken of the contents of the box that was sent to Tajmar, so the whereabouts of the transformer are unknown. Maybe it was lost. However, nobody has been able to explain why the transformer was required and Tajmar's equipment couldn't match the same impedance.

I spoke to Tajmar's students about the overheating of the device and they admitted that it had gotten hot enough at some point where the solder for one of the leads came off and the insulation was singed.  It was not done on purpose. I suggested that perhaps their cool-down time between tests wasn't quite long enough. It was 120 seconds IIRC. They acknowledged that could have been it.

If Heidi can get the same results on Tajmar's rig, then that will be great. This experiment needs to progress further than the torsional pendulum if it's ever going to be a real thruster. As such, I identified three experiments at the end of my presentation that should be next steps in my opinion. One has arguably already been performed if we consider the Buldrini data. Putting that aside, tests on a frictionless test rig where the device is free to accelerate would be very convincing. Tajmar is building such a rig now. It is similar to MIT's Maglev Cubesat Testbed but uses superconductors to achieve a much higher weight capacity.

There is another issue I am looking at that may play a role in the different signals detected. I have not published anything about this yet, but the results so far lead me to believe this could be another source of error/disagreement. The problem is that of aliasing. I asked a few questions at the workshop as I was already suspecting this by then. It turns out Woodward uses a sample collection rate of 2Khz, while Tajmar's group samples at 2Mhz. My laser displacement sensor has the ability to switch between three different sample rates and I found that the signal can look quite different when viewed with different sample rates.

My current opinion on the recent results, based on some quick simulations, is that using the brass washers has greatly reduced one of the critical degrees of freedom necessary to create the first "thrust" signal. That has produced another signal that happens to be of greater magnitude, but is still simply an "edge-case" type of oscillation. More tests are needed.



Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/26/2018 01:31 pm
Monomorphic, You gave Tajmar's student advice from memory. Here is what Jim Woodward wrote by the end of July 2018:

Quote from: Jim Woodward
Having known Martin for years, we decided to LOAN him the device we had been using in our lab as a “demonstrator” for a couple of years.  The device was shipped to him, along with some associated hardware – especially, a stepup/isolation transformer for the power circuit – so that he and his students could test it.  He was to return the device and hardware in a month or two.  It showed up in early June.

Running without the transformer had led them to run at the wrong frequency. But this aside, those in the popular and semi-popular press latched onto his ambiguous low power results and took them to be grounds for claiming that Mach effects had been falsified. Most of the press attention was lavished on the EM drive for there is no plausible physics to explain its operation should real thrust actually be generated in it. Mach effects were collateral damage.

PDF from Jim's PPT file attached. Please pay attention especially to slides 13–18. The picture page 17 is eloquent.

I think we won't know where that transformer really was and why. Whatever, the presence of Heidi Fearn at TU Dresden these days (with a correct transformer) is to explain better and monitor the experiment, in order to prevent another debacle of this kind.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/26/2018 02:55 pm
Monomorphic, You gave Tajmar's student advice from memory. Here is what Jim Woodward wrote by the end of July 2018:

Those look similar to the slides that were shown by Woodward at the recent Estes Park Sept 11, 2018 workshop. I am referring to the live discussion that occurred while Jim was showing these slides. Interrupting the speaker to engage in discussion was encouraged and happened often. Tajmar and his group went back and forth with Jim over a multitude of issues which are too many for me to remember. I do remember the exchange about the transformer though.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob Woods on 09/26/2018 04:21 pm
Things sure get more interesting when there is disagreement... and data. MONO built a fine test apparatus and has shared his results and conclusions. TU Dresden now will be the focus of ongoing tests, it appears.


To Dr's Fearn and Tajmar: Please share your ongoing testing as you work together.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Augmentor on 09/27/2018 01:49 am
Re: The Transformer

Woodward uses an isolation transformer to filter out the DC component. He sees resonance at 36k Hz which happens to be the resonance of the mass, a resonance that can be determined in a number of ways although in practice, the forcing frequency is scanned  through a frequency range to determine the operational frequency.

In the past, 31 kHz was realized due to the DC component. An isolation transformer was used instead of a DC filter. This 31 kHz was see by Tajmar et al which indicated there was a DC component. Tajmar's DC component may have come from either lack of isolation and filtering, or from a parasitic capacitance or inductance.

The anharmonic parametric (sic) oscillator would be affected by a DC component and while Tajmar et al produced results, the conclusion is that the 31 kHz had a DC component. The new Dresden equipment for testing is considered highly accurate and with exceptional precision. Even so, one has to be careful in constructing the right experiment. In this case, the DC component source has to be determined.





Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 09/27/2018 06:50 am
I was wondering.   Why not use an acoustic gas inside a cavity with some kind of audio device to achieve the desired mass displacement?  (speaker in a cavity similarly) Would the Q be too low? (too much energy loss?)  Pressure differences might become problematic? (maybe not with strong walls).  Not enough mass to be accelerated? (larger displacements? velocities, accelerations?, heating problems?)

They would just need to introduce two or more frequencies.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 09/27/2018 05:19 pm
Anyone now how far back I have to go to find info RE what energy is actually being dissipated by the device in what form?  Mass, deg C rise, V and I applied, etc?

I've uncovered an idiot claiming it must be withstanding about 1.23 MW/pound of brass ration mass involved.  I know he is doing his dimensional analysis wrong, but I don't know where to start from correctly.

IOW, what's the best way to get on the mailing list?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star-Drive on 09/29/2018 05:05 am
Anyone now how far back I have to go to find info RE what energy is actually being dissipated by the device in what form?  Mass, deg C rise, V and I applied, etc?

I've uncovered an idiot claiming it must be withstanding about 1.23 MW/pound of brass ration mass involved.  I know he is doing his dimensional analysis wrong, but I don't know where to start from correctly.

IOW, what's the best way to get on the mailing list?

TDperk:

The 8, 19mm OD by 2mm thick disk SM-111 version of the MEGA-drive with truncated rubber gasket between the brass reaction mass and the aluminum L-mounting bracket, has an overall loaded Q at 1w = ~36kHz of around 60.  That implies that when its input RF ac power in Volt-Amp-Reactive (VAR)s is around 100 VARs, the thermally dissipated power in the PZT stack is around 1.67 watts.

Best, Paul March   
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 10/01/2018 03:27 pm
Thank you, Paul.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: sanman on 10/01/2018 04:14 pm
Gee, how can we order one of those? What's the product catalog # ?   ;)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: sanman on 10/01/2018 04:16 pm
I was wondering.   Why not use an acoustic gas inside a cavity with some kind of audio device to achieve the desired mass displacement?  (speaker in a cavity similarly) Would the Q be too low? (too much energy loss?)  Pressure differences might become problematic? (maybe not with strong walls).  Not enough mass to be accelerated? (larger displacements? velocities, accelerations?, heating problems?)

They would just need to introduce two or more frequencies.

I think it was Tajmar who said there was a need for "bulk coupling" - ie. solids work best, because all the mass is stuck together and has to move in unison.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: sanman on 10/02/2018 10:48 am
My current opinion on the recent results, based on some quick simulations, is that using the brass washers has greatly reduced one of the critical degrees of freedom necessary to create the first "thrust" signal. That has produced another signal that happens to be of greater magnitude, but is still simply an "edge-case" type of oscillation. More tests are needed.

Why would use of the brass washers adversely affect the thrust? What problem would they pose?



Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: soms42 on 10/31/2018 07:29 pm
I was wondering.   Why not use an acoustic gas inside a cavity with some kind of audio device to achieve the desired mass displacement?  (speaker in a cavity similarly) Would the Q be too low? (too much energy loss?)  Pressure differences might become problematic? (maybe not with strong walls).  Not enough mass to be accelerated? (larger displacements? velocities, accelerations?, heating problems?)

They would just need to introduce two or more frequencies.

I think it was Tajmar who said there was a need for "bulk coupling" - ie. solids work best, because all the mass is stuck together and has to move in unison.

I think there is a lot of confusing talk like 'need for bulk coupling'. As i understand it, what is needed is a changing rest-mass of the accelerating mass using the accelerating force on that mass. The Woodward device uses a dielectric for storing deformation energy in the internal electric field (so the mass changes with dE/c^2).
Consequently resonating a gas would also have the mach-effect, but it is very hard to make that asymetric: storing and releasing the energy when the acceleration is one way, but not in the opposite direction.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: sanman on 10/31/2018 07:48 pm
I think there is a lot of confusing talk like 'need for bulk coupling'...
Consequently resonating a gas would also have the mach-effect, but it is very hard to make that asymetric: storing and releasing the energy when the acceleration is one way, but not in the opposite direction.

To me, that sounds the same as saying only a solid, due to its bulk coupling, can provide the required behavior.
A fluid, by its very nature, cannot do it - whether liquid or gas or any other type of fluid, like electrons in a conductor (which is what Woodward's original attempts used.)

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: soms42 on 11/01/2018 04:01 pm
I think there is a lot of confusing talk like 'need for bulk coupling'...
Consequently resonating a gas would also have the mach-effect, but it is very hard to make that asymetric: storing and releasing the energy when the acceleration is one way, but not in the opposite direction.

To me, that sounds the same as saying only a solid, due to its bulk coupling, can provide the required behavior.
A fluid, by its very nature, cannot do it - whether liquid or gas or any other type of fluid, like electrons in a conductor (which is what Woodward's original attempts used.)

Yes it looks like only a solid can do this, but i wonder: compressing a gas will also store energy, so why wouldn't a resonating gas-collomn show a mach-effect?
As long as the actual gas-molecules move back and forth (not only a wave but actual gas-flow), it should show a mach-effect. The effect unfortunately is symetric so the average is zero (probably except for a very small deviation in the expected resonance frequency). Perhaps a 'half-pipe' would work? There will be a lot of friction though.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: soms42 on 11/03/2018 12:42 pm
Check it out: he claims 0.5 gram of  push!
In 2012! Why is the rest working with 6micro newtons?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiFhv7IkAms
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 11/03/2018 08:48 pm
I think there is a lot of confusing talk like 'need for bulk coupling'...
Consequently resonating a gas would also have the mach-effect, but it is very hard to make that asymetric: storing and releasing the energy when the acceleration is one way, but not in the opposite direction.

To me, that sounds the same as saying only a solid, due to its bulk coupling, can provide the required behavior.
A fluid, by its very nature, cannot do it - whether liquid or gas or any other type of fluid, like electrons in a conductor (which is what Woodward's original attempts used.)

Yes it looks like only a solid can do this, but i wonder: compressing a gas will also store energy, so why wouldn't a resonating gas-collomn show a mach-effect?
As long as the actual gas-molecules move back and forth (not only a wave but actual gas-flow), it should show a mach-effect. The effect unfortunately is symetric so the average is zero (probably except for a very small deviation in the expected resonance frequency). Perhaps a 'half-pipe' would work? There will be a lot of friction though.

you get the effect by mixing frequencies via the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle.  If you take a sinusoidal displacement of frequency f and introduce another 2f frequency of specific phase you get asymmetric acceleration. 

If you continue the frequency series you can increase the mach effect.  This post references some of my past posts.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1871885#msg1871885

specifically this image you will notice the equation is a sum of frequencies.

sin(x)+1/2*sin(2*x-%pi/2)+1/4*sin(3*x-%pi)+1/8*sin(4*x-3/2*%pi)+1/16*sin(5*x) plotted from x=(0 to 4*%pi)  for comparison it is compared to the function sin(x)

so you should be able to mix frequencies in a cavity via the the superposition principal.  This is why they use the PZT material in the woodward effect to provide the 2f frequency.  I think the PZT material may not even be needed by just manually introducing the 2nd 2f frequency and controlling the phase.  The effect could be enhanced by continuing the series of frequencies and by having control of the phase you control the direction of thrust. I.e. the sum of the serries can be flipped to provide acceleration in the desired direction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect

Its speculated objects that exist under acceleration have their effective mass changed in gravitational wells.  So by creating asymmetric acceleration you change the effective mass of the object being accelerated.  If true it probably represents some coupling/decoupling w.r.t. to the vacuum.

In fact velocity probably has some effect on effective mass which probably represents some coupling with the vacuum related to  Lorentz contraction.  In fact I think it was WarpTech that showed me some equation that had both acceleration and velocity having some effect on the effective mass.  I can't remember where I saw it now. 

Edit: on a side note, I was a little worried that the change in acceleration the electrons could cause a non-linear effect which would make the superposition principle a little off.  idea was you change the phase of the secondary frequency to compensate maybe. I.e. that they would re emit light in an out of phase way so that you have to pump in a bunch of extra energy to compensate, to keep the electrons in the proper phase.  On the other hand that would imply doing extra work.  What that imply extra thrust?  I need to look more into it.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/09/2018 04:44 pm
The latest missive from Jim Woodward regarding the validity of the simulations I presented at the Estes Park Advanced Propulsion Workshop. The message below was sent out to a large number of individuals on his email list this morning.

Sufficed to say, Jim's claim that his torsional pendulum can ONLY move to the side if acted upon by real thrust or an outside force is just not the case.  There are several ways to trick a torsional pendulum and using multi-body oscillators is one of the most obvious.   

The claim that the Autodesk Inventor simulation is violating conservation of momentum is without merit. Autodesk Inventor is a program used internationally at the largest companies and its solutions guarantee conservation of momentum.  In fact, it is used at universities to teach conservation of momentum.

It was clear from the email chain yesterday that I was going to include the spring stiffness of the central flexture bearings but it would be best to start with a frictionless bearing with zero spring stiffness and then add the spring stiffness later once that was set up.  It is best to approach these problems step-by-step so I was very surprised that he insinuated there were other motives.  Here is what I said exactly: "I think the best way to get started is to create frictionless bearings in Inventor with zero spring stiffness. As 0.0074 lb-in/degree is a very small force, we can run a simpler experiment first with zero stiffness, and then add the 0.0074 lb-in/degree once we have it working with zero. My prediction is the flexure bearing spring stiffness has very little effect on the final signal as the displacement comes from the oscillations of the MET component parts."

I also take exception to his claim that there have been vitriolic comments from either myself or any supporters. I've exchanged only one email with Jim over the entire matter, which was yesterday, and will post that in another comment below.

Regards,
Jamie





From: "Woodward, James"
Sent: Friday, November 9, 2018 7:26 AM
Subject: 9 November 2018


"Gentlefolk,

This occasional update (note that I have given up on getting these updates out on a weekly basis) is going to be a little different from the usual fare.  That is because I have been convinced that what has proceeded as a technical argument among a small subset of those of you on this list (and occasionally a few others) should be given wider circulation.  Many technical arguments are not well suited to this list as they involve details of interest only to a few of you.  This argument, however, is absolutely fundamental and can be dealt with without a lot of formal detail.  So I am presenting it to you for your bemusement.

The argument in question is over whether a "simulation", done by one of you, that purports to show that the thrusts recorded in our lab here at CSUF can be explained as a mere "Newtonian artifact" that does NOT mean that Mach effects are real is correct.  This simulation was presented at the Estes Park workshop a couple of months ago by the simulator and strongly supported by others of you disinclined to accept that the thrust results we have obtained are evidence for the reality of Mach effects.  At the workshop, and subsequently in smaller circulations, I have repeatedly pointed out that the simulation is wrong for it violates momentum conservation.  Those favoring the claims of the simulator have accused me on not understanding (and having made "incorrect" statements about) momentum conservation and being insensitive to the subtleties of "non-linear dynamics" because I have not spent time working with simulations -- among other things.  The underlying question that has occasioned the at times vitriolic comments about my explication of why the simulation is wrong is simple: when the device in the Faraday cage on one end of the thrust balance beam is turned on (if all of the conditions required by Mach effects are present), why does the thrust balance respond by being deflected through a small angle that is optically detected as a displacement of the opposite end of the balance beam?  I claim that these results are clear and compelling evidence for the reality of Mach effects.

The simulator's answer to this question is that the vibration set up by the device in the Faraday cage is communicated to the balance beam which, in turn, vibrates at the frequency of the devices vibration.  This causes the beam to oscillate about a "new" zero position that is displaced from the zero position of the beam in the absence of vibration.   Sounds good, doesn't it?  And when accompanied by a movie, it can seem quite likely.  But it is wrong, because it violates momentum conservation.  The reason why is actually quite simple: if only energy (and no momentum) is added to the device in the Faraday cage to make it vibrate, then no real, time-averaged, steady force on the device and Faraday cage can be produced.  The details of any vibration in the device/cage are completely irrelevant.  They can be anything you desire as long as they do not generate an interaction with the outside world where momentum transfer might be possible.  The ONLY way that such a real force can be generated is either by the addition or subtraction of MOMENTUM to/from the cage and device from the outside world, or by coupling to the external world via a field (the gravitational field of chiefly distant matter in the case of Mach effects for example).  There is no argument about the fact that "Newtonian artifacts" cannot make isolated systems accelerate by the production of real forces in such systems by the way.  This is why the simulator and his supporters claim that Mach effect devices will not work as "space drives" -- no real, time-averaged, net force on the cage and the device therein is generated by "Newtonian artifacts" which they assert is what we are measuring.

The next question is: what happens when the cage and device are placed on the end of a thrust balance beam and the device is activated?  Well, the thrust balance itself is a "passive" device in the sense that it brings no energy or momentum to the system of the device and cage plus the thrust balance (and the block of granite on which the balance rests).  So the thrust balance cannot produce the momentum flux required to deflect the beam from its zero position.  That must come from the device and cage.  But all agree that "Newtonian artifacts" do not produce such forces. So it would seem that the momentum conservation argument is correct.  But the simulator argues that the vibration induced in the beam by the cage/device makes the beam vibrate to a new time-averaged position that is recorded as a thrust (because the vibrations are "asymmetric" supposedly).

If the thrust balance were a simple pivoted beam, the simulator's scheme might work.  But the thrust balance is NOT  a simple pivoted beam.  The pivot bearings (C-Flex E - 10 bearings in fact) provide a restoring torque that enforces the zero position of the beam.  So, when the device starts vibrating, after perhaps a small transient response, the beam returns to its zero position notwithstanding that the cage and device are vibrating.  The simulator and one of his supporters want you to believe that this restoring torque is so small as to be completely negligible.  But this is wrong.  The restoring torque IS NOT NEGLIGIBLE.  Taking it as negligible is what gives his specious result and makes the simulation violate momentum conservation.

The fact of the matter is that the restoring torque of the pivot bearings is sufficiently large to give an oscillation period for the ~ 50 cm long beam (supported by the bearings at the center) with 400 grams at each end of the beam of about 6 seconds.  When the device is activated in non-Machian circumstances -- at the mechanical resonance frequency of the device, about 31 khz where the vibrations are much larger than at the Machian frequency of 36.3 khz for example -- or the (slightly less than critically damped) balance is pulsed with the calibration coils, the settling time is found to be between 5 and 6 seconds.  This is not due to a restoring torque that can be neglected in any circumstances.

If you want to believe the simulator, you might be thinking: what if we take the cage and device as one system and the balance as another and assume that the cage and device acting on the balance beam somehow produces the steady real force in the device/cage needed to deflect the beam from the zero position?  The problem with this wishful thinking is that only energy is added to the total system.  So if a real force on the device/cage is produced, an equal and opposite force must appear in the system to conserve total linear momentum.  The obvious place to locate this compensating opposite force -- which cannot act at the location of the cage/device as it would cancel the deflecting force -- is at the pivot bearings of the balance.  This conserves linear momentum.  But now you have a violation of angular momentum as an unbalanced force "couple" has been created where before activation of the device with energy only there was none.

The simple fact of the matter is that the simulation violates momentum conservation, as I have said all along.  Yesterday, as this argument proceeded in a small group, after agreeing that the balance actually needed to be modeled, the simulator and his most ardent supporter argued that the restoring torque of the pivot bearings was so small that it could be taken as zero.  There's a good reason for their so arguing.  It guarantees that their momentum conservation violating simulation will appear to work.  But, as we've seen here above, this assumption is simply WRONG.  And the simulation is also wrong because it violates momentum conservation.

By the way, if you'd like to be taken off this circulation, please let me know. . . .

Very best,

Jim"
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/09/2018 04:48 pm
From: Jamie
To: "Woodward, James"
Sent: Thursday, November 8, 2018 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: Test recommended that Heidi is referring to

Professor Woodward,
Thank you for the clarification on the wall thickness of the extruded aluminum tube. I am pretty familiar with the thrust balance as I referred heavily to images of it and your descriptions in various papers when preparing the simulations for the Estes Park workshop.

As for the computer simulations producing results that violate conservation of momentum, I remember we came to an impasse about this point during your last session at Estes Park. As the simulations rely on newtonian physics, the only way I can think of that they can produce results that violate conservation of momentum is through "floating point rounding errors." However, I checked for this by greatly refining the solver accuracy with no changes in the results. With that ruled out, we are left with little options for such a major error to be possible.

You may also remember from my Estes Park presentation that I have built a low-thrust torsional pendulum with ~0.2uN accuracy. Using the knowledge I gained from the simulations I have also now built two electromechanical devices that mimic the thrust signals in the real world when used on a thrust balance. You can also see the graph attached to this email below.

It is an interesting simulation problem that I enjoy spending my free time on. Also, thank you for the offer to provide more detailed info on the Fullerton balance. I will be in touch.

Regards,
Jamie

Inline image


From: "Woodward, James"
Sent: Thursday, November 8, 2018 4:38 AM
Subject: Re: Test recommended that Heidi is referring to

Mr. Ciomperlik,

Heidi is mistaken.  The square tubing is 1/16 inch wall material.  And the balance is actually much more complicated than just the crude information she has provided.

Aside from the technical details of the balance, you may want to consider how much work you want to invest in this project -- a project I note that neither NAMES REDACTED deem sufficiently important to invest their own effort in carrying through.  (I am always reminded in these sorts of situations of Faraday's comment when asked by a reporter if any member of the general public had ever made a recommendation to him of something important he later pursued:  No, I have always found that those with important suggestions are capable and willing to carry them through themselves.)  If, however, you want to pursue this project, it would do no harm to have a reasonable model of the balance.  But you should be aware that it will not show the observations to be due to some "Newtonian artifact".  What it will show if it shows a displacement of the beam due to the activation of the device, is that contrary to NAME REDACTED claim, AI can indeed produce results that violate momentum conservation -- something worth knowing I suppose.

I am attaching a picture of the balance for your information should you decide to pursue this project.  Note the various attachments to the beam, each of which suppresses high frequency vibrations (both intentional and incidental), especially the eddy current damper and 400 gram counterpoise mass in the immediate vicinity of the optical probe location at the left end of the beam.  And especially the yoke that supports the Faraday cage at the right hand end, made with lots of 4-40 screws, washers, and buna-n O-rings to decouple any vibration in the device and Faraday cage from the beam.  (This was done to suppress vibration that might affect the flexural bearings.  See Starships, chapter 5 for the test for vibration on the flex bearings.)

If you decide to proceed, if you want further information, as the builder of the balance (most of the parts for which were machined by my former grad student, Tom Mahood), I'll be happy to provide you with such information as I can.

Jim Woodward

P.S.  You may be interested to know that a single point laser vibrometer system suited to making direct measurements of the beam is presently being sought.  So reality will eventually overtake this project if that search is successful.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 11/09/2018 06:29 pm
Sufficed to say, Jim's claim that his torsional pendulum can ONLY move to the side if acted upon by real thrust or an outside force is just not the case.  There are several ways to trick a torsion pendulum and using multi-body oscillators is one of the most obvious.   
In case anyone doubts that torsion pendulums can be tricked, I find an even simpler example to be the case of a flywheel placed on the end of the pendulum. With proper acceleration and deceleration, you can force it to trace out any thrust curve you desire. Another problem with Woodward's arguments is that by nature, the pendulum has a counterweight, so conservation of momentum does not forbid motion, and the torque from the pendulum wire means the system is not isolated in the angular momentum sense. (They are still the device of choice for measuring forces like this, but you can't just conclude something from a "black box" demonstration, you have to consider the limitations.) More basic physics mistakes from Woodward, which should not be surprising.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Augmentor on 11/10/2018 02:15 am
Monomorphic,

Would you like a good cheese with that whine?

You are a global leader. Higher expectations and closer examination go with the responsibility of being a global leader.

I read your email that instead of just working out your differences with the author, that posting to NSF was in order. Not exactly a scholarly approach and clearly lacking a lot of details of what was incorrect about the simulation from your POV and how you can do better. 

Yes, the MEGA folks need to address the stiction issue(s) and others. and yes, you need to improve your simulation and match MEGA devices which have been working and producing thrust. That includes building into the simulation the various physical connections, producing an event timing diagram, examine both frequency and time domains, and many other details.

Moving on to the simulation...here are four or five related requirements for quality research: theory, experiment, 
Modeling and simulation. The peer review process at the highest levels requires a review of each area...simulation is a tool, not an end in itself. The fifth area is animation which is built-in to many simulators these days.

Animation is usually used for illustration in general lectures as well as seeing how complex systems operate or fail.

Most of the aerospace software for simulation is of significantly higher quality than the software used. The reason for using Solidworks and COMSOL was to be able to provide deliverables to aerospace firms. Matlab and Simulink are also a good start. Compatibility, precision, accuracy, scaling, software tools, engineering/physics capabilities are a few of the reasons for selecting Solidworks and COMSOL. I could argue other high end programs and add-on software. Converting the Autodesk simulation to Solidworks and COMSOL for testing will be needed at some point. Results may prove even more revealing.

IMHO the simulator used is probably ok but requires an unnecessary learning curve or excessive conversion to the physicists and engineers who are suppose to be your audience. It is not an acceptable deliverable to NASA. Or other research especially for the complexity and breadth of physics. See if Autodesk can be moved up to COMSOL simulation.

Autodesk is not known usually for research quality tools and therefore, is not even considered for research in physics, especially in the complex environment of acoustic, electromagnetic and gravitation. Nice for the classroom and simple demonstrations; not for the depth and complexity required in basic research for a mesoscopic effort involving gravitation and quantum mechanics. Screws, yes. EM and Gravitational effects, no.

It appears the simulation was built-up only so far to that of mechanical resonance - no EM, no gravitational effort, and that stiction , aka stick-slip or slip-stick, was found to be significant. Bravo! Drill down but continue to add to the simulation such that you have both device details as well as the balance sensor details. Check your assumptions at this level against the real deal of a MEGA. And when you build the full system, check again.

Is there an issue with your simulation? Yes. IMHO an incomplete simulation that was insufficient to draw conclusions from and exhuberant extrapolation during an incremental build that lacked interactive communication with the prime theorist and experimentalist who happens to be the designer/builder as well as the Principle Investigator of leading a team of PhDs and propulsion experts.

Also, be prepared to address all forms of jitter. You might want to look at small signal analysis including not just FFT but Wavelet analysis as well.

Without building the entire device and experimental setup too incorporating all the nuances, the research is not about Woodward’s work; i=the simulation is only about a Newtonian stiction engine that produces comparative thrust. The more difficult challenge is to determine how that thrust that meets the nonlinear experimental data for the past seven years; the current simulation does not IMHO.

So roll up the sleeves. You started this, a good thing since the team has not had the time or resources to do extensive simulations. Carry on and carry through.

David

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/10/2018 03:42 am
I read your email that instead of just working out your differences with the author, that posting to NSF was in order.

I thought that's what we were doing until I woke up to an email sent to a bunch of influential people I don't know disparaging my work and accusing me of ulterior motives.

Speaking of ulterior motives, don't you think you should disclose you've been trying to get people together to start a business around propellantless propulsion, specifically the mach effect thruster and emdrive?  ;)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 11/10/2018 04:53 am
I think most people who have followed the EM drive threads for years will agree that  monomorphic started as an enthusiast of EM drive. After all, a non-believer from beginning will not invest years of spare time and much of his own money on EM drive or MEGA work. So the  thought of bad motive is groundless.

That said, while simulations can give hints of what really happens, a test of the real drive is necessary. Dr. Woodward should consider lending a MEGA drive to monomorphic for testing. This or other interested group with money should consider granting some $ for this endeavor, for science's sake.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 11/10/2018 05:15 am
I have wondered myself if putting a vibrating weight on the end of a spring loaded pendulum might not shift the pendulum by just adding energy to the spring which stretches it.  Is this what is being speculated to happen? 

Let us for instance take the weight on the end to have the mass of a planet in space.  Only the beam will shift in this case.  Fully contracted the beam remains in its original position.  Upon vibration, it will exist on average in between its fully extended position and fully contracted position. 

If we make the beam and weight of equal effective mass (considering rotating objects with mass) then both their fully extended displacement equilibrium should be equal distance from the fully contracted position.  If the weight remained extended then of the spring would bring the beam back to center, but with vibrations I think the spring will not be able to remain at zero energy. 

I guess the question might be if the pendulum spring can move to a position where it osculates back and forth about its previous equilibrium after being thrown off by expanding the weight under continuous osculation.  I want to say no under the case of equal effective mass because of momentum conservation.  with equal beam and weight displacement the beam has its momentum which gives it half the energy and the weigh thrown the other way has its momentum giving it the other half the energy. 
Edit: On the other hand the spring force provides a force different from just the shifting masses.

Correct me if I am wrong in my understanding. 

To avoid the confusion, my advice would be to make a point at the end of the beam to mount the vibrating motor that is adjustable.  Find the sweet spot where when the system is expanded, there is no deflection of the beam.  Then vibrate to your hearts content. 

That or a friction-less floating system where it can accumulate momentum.  Possibly linear.  Maybe like they did with the photonic laser thruster.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzLEK8Zq7Pk
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 11/10/2018 06:26 am
Moving on to the simulation...here are four or five related requirements for quality research: theory, experiment, 
Modeling and simulation. The peer review process at the highest levels requires a review of each area...simulation is a tool, not an end in itself. The fifth area is animation which is built-in to many simulators these days.
Not how peer review works, and just one of theory, experiment, or simulation can be sufficient for a paper. That is how research works, so that one person can come up with an idea, and someone else can refine it, or use different resources they have to test it.

Most of the aerospace software for simulation is of significantly higher quality than the software used. The reason for using Solidworks and COMSOL was to be able to provide deliverables to aerospace firms. Matlab and Simulink are also a good start. Compatibility, precision, accuracy, scaling, software tools, engineering/physics capabilities are a few of the reasons for selecting Solidworks and COMSOL. I could argue other high end programs and add-on software. Converting the Autodesk simulation to Solidworks and COMSOL for testing will be needed at some point. Results may prove even more revealing.

IMHO the simulator used is probably ok but requires an unnecessary learning curve or excessive conversion to the physicists and engineers who are suppose to be your audience. It is not an acceptable deliverable to NASA. Or other research especially for the complexity and breadth of physics. See if Autodesk can be moved up to COMSOL simulation.
None of that actually says anything technically wrong with the simulation, or any reason to use a different tool. Some even goes off on a tangent about tools like Matlab/Simulink which simply are an entirely worse tool for this application. At best they would be for a lower fidelity model than what was already done, with more potential for mistakes.

Organizations that require a specific tool do so for consistency, so they don't need to maintain a large number of expensive licenses for different tools. Such decisions will be biased towards tools with more advanced cutting edge features which are irrelevant in this situation.

Autodesk is not known usually for research quality tools and therefore, is not even considered for research in physics, especially in the complex environment of acoustic, electromagnetic and gravitation. Nice for the classroom and simple demonstrations; not for the depth and complexity required in basic research for a mesoscopic effort involving gravitation and quantum mechanics. Screws, yes. EM and Gravitational effects, no.

It appears the simulation was built-up only so far to that of mechanical resonance - no EM, no gravitational effort, and that stiction , aka stick-slip or slip-stick, was found to be significant. Bravo! Drill down but continue to add to the simulation such that you have both device details as well as the balance sensor details. Check your assumptions at this level against the real deal of a MEGA. And when you build the full system, check again.
You seem to have entirely missed the point. If a fake thrust signal can be generated entirely without the new physics effects, and experiments show a signal that is comparable to the expectation from standard forces, that negates the experiments as evidence of new physics.

Is there an issue with your simulation? Yes. IMHO an incomplete simulation that was insufficient to draw conclusions from and exhuberant extrapolation during an incremental build that lacked interactive communication with the prime theorist and experimentalist who happens to be the designer/builder as well as the Principle Investigator of leading a team of PhDs and propulsion experts.
There is an issue in your post where you failed to actually name a specific issue with the simulation while claiming there was one. It seems you have nothing other than bias. Also, no amount of hollow praise for Woodward changes the fact that he still hasn't retracted the paper he wrote that failed at high school level physics, or the fact that his statements in the posted e-mails are just as wrong.

Without building the entire device and experimental setup too incorporating all the nuances, the research is not about Woodward’s work; i=the simulation is only about a Newtonian stiction engine that produces comparative thrust. The more difficult challenge is to determine how that thrust that meets the nonlinear experimental data for the past seven years; the current simulation does not IMHO.
Your opinion is wrong. If a device like Woodward's produces a fake thrust signal, that is an actual real error in Woodward's experiments that he has to account for. If Woodward believes there is still a signal underneath that, he will have to do the work to either build a device that only has his signal and not the extra fake thrust, or he has to very carefully characterize and remove the extra signal. It is no one else's responsibility to do that, and he is the one with access to the full sets of historical data.

So roll up the sleeves. You started this, a good thing since the team has not had the time or resources to do extensive simulations. Carry on and carry through.
One good part of your post that I can agree with, as long as the carry through does not include using tools that are a step backwards, or wasting money on more expensive tools that don't do anything different in a basic dynamics analysis.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: soms42 on 11/10/2018 09:28 am
Newtonian physics (and relativity) is based on conservation of momentum.
So, if you show thrust in a newtionian simulation of a machian space drive on a thrust-balance, than either you are doing something wrong (e.g. computational rounding errors), or you showed that the measured thrust can come from measurement errors.

It is impossible to show that a machian space drive can work in simulations using newtonian physics. It is that simple!

So why this fuss about this simulation stuff?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star One on 11/10/2018 09:36 am
I think most people who have followed the EM drive threads for years will agree that  monomorphic started as an enthusiast of EM drive. After all, a non-believer from beginning will not invest years of spare time and much of his own money on EM drive or MEGA work. So the  thought of bad motive is groundless.

That said, while simulations can give hints of what really happens, a test of the real drive is necessary. Dr. Woodward should consider lending a MEGA drive to monomorphic for testing. This or other interested group with money should consider granting some $ for this endeavor, for science's sake.

By why did he see fit to air his grievances on a public forum, if someone was communicating with me by email about such a matter I wouldn’t then expect them to post that correspondence online.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 11/10/2018 01:03 pm
From this email exchange, it seems to me that Woodward actually accepts the result of your simulation, but points out that if you were to simulate the entire balance with the central bearing together with the cage and its content it wouldn't be possible to have the arm oscillate around a new time averaged-equilibrium point:

Quote
[..] the simulator argues that the vibration induced in the beam by the cage/device makes the beam vibrate to a new time-averaged position that is recorded as a thrust (because the vibrations are "asymmetric" supposedly).

If the thrust balance were a simple pivoted beam, the simulator's scheme might work.  But the thrust balance is NOT  a simple pivoted beam.  The pivot bearings (C-Flex E - 10 bearings in fact) provide a restoring torque that enforces the zero position of the beam.  So, when the device starts vibrating, after perhaps a small transient response, the beam returns to its zero position notwithstanding that the cage and device are vibrating.  The simulator and one of his supporters want you to believe that this restoring torque is so small as to be completely negligible.  But this is wrong.  The restoring torque IS NOT NEGLIGIBLE.  Taking it as negligible is what gives his specious result and makes the simulation violate momentum conservation. [..]

In the following mail you posted he encouraged you to model the entire apparatus, and he thinks that, if in that case  too the balance arm is deflected it would constitute a violation of momentum conservation.

I'm not sure about the correctness of this argument, so I welcome comments on it, but look at the answer of this question:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/384676/measuring-weight-with-weighing-scale-doing-dumbbells (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/384676/measuring-weight-with-weighing-scale-doing-dumbbells)

If I'm standing on a weighing scale and I suddenly lift my arms extremely fast, the scale might temporarily show an increased weight, corresponding to a deflection from the previous equilibrium point;  if after that I simply stay there with my arms lifted, even if my center of mass shifted because of the redistribution of the masses of my body, the scale will show my real weight.

The torsion balance arm with the bearing is in principle similar to a scale with a (torsional) spring.
If part of the device inside the cage rearranges itself so that the center of mass moves relative to the cage that , by itself, won't result in a steady deflection of the balance arm. 


As a side note, while I thank you for sharing with us this correspondence, I have to agree with Star One that it is not fair to post these messages without asking Woodward permission.
I also sent some messages to Woodward, and I am waiting for him to reply, but I won't share them unless he agrees.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Augmentor on 11/10/2018 02:07 pm
I read your email that instead of just working out your differences with the author, that posting to NSF was in order.

I thought that's what we were doing until I woke up to an email sent to a bunch of influential people I don't know disparaging my work and accusing me of ulterior motives.

Speaking of ulterior motives, don't you think you should disclose you've been trying to get people together to start a business around propellantless propulsion, specifically the mach effect thruster and emdrive?  ;)

You didn’t get the memo? Many people here on NSF would like to turn their hobby into a business. And in fact, a few already have sold their design/builds.

Actually, this is old news. Woodward noted in his book, Making Starships and Stargates” (2012) that a number of folks in aerospace were looking to invest.

My view is simple. Woodward has the best theory since it’s really nothing more than applied General Relativity, a calculation with the confines of GR. Seems to be the best theory in the world on a propellentless drive as others have suggested.

My view? Mach effects exist but are not ready for prime time since like most PP devices, it’s stuck in basic R&D. Eventually, applied R&D and eventually Product R&D efforts are needed.

CLean up the flaws in the simulation; don’t get stuck on the stick-slip action only.

So in fairness, I’ll add the Monomorphic Stiction (stick-slip) Drive to the Space Drive candidate list of propellentless drives.

David

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 11/10/2018 04:56 pm
CLean up the flaws in the simulation; don’t get stuck on the stick-slip action only.

So in fairness, I’ll add the Monomorphic Stiction (stick-slip) Drive to the Space Drive candidate list of propellentless drives.
How is claiming with no evidence that the simulation is flawed fair?

How is falsely claiming that Monomorphic is demonstrating a new type of propellantless drive fair? Monomporphic is demonstrating that certain tests of a supposed propellantless drive are invalid due to a major unaccounted for error which has nothing to do with propellantless propulsion.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: ThinkerX on 11/10/2018 08:01 pm
Apologies, memory is a tad hazy.

Didn't Rodal present a paper arguing that Woodward's device could not operate according to the stated principles?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 11/10/2018 08:52 pm
Apologies, memory is a tad hazy.

Didn't Rodal present a paper arguing that Woodward's device could not operate according to the stated principles?

I don't remember the paper.  I think however it's a matter of fact that black holes merge via exhausting energy into the vacuum by gravitational waves.  I think the question is what levels of acceleration, velocity and mass we need to modulate the vacuum to significant levels ourselves.  Woodward derived it from general relativity which I think already predicts gravitational waves.  I believe the rocket part of woodford's equation describes ejection of the vacuum energy.  I'm not sure but I think the Wormhole part is describing modifying the density of the local vacuum.  When an object is either accelerated heavily or reaches large velocities, its effective mass should increase.  The relativistic slowing of time, physical pancaking of the object, change in effective mass, should represent an increased coupling with the vacuum, or a pressure.  Pulling hard during this time should eject the vacuum mass or density wave in this direction.  The Wormhole effect seems to either describe giving the local vacuum a relative velocity countering relativistic effects.  Its effect reduces relativistic increase in Mass.  That or the Mach worm hole effect describes reducing the effective mass of an object by decoupling it from the vacuum or the metric or inducing low pressure in the vacuum.   I would suspect if the relativistic effective mass can be canceled then so can the time slowing effects which limit us to the speed of light. 

We do know that black holes can lose energy to the vacuum and induce waves in it so it is a start.  Now we just need to see what we can do with it ourselves.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 11/10/2018 08:55 pm
I suspect the way the megadrive is designed it's difficult to grab it at the midsection so that it doesn't induce vibrations in the torsion pendulum.  It would be nice however if it could be done.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/10/2018 11:11 pm
Apologies, memory is a tad hazy.

Didn't Rodal present a paper arguing that Woodward's device could not operate according to the stated principles?

Yes, my recollection of Rodal's presentation concluded that it must be a local interaction.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Augmentor on 11/11/2018 08:15 pm
CLean up the flaws in the simulation; don’t get stuck on the stick-slip action only.

So in fairness, I’ll add the Monomorphic Stiction (stick-slip) Drive to the Space Drive candidate list of propellentless drives.
How is claiming with no evidence that the simulation is flawed fair?

How is falsely claiming that Monomorphic is demonstrating a new type of propellantless drive fair? Monomorphic (sic) is demonstrating that certain tests of a supposed propellantless drive are invalid due to a major unaccounted for error which has nothing to do with propellantless propulsion.

You don’t seem to be lacking an opinion. What do you think is going on?

First off, Jaime has made the effort to develop a simulation of the MEGA drive, an experimental thruster still in basic research and not in applied or product R&D.
 
Was stiction identified? Yes and compared to verifiable thrust by others at the 1 uN level

Can stiction explain the data runs since 2012? No, it only explains 1 uN and not higher levels of thrust or nonlinear variations in frequency.

Did the Monomorphic simulation get to using active mass to produce relativistic internal changes from an electric pulse? No. Only Newtonian kinematics, resonance and stiction were required.

Did the simulation provide thermodynamics similar to the MEGA? No, Monomorphic has not gone that far yet.

Since the incremental build and test procedure used by Monomorphic claims stiction thrust, he has effectively staked out what can be described and acknowledged author as the designated Monomorphic Stiction Drive.

Best

David






 


Furthermore, there does not appear to be any accounting for the voltage to the 4th power seen since 2012 in numerous tests.

The end result is that he found something unusual and needs to do two things now: finish the full build and test of the MEGA, and figure out the role of stiction.

Since he has not built and operated the full MEGA, he has only a partial build which he claims produces stiction thrust similar thrust to the 1uN. Therefore, he has built a Stiction Drive, a partial MEGA drive.


Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/11/2018 09:58 pm
Was stiction identified? Yes and compared to verifiable thrust by others at the 1 uN level

Can stiction explain the data runs since 2012? No, it only explains 1 uN and not higher levels of thrust or nonlinear variations in frequency.

I have no idea where this 1uN number comes from. I've been able to generate up to nearly 6uN of false positive thrust in the lab.

Did the Monomorphic simulation get to using active mass to produce relativistic internal changes from an electric pulse? No. Only Newtonian kinematics, resonance and stiction were required.

That's kind of the whole point. If the phenomenon can be simulated using Newtonian physics only through a heretofore unknown mechanism, then Occam's Razor would imply the more complicated theory is less likely to be true.   

Since the incremental build and test procedure used by Monomorphic claims stiction thrust, he has effectively staked out what can be described and acknowledged author as the designated Monomorphic Stiction Drive.

If you must call it something, call it the Monomorphic False-Positive Thrust Drive


Furthermore, there does not appear to be any accounting for the voltage to the 4th power seen since 2012 in numerous tests.

I think V4 will be seen as something akin to Ptolemaic Epicycles, where theory was fit to the observations, or coincidence that observations matched the more complicated theory.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Augmentor on 11/12/2018 01:11 am
Monomorphic,

I’m surprised. 1 uN was verified in 2016 by three experts: one lab each in Canada, Germany and Austria. It’s been published data for sometime.

The V^4 data is derived from Woodward’s calculation within GR. The theory suggested 3 or 4 in the exponent.  Over time the data runs gathered show progressive improvement in the exponent from closer to 3 to now 3.9. Coincidence is more likely than any other conjecture or guess.

Occam’s razor doesn’t prove anything and can be misleading as a result. It’s a choice of simplicity.

However, the Monomorphic Stiction Drive (MSD) does not disprove Mach effect Thruster. The MSD is a subset of Newtonian only resonant thrust in flat space.

David






Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/12/2018 12:56 pm
I’m surprised. 1 uN was verified in 2016 by three experts: one lab each in Canada, Germany and Austria. It’s been published data for sometime.

To my knowledge, 1uN has NOT been verified by three independent experts.

The Canadian, George Hathaway, said during the 2016 workshop that he saw something slightly above noise level, but to this day says that he never replicated Woodward's results.

The Germans, Tajmar's group, said they measured a tiny fraction of 1uN, but when he wrote his paper, he reported the results as inconclusive. And now Tajmar states that they have falsified Woodward's results.

The only "replication," if you can call it that, was Buldrini. He reported 0.15uN, not 1uN.

 So, there has not even been one independent replication of 1uN. In fact, the small magnitude of Buldrini's signal lends support to the theory that this is just a Newtonian artifact (slide 64 of my Estes Park 2018 presentation).

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 11/12/2018 04:56 pm
And now Tajmar states that they have falsified Woodward's results.

However, it is known Tajmar did not in fact attempt a duplication which could falsify Woodward's results.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: soms42 on 11/12/2018 08:15 pm
One of the major problems with proving or disproving the woodward-mach effect is that the used experimental devices operate in the noise-level.

Does anybody know if there have been attempts to increase the effect by making the device smaller?

E.g: rough estimation for decrease the size 10-fold would:

 * increase the resonance frequency by 10 ==> effect is 10^6 bigger.
 * reduce the energy fluctuation by 10^3 ==> effect 1000 times smaller.
 * reduce drive power by a factor 100 (would be 1000 for same frequency).

Hence the force is 1000 time bigger while the drive power is 100 times smaller.
Also: less power and smaller dimensions allow for continues operation because cooling can prevent overheating.

Looks pretty good to me, or am i missing something?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Augmentor on 11/12/2018 11:34 pm
One of the major problems with proving or disproving the woodward-mach effect is that the used experimental devices operate in the noise-level.

Does anybody know if there have been attempts to increase the effect by making the device smaller?

E.g: rough estimation for decrease the size 10-fold would:

 * increase the resonance frequency by 10 ==> effect is 10^6 bigger.
 * reduce the energy fluctuation by 10^3 ==> effect 1000 times smaller.
 * reduce drive power by a factor 100 (would be 1000 for same frequency).

Hence the force is 1000 time bigger while the drive power is 100 times smaller.
Also: less power and smaller dimensions allow for continues operation because cooling can prevent overheating.

Looks pretty good to me, or am i missing something?

A smaller device is possible by reducing the amount of active mass (PZT) in which case the trade off between volume decreasing and frequency rising is possible.

There is a large formula with numerous constants and variables that can be reduced to a two variable envelope, an oversimplification but a useful place to start. Force is a function of voltage and frequency, a power envelope.

F = f(V, f)

The first issues is the interaction between V and f. Change V and f changes; change f and V changes. Increase or decrease in frequency results in a change in voltage, an AC signal  over a DC base. Likewise, an increase in voltage produces a change in frequency. The V-f relationship needs work.

Nature scales in different ways. Machian force scales as V^3, perhaps as much as V^4. Why? Don’t know. But that is what the data suggests from curve fitting tests as early as 2012.

Also, Nature scales Mach effects by frequency, f^4 is considered to be rather solid, but data is required to verify this. So, we can modify the equation about to show scaling by changes in V and f to

F = f(V, f) = A (V^4) (f^4)

Where A are all the other constants and functions

Monomorphic has yet to provide a formula for the Stiction thruster so that a theoretical comparison could be performed.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 11/13/2018 12:01 am
Monomorphic has yet to provide a formula for the Stiction thruster so that a theoretical comparison could be performed.
Of course not, Monomorphic has not described a "stiction thruster."

The device described by Monomorphic (which is just a generic version of Woodward's device) produces an apparent displacement that incorrectly registers as a force on a torsional pendulum. The cause this is not "stiction," and it is not a thruster. There are obviously multiple parameters that affect the amount of displacement, and how much fake thrust this translates to depends on the overall setup.

Is this clear enough for you to stop misrepresenting the facts now?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Augmentor on 11/13/2018 03:28 am
Meberbs,

No active mass; no Mach effect thrust.

You misunderstand that this is not a generic version of MEGA. It’s only a partial build. Monomorphic has only produced a device or two that relies on stick-slip aka stiction to produce a measurable force. Technically, the device is nothing more than a forced, damped harmonic oscillator that due to stick-slip action produces thrust.
Of course, this is only the first half of a Machian thruster and lacks additional processes.

Can you do math? That might clear up some aspects of your insitance that an orange is an apple.

D
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 11/13/2018 05:43 am
Meberbs,

No active mass; no Mach effect thrust.

You misunderstand that this is not a generic version of MEGA. It’s only a partial build.
The details of the Mach effect are completely irrelevant to my recent posts, if you think your statement here has any relevance, you need to read my posts again.

Monomorphic has only produced a device or two that relies on stick-slip aka stiction to produce a measurable force. Technically, the device is nothing more than a forced, damped harmonic oscillator that due to stick-slip action produces thrust.
Of course, this is only the first half of a Machian thruster and lacks additional processes.
None of what you are saying about what Monomorphic is doing is accurate. It is not "stick-slip" action, which doesn't make sense in context. It is not something that produces useful thrust in any sense. It is a demonstration that devices like Woodward's can produce FALSE-POSITIVE signatures when placed on a torsional pendulum. The existence of a thrust signature despite no useful thrust being present is the whole point.

Can you do math? That might clear up some aspects of your insitance that an orange is an apple.
I can do math, but you are the one confusing apples and oranges.

Which of these points do you not understand?
-devices exist that can produce a signature on a torsional pendulum that looks like thrust, but is actually useless
-Monomorphic has demonstrated that one such device is a multi-body oscillator
-Monomorphic has shown that Woodward's device can act like such a multi-body oscillator
-The fake thrust signature this produces can be comparable to the forces claimed by Woodward to date, which invalidates Woodward's data until it can be re-analyzed or re-tested with this effect removed, or it is somehow shown that this effect is for some reason not present with the specific parameters Woodward used.
-or do you just not understand the basic concept of the existence of false positive test results?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: RERT on 11/13/2018 08:51 am
Monomorphic - do you have a torsion-beam/multipoint oscillator model which mimics the voltage-related thrust scaling reported for the Woodward Drives?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/13/2018 12:31 pm
Monomorphic - do you have a torsion-beam/multipoint oscillator model which mimics the voltage-related thrust scaling reported for the Woodward Drives?

Voltage scaling is all over the place with these oscillator devices as each one is different. I have been able to go from <0.5uN to nearly 6uN by using the standard voltage from a 25W stereo amplifier. Most of my tests have been in the 40V - 70V range while Woodward uses 200V.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: soms42 on 11/13/2018 02:34 pm
One of the major problems with proving or disproving the woodward-mach effect is that the used experimental devices operate in the noise-level.

Does anybody know if there have been attempts to increase the effect by making the device smaller?

E.g: rough estimation for decrease the size 10-fold would:

 * increase the resonance frequency by 10 ==> effect is 10^6 bigger.
 * reduce the energy fluctuation by 10^3 ==> effect 1000 times smaller.
 * reduce drive power by a factor 100 (would be 1000 for same frequency).

Hence the force is 1000 time bigger while the drive power is 100 times smaller.
Also: less power and smaller dimensions allow for continues operation because cooling can prevent overheating.

Looks pretty good to me, or am i missing something?

A smaller device is possible by reducing the amount of active mass (PZT) in which case the trade off between volume decreasing and frequency rising is possible.

There is a large formula with numerous constants and variables that can be reduced to a two variable envelope, an oversimplification but a useful place to start. Force is a function of voltage and frequency, a power envelope.

F = f(V, f)

The first issues is the interaction between V and f. Change V and f changes; change f and V changes. Increase or decrease in frequency results in a change in voltage, an AC signal  over a DC base. Likewise, an increase in voltage produces a change in frequency. The V-f relationship needs work.

Nature scales in different ways. Machian force scales as V^3, perhaps as much as V^4. Why? Don’t know. But that is what the data suggests from curve fitting tests as early as 2012.

Also, Nature scales Mach effects by frequency, f^4 is considered to be rather solid, but data is required to verify this. So, we can modify the equation about to show scaling by changes in V and f to

F = f(V, f) = A (V^4) (f^4)
I assume by V you mean the voltage. The safe fieldstrength for the used piezo type is about 2000V/mm (in the + direction). Lets stay on the safe side and use max 1000V/m: this still leaves some some space for keeping the voltage the same for smaller dimensional stacks, so i do not think this is a limitation.
Even better: the effect can be enhanced by more extreme control over the dielectric expansion/compression cycle.
Also: you do not need to have a multi-layer stack! That is just to make manufacturing easier and for scaling down the control voltage. Also some 'measurement' layers were added.

I did make an oversimplification: due to smaller dimensions the amplitude of the resonance will also be smaller.

This makes the force vs size dependence look like:

Force(size) = (1/size)^2

When:
frequency is a function of size
voltage can be kept the same because material limitation allow that.

But even when we take:

F = f(V, f) = A (V^4) (f^4)

And the voltage is scaled down with the size, then scaling down would: reduce the voltage and increase the frequency. The netto effect for the resulting force is zero, but the required drive-power is smaller and the possibilities for cooling are better ==> continuous operation will be possible.

So this is not as simple as it seems, and to me it still looks like scaling-down is beneficial.

Edit: i made a mistake. multiplication powers does of course not work this way.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Augmentor on 11/13/2018 03:36 pm
Meberbs...show your math.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Augmentor on 11/13/2018 04:17 pm
Soms42

The general assumption is that power input on RHS of equation is proportional to thrust output. In research, the efficiency ratio is typically measured in N/kWe for a particular fixed frequency. Most research is focus on simple harmonic oscillation to generate a constant wave using sine waves for mechanical oscillation to produce a required Mach effect condition of acceleration of the system.

Nomenclature for MEGA force in the generalized equation. The Principle Investigators have been focused on the exponents which may be fractional...V^3.9 ~= V^4

For now, I use a generalized form to focus on the power envelope at frequency. The blatant assumption that A is constant is a matter of convenience for now since V and f are quite dominant. Wringing the artifacts out begins with these two variables. However, within the constant A, there are subtle changes, potential artififacts, transients and other issues to be resolved that will decrease the accuracy and precision of force.

F = f(V, f) = A (V^4) (f^4)

F is force

f is frequency and considered to be a wave, a sine wave in particular

V is voltage

i is current but included in A since the current is assumed fixed aka constant current

T is temperature. In black body radiation, radiance is proportional to T^4

So we have a signal, f,  and power, V (* i)  where i is a constant leading. These two variable form the basis for envelope detection and envelope tracking. 

The control circuits are similar to that used in synthesizers or arbitrary waveform generators.

https://www.microwaves101.com/encyclopedias/envelope-tracking

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Envelope_detector

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Envelope_tracking

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthesizer#ADSR_envelope

 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 11/13/2018 04:20 pm
Meberbs...show your math.
Math for what?
I have made simple, logical statements which you are refusing to acknowledge.
Do you need me to state 6>1 explicitly?
Since you did not answer my questions, I assume the answer is no, you don't understand the basic concept of false positive data.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Augmentor on 11/13/2018 08:56 pm
Meberbs,

Where is the mass-spring model? Where is the torsion balance model? How are these two models related and coupled?

While we are at it, what artifacts In Monomorphics model have investigated, and how does that compare with the artifacts that Woodward et al have investigated, acknowledged, reduced, eliminate or filtered.

THe artifacts in Monomorphics system have not been fully wrung out. So the logic of a false positive being generated is presumptuous and at best a conjecture. I will acknowledge that Monomorphic gave an interim report and is continuing with additional experiments to address the issues of artifacts in an oscillating system with thrust being measured on a torsion balance. However, the conclusions are premature and resort to a working thesis, not logical conclusions.

The meberbs logic fails in rigorous review of the current status. Again, Monomorphic is continuing to research and provided valuable insights to simulation of systems and artifacts with propulsion from preliminary examination of a potential false positive.
 

For the rest of this entry, I’ll stipulate for discussion purposes that Monomorphic has demonstrated a forced, damped harmonic oscillator on a torsion-balance that produces a false positive.

Have all the artifacts in this build been removed to at least the rigor of a Mach effect thruster such as MEGA?

You may want to check if the presented data is from an anharmonic oscillator and determine if the waveform is sinusoidal, or a symmetric waveform such as square or triangle, or even asymmetric or plane old arbitrary.

You will need to show the math and physics. Artifacts of all sorts can generate false positives. So it’s important to look at the mathematical physics that would describe the Monomorphic data.

THe torsion balance is called into question as well. I believe Rodal looked into this at one point. So an analysis of the torsion balance natural frequency and contributions is in order.

While you are at it, check the test instrumentation.

The simulation software needs further investigation to determine if the right algorithms were used. I highly recommend the simulation be run on Solidworks and COMSOL.

The frequency response of the torsion pendulum is where I would look to determine accuracies especially wrt linear vs angular momentum at frequency. Where there is frequency coupling, there may be a resonance artifact. 

Do the math, meberbs. Open book.

You might start with a simple harmonic oscillator that is forced, damped, with high Q and frequency dependent. Address (or reference) both linear and angular momentum in the torsion pendulum.



 



Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/13/2018 10:36 pm
You will need to show the math and physics. Artifacts of all sorts can generate false positives. So it’s important to look at the mathematical physics that would describe the Monomorphic data.

To my knowledge, there isn't anyone on Woodward's team with experience in solving mathematically "stiff" equations (with the exception of Dr. Rodal).  They need more engineers with expertise in solving nonlinear dynamics problems numerically.   

The simulation software needs further investigation to determine if the right algorithms were used. I highly recommend the simulation be run on Solidworks and COMSOL.

Autodesk Inventor competes directly with SolidWorks. They do exactly the same things.  I do not believe there is a free learners license available for SolidWorks. Woodward's team is free to use SolidWorks, but don't expect others to so without specific reasons.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 11/14/2018 12:42 am
Meberbs,

Where is the mass-spring model? Where is the torsion balance model? How are these two models related and coupled?
Monomorphic is the one building the models, why are you addressing this question to me?

While we are at it, what artifacts In Monomorphics model have investigated, and how does that compare with the artifacts that Woodward et al have investigated, acknowledged, reduced, eliminate or filtered.
Monomorphic has investigated artifacts due to Newtonian forces in a multi-body oscillator. Woodward has not investigated these effects despite the fact that he is running tests on a multi-body oscillator, and claiming the results demonstrate new physics. In fact he has now denied that the artifacts exist when he has been presented with evidence that they do.

THe artifacts in Monomorphics system have not been fully wrung out. So the logic of a false positive being generated is presumptuous and at best a conjecture. I will acknowledge that Monomorphic gave an interim report and is continuing with additional experiments to address the issues of artifacts in an oscillating system with thrust being measured on a torsion balance. However, the conclusions are premature and resort to a working thesis, not logical conclusions.
There are both simulations and experiments that show this effect, calling it "at best conjecture" is simply false, and you should know that.

Have all the artifacts in this build been removed to at least the rigor of a Mach effect thruster such as MEGA?
No, Woodward has not removed such artifacts from his test results, which is why his test results are invalid.

You may want to check if the presented data is from an anharmonic oscillator and determine if the waveform is sinusoidal, or a symmetric waveform such as square or triangle, or even asymmetric or plane old arbitrary.

You will need to show the math and physics. Artifacts of all sorts can generate false positives. So it’s important to look at the mathematical physics that would describe the Monomorphic data.
Yes, all sorts of things can generate false positives, which is why Woodward's data has never been something trustworthy in my opinion. He clearly has no interest in eliminating false positives. Monomorphic on the other hand is simply demonstrating the existence of false positives. Even if Monomorphic's explanation for the existence of the false positive is wrong, and the experiment is showing a different false positive, that is still a false positive that Woodward needs to correct for. Claiming that the false positive is itself a false positive would not remove the issue (actually it makes it worse, since now the cause is unknown.)

THe torsion balance is called into question as well. I believe Rodal looked into this at one point. So an analysis of the torsion balance natural frequency and contributions is in order.

While you are at it, check the test instrumentation.
Again, why are you asking me these things, I don't have the test instrumentation in front of me, and ultimately it is Woodward that needs to do these things now.

The simulation software needs further investigation to determine if the right algorithms were used. I highly recommend the simulation be run on Solidworks and COMSOL.

Autodesk Inventor competes directly with SolidWorks. They do exactly the same things.  I do not believe there is a free learners license available for SolidWorks. Woodward's team is free to use SolidWorks, but don't expect others to so without specific reasons.
I fully agree with Monomorphic.

The frequency response of the torsion pendulum is where I would look to determine accuracies especially wrt linear vs angular momentum at frequency. Where there is frequency coupling, there may be a resonance artifact. 

Do the math, meberbs. Open book.

You might start with a simple harmonic oscillator that is forced, damped, with high Q and frequency dependent. Address (or reference) both linear and angular momentum in the torsion pendulum.
So the math you are asking me to do is a simplified version of what Monomorphic already did? That is clearly pointless for me to do, as I see no obvious issues with Monomorphic's results. If you disagree, you are free to do math to show it.

Here is some easier math for you to do first: How many of my questions from the end of this post (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1875416#msg1875416) have you answered? (hint, there are 5 bullet points, so the answer is in the range of 0-5)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob Woods on 11/14/2018 01:21 am
So, correct me if I'm wrong as the arguments seem to be circular, maybe even spherical.

1) Woodward & team measured displacement that they believe fits his predictions. They also have funding for more investigations.

2) Monomorphic has shown that there are mechanical means that can create similar displacement regardless of Mach effects.

3) The measurements occur either within the noise level or outside of the noise level, but attempts at reproduction by others has not supported a clear answer. Saying that, there are questions about the efficacy of testing done by Tajmar's team.

QED: More testing, improved test design and more data needed.


 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Augmentor on 11/14/2018 02:44 am
You will need to show the math and physics. Artifacts of all sorts can generate false positives. So it’s important to look at the mathematical physics that would describe the Monomorphic data.

To my knowledge, there isn't anyone on Woodward's team with experience in solving mathematically "stiff" equations (with the exception of Dr. Rodal).  They need more engineers with expertise in solving nonlinear dynamics problems numerically.

IMHO you underestimate Woodward’s team of physicists and engineers, and overestimate Engineer Rodal.

Perhaps you need a physicist or two.

The simulation software needs further investigation to determine if the right algorithms were used. I highly recommend the simulation be run on Solidworks and COMSOL.

[quote author=Augmentor link=topic=31037.msg1875580#msg1875580 date=1542146177
Autodesk Inventor competes directly with SolidWorks. They do exactly the same things.  I do not believe there is a free learners license available for SolidWorks. Woodward's team is free to use SolidWorks, but don't expect others to so without specific reasons.

Solidworks is used for many reasons, notably the files are upward compatible with COMSOL which is where the real physics analysis takes place.

I haven’t seen a peer-reviewed paper using Autodesk Inventor. However, there appears to be a huge amount of Solidworks and COMSOL papers. Furthermore, when Electromagnetics is a consideration, an additional program is required, EMS.

Obviously, there is a disconnect between the claims of false positive and simulation. Clearly, the simulation needs improvement to truly represent MEGA which you are already working on. Bravo!

And the MEGA folks need to work on doing their best to amplify the signal.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Augmentor on 11/14/2018 03:23 am
So, correct me if I'm wrong as the arguments seem to be circular, maybe even spherical.

1) Woodward & team measured displacement that they believe fits his predictions. They also have funding for more investigations.

2) Monomorphic has shown that there are mechanical means that can create similar displacement regardless of Mach effects.

3) The measurements occur either within the noise level or outside of the noise level, but attempts at reproduction by others has not supported a clear answer. Saying that, there are questions about the efficacy of testing done by Tajmar's team.

QED: More testing, improved test design and more data needed.

1) Per Drs. Woodward and Fearn, Mach effects are calculated from within General Relativity. So it’s old physics, an interesting niche in the corner of GR

2) Yes, using only a simulation that needs refining and inclusion, as well as addressing every other artifact that has been eliminated. And determine if the software simulation itself is not contributing artifacts.

3) At the present there is no definitive answer. On at least four continents,  experimenters are looking at their equipment, simulation and data as well as those outside these teams. Dr. Tajmar is testing with new equipment and new experimental setup, and improving the device under test (DUT).


Simulation needs to be improved and match the design/build of the Woodward team. Woodward’s team needs to amplify the signal.

Numerical Data is required with curve fitting to determine nonlinearities in the exponents used in the four major areas of

1. Theory, a calculation within GR

2. Experiment since nature will vote up or down.

3. Modeling which involves equations, and can be done with mechanical or electrical components.

4. Simulation which addresses the nuances of any device (MEGA), any measurement tool (torsion balance), and test equipment as well as experimental setup.

Simulation has been successfully used to accelerate development at least over the past 70 years. Claims to proving a negative fail at the logical level.

Proving a false positive ...well, like everything else...needs more work.

As to false positives, all the measurements are in the microNewton range.  One jump of a flea will produce a 10 uN thrust transient. Monomorphic’s simulation produces 5 uN. Woodward and at least two others produced 1 uN thrust. More power and more thrust is required to reduce the problematic issues of uN propulsion. One way out is amplify the thrust by a design/build that incorporates findings so far from all sources.

At least 100x the current thrust levels are needed to get out of the uN range where artifacts, false positives, simulations, and fleas reside.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 11/14/2018 06:36 am
IMHO you underestimate Woodward’s team of physicists and engineers, and overestimate Engineer Rodal.
Woodward has now repeatedly made mistakes in high school level physics. Who is being underestimated here?

Solidworks is used for many reasons, notably the files are upward compatible with COMSOL which is where the real physics analysis takes place.
This is completely irrelevant, and Autodesk has built in modelling and analysis so you don't have to switch software packages, and COMSOL can import files from a variety of industry standard formats, which include ones Autdesk can output.

I haven’t seen a peer-reviewed paper using Autodesk Inventor. However, there appears to be a huge amount of Solidworks and COMSOL papers. Furthermore, when Electromagnetics is a consideration, an additional program is required, EMS.
Autodesk is less widespread in usage, but it is the same basic technology in the background and just as good. Electromagnetics is unrelated to anything being discussed, are you just doing a gish gallop to distract from your lack of meaningful contributions?

Obviously, there is a disconnect between the claims of false positive and simulation.
You seem to have typo'd or something, there is no disconnect between the experiment and simulation that Monomorphic did.

1) Per Drs. Woodward and Fearn, Mach effects are calculated from within General Relativity. So it’s old physics, an interesting niche in the corner of GR
Except they aren't part of standard GR, and if Mach effects exist they are new physics. Also, even if they exist, based on the work by Rodal mentioned above, it is possible that Woodward's device still wouldn't work.

2) Yes, using only a simulation that needs refining and inclusion, as well as addressing every other artifact that has been eliminated. And determine if the software simulation itself is not contributing artifacts.
Could you please stop repeating things that are plainly false? Monomorphic did experiments to go along with sims. Also, while there is still more results to be gotten from sims, there is evidence that the sims are correct, and zero evidence of problems with the sims. The sims only use basic Newtonian physics, with nothing but the motion modeled, so there is no "every other artifact" to account for. It is Woodward who seems uninterested in removing artifacts from his experiments.

Simulation needs to be improved and match the design/build of the Woodward team. Woodward’s team needs to amplify the signal.
No, first Woodward needs to remove artifacts that Monomorphic has revealed through simulation and experiment.

Proving a false positive ...well, like everything else...needs more work.
Since you keep denying some of the work that has been done, it is not clear what more work is to be done once you account for the things you keep ignoring, and strip away your suggestions that do nothing but demonstrate that you know nothing about the tools involved. There is of course work for Woodward to do to show if there is anything left when the errors are removed. (And to that end Monomorphic is improving the simulation fidelity, to determine in this case what the exact expected effect is.)

At least 100x the current thrust levels are needed to get out of the uN range where artifacts, false positives, simulations, and fleas reside.
You seem to be assuming that there is any real thrust to be increased. If you don't leave room for the device to be proven wrong by careful experiment, then you are not doing science, you are promoting wasting time down a potentially endless hole of non-falsifiable claims.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: soms42 on 11/14/2018 10:13 am
@augmentor

Thanks for the explanation.
Most of this i already knew, i just do not agree with some of it.


Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: soms42 on 11/14/2018 10:24 am

Simulation needs to be improved and match the design/build of the Woodward team. Woodward’s team needs to amplify the signal.
No, first Woodward needs to remove artifacts that Monomorphic has revealed through simulation and experiment.


I belief a few of those concerns are already addressed: https://www.tsijournals.com/articles/experimental-tests-of-the-mach-effect-thruster.pdf

Also: the wavelength of 36kHz sound in aluminium is about 6300/36000=17cm. So a simulation with a vibrating  rigid arm longer than about 1/4 wavelength not really realistic. (assuming the balance is made of aluminium)

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/14/2018 11:46 am
I belief a few of those concerns are already addressed: https://www.tsijournals.com/articles/experimental-tests-of-the-mach-effect-thruster.pdf

We discussed "spurious electromechanical effects" during Woodward's rebuttal session at Estes Park. Almost all of his assumptions are incorrect. The accelerometer trace on page 203 is not harmonic, and it is clearly sawtooth, which means it is traveling faster one direction than the other. Then Woodward applies a DC voltage to the stack to look for thrust, but there wouldn't be a displacement without multi-body dynamics so this experiment is useless.

This is a long-time pattern for Woodward when someone raises a serious critique to his work. He concocts some irrelevant experiment that produces results he says are important and then claims victory. Rinse and repeat.   ::)

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: soms42 on 11/14/2018 12:56 pm
Then Woodward applies a DC voltage to the stack to look for thrust, but there wouldn't be a displacement without multi-body dynamics so this experiment is useless.

This is exactly what i would have done to address the concern that a center of mass displacement would give a spurious thrust signal. After all, a DC voltage also gives expansion/contraction in the piezo stack.
The only concern left is that i doubt that a dc voltage gives the same displacement as the same voltage (but now ac) at resonance frequency.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/14/2018 01:29 pm
This is exactly what i would have done to address the concern that a center of mass displacement would give a spurious thrust signal. After all, a DC voltage also gives expansion/contraction in the piezo stack.

The DC test is a static test, while the multi-body problem is dynamic due to the inertia of the separate moving parts. Instead of addressing the dynamic problem, Woodward deflects the question by running the static test. The DC test proves nothing concerning the multi-body dynamics artifact we are addressing here.

The only concern left is that i doubt that a dc voltage gives the same displacement as the same voltage (but now ac) at resonance frequency.

There is no way that they are the same because DC voltage is static, hence there is no inertia: the mass times the acceleration term is zero because there is no acceleration.  It is foolish to try to address a problem that is due to inertia, due to acceleration, by running a test at zero acceleration. 

Suppose someone crashes into the windshield upon applying the brakes suddenly to a car (the person crashes into the windshield as a separate mass in free flight due to inertia - a dynamic property) and Woodward says, okay I am going to disprove that you can crash into the windshield and separate from the car, by running a static test to show that you cannot crash into the windshield when applying the brakes to a car when not moving.

It proves nothing. The multi-body problem is due to different inertial forces of the separate masses, and hence it is a dynamic problem that can only be reproduced and tested under dynamic conditions.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: soms42 on 11/14/2018 05:57 pm
Quote
It proves nothing. The multi-body problem is due to different inertial forces of the separate masses, and hence it is a dynamic problem that can only be reproduced and tested under dynamic conditions.

I think we are talking about two different things here: i was talking about the static deviation (which will only give a temporary deviation. The duration depends on the time-constant and damping of the measurement arm).

If i understand correct you are talking about measurement errors due to vibrations in the arm. I agree, Woodward did not address those. The influence depends very much on how measurements are done.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/14/2018 08:16 pm
If i understand correct you are talking about measurement errors due to vibrations in the arm. I agree, Woodward did not address those. The influence depends very much on how measurements are done.

It is not simply an issue of "vibrations in the arm."  Instead it is an issue of separate multi-body dynamics with the components of the device ceasing to act as a single rigid body (as Woodward assumes).  This re-positions the location of the center of mass with respect to the geometry. Since the center of mass must remain stationary (there is no propulsion), the geometry shifts a little.

This is the same mistake that Woodward is making. He is now looking for a vibrometer to prove that there are no vibrations in the arms of the pendulum. However, since what is being measured is due to multi-body dynamics, and not simply "vibrations," the vibrometer experiment will not prove anything.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: soms42 on 11/15/2018 11:13 am
If i understand correct you are talking about measurement errors due to vibrations in the arm. I agree, Woodward did not address those. The influence depends very much on how measurements are done.

It is not simply an issue of "vibrations in the arm."  Instead it is an issue of separate multi-body dynamics with the components of the device ceasing to act as a single rigid body (as Woodward assumes).  This re-positions the location of the center of mass with respect to the geometry. Since the center of mass must remain stationary (there is no propulsion), the geometry shifts a little.

There is the 'push' of the flex-bearing, always pointing to the start position... That will take some time though.

Quote
This is the same mistake that Woodward is making. He is now looking for a vibrometer to prove that there are no vibrations in the arms of the pendulum. However, since what is being measured is due to multi-body dynamics, and not simply "vibrations," the vibrometer experiment will not prove anything.

A piezo element with a small weight on top of it can nicely suffice as very sensitive vibration detectors (very cheap as well). Simply mounting (glue) a number of them on the arm would show how the arm vibrates.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 11/15/2018 12:30 pm
I don't think there was a picture taken of the contents of the box that was sent to Tajmar, so the whereabouts of the transformer are unknown. ...

It turns out Woodward uses a sample collection rate of 2Khz, while Tajmar's group samples at 2Mhz.

These kinds of things do not encourage the casual reader to believe in the efficacy of the experimental teams.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/15/2018 12:31 pm
A piezo element with a small weight on top of it can nicely suffice as very sensitive vibration detectors (very cheap as well). Simply mounting (glue) a number of them on the arm would show how the arm vibrates.

I don't see what the vibrometer is supposed to detect that the optical sensor can't. 

My recommendation at the Estes Park workshop was some kind of high resolution LIDAR device that can "watch" all of the components at once. That way any multi-body dynamics would be captured in the data. However, I am not sure such a sensitive (nano-meter resolution with KHz sample rates) LIDAR sensor even exists. It might be better to simply use multiple optical sensors.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Augmentor on 11/15/2018 09:10 pm
Motion Capture is a common practice in movie special effects. All the component surfaces can be captured and can be analyzed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_capture

High speed cameras may be required.

While plausible, feasibility is driven by time, cost and other priorities as well as the quality of the data.



Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: InventIT on 11/16/2018 03:23 am
Mach Effect Propulsion at 60 millinewtons per kilowatt.
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/09/mach-effect-propulsion-now-at-60-millinewtons-per-kilowatt.html
We will hopefully get confirmation of thrust after Dr Heidi Fearn finishes testing a device with Prof Martin Tajmar at the facility in Dresden over Christmas.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/16/2018 12:45 pm
We will hopefully get confirmation of thrust after Dr Heidi Fearn finishes testing a device with Prof Martin Tajmar at the facility in Dresden over Christmas.

Confirmation of a false-positive signal is not confirmation of real thrust.   
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: soms42 on 11/17/2018 08:41 am
Checking functioning of a piezo stack:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkpB2zvZuYc

If i remember correct: the copy of the MET that Tajmar received had a lot of resonance frequencies...
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Augmentor on 11/17/2018 01:53 pm
We will hopefully get confirmation of thrust after Dr Heidi Fearn finishes testing a device with Prof Martin Tajmar at the facility in Dresden over Christmas.

Confirmation of a false-positive signal is not confirmation of real thrust.

Especially when the false positive is in the simulation.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/17/2018 02:35 pm
Especially when the false positive is in the simulation.

Especially when the simulation shows the original signal is likely a false-positive. FTFY
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Augmentor on 11/17/2018 03:03 pm
Correlation does not mean causation.

Do you believe you have falsified published  MEGA results to date? Future results?

What is your confidence level? 10,50,90?

Has the simulation been vetted of errors and artifacts?





Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 11/17/2018 04:21 pm
Honestly, I don't see how this false positive explanation makes any sense.

You stated that:

Quote
Since the center of mass must remain stationary (there is no propulsion), the geometry shifts a little.

For steady displacements this is only correct as long as the torsion pendulum/balance behaves like a pivoted beam, that is, if the torque exerted by the cable/bearing is numerically much smaller than the moment of inertia of the balance beam.

In the Bull's engine case a regular gravity string pendulum is used, which exerts a restoring torque depending on the position of the center of mass of the system, usually assumed to coincide with the attached object center of mass. Since the center of mass of the system doesn't move relative to the laboratory, there is no restoring torque exerted, and the change of the CoM relative to the box reflects in a deflected position of the pendulum.


The situation is different with a properly calibrated torsion pendulum/thrust balance, because the restoring torque is exerted proportionally to the beam angle of displacement, which doesn't have necessarily to coincide with the system center of mass. Said otherwise, putting a Bull's engine on such balance would not produce a steady deflection, with the exception of a small transient.

This is also one of the points that Woodward was making in the message you posted, which you seem to have misconstrued. He was not stating that it is impossible to fool ANY thrust balance in this way or that only real thrust will result in a displacement of the beam, but rather that a properly calibrated balance (like the one he has built, he assumes), regardless from the movements of the masses inside the Faraday cage, cannot show a steady displacement of the beam. I don't see any faulty reasoning in this.


Before someone reminds me of the experiments Monomorphic did with his system and how they agree with his simulations, I say that I don't find this especially problematic for the the points I've made.

Monomorphic' simulations are executed with the assumption of having the device run on a flat surface with no drag, which is the same of having the device attached to the extremity of a pivoted beam able to freely rotate around a central axis.

The experiments agree because the conditions assumed during the simulations are met: the torsion pendulum Monomorphic is using behaves like a pivoted beam, due to the fact that the restoring torque provided by the piano wire (half of the one provided by the couple of bearings Woodward is using, if I'm reading the data in the presentation correctly) is not sufficient to push the beam back into initial position fast enough.
The added masses of the structure, the isolation material, the shakers and the paddle immersed in oil on the opposite end result in a quite non-negligible moment of inertia, in my opinion.
The end result is that just like with the Bull's engine the beam moves so that the average position of the CoM doesn't change in the lab reference frame.

Additionally, the shakers frequency is quite low, so there might be a near resonance situation, considering the bulkiness of the apparatus, conceived to be used with the emdrive.

For the same reason, I don't think "Prediction 2" at the end of the presentation makes any sense, since in that case you are openly using a simple pivoted beam. If it is part of your step-by-step process of building a progressively more accurate simulation it shoudn't be considered a final prediction.

There's also the issue that, while you are talking about the CoM changing inside the box, all you have shown in your presentation are the displacement of certain masses of the multi-body system, m3 and m4. There's no indication how the CoM moves relative to the Faraday's cage; as far as one could tell it might get displaced in a completely different way or even stay putted.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/17/2018 06:21 pm
He was not stating that it is impossible to fool ANY thrust balance in this way or that only real thrust will result in a displacement of the beam, but rather that a properly calibrated balance (like the one he has built, he assumes), regardless from the movements of the masses inside the Faraday cage, cannot show a steady displacement of the beam. I don't see any faulty reasoning in this.

The Fullerton balance is calibrated using electrostatic coils. How is that supposed to prevent false-positives from multi-body dynamics? Just claiming that something is "properly calibrated" and therefore is not susceptible to false-positives, is not very convincing.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/17/2018 06:26 pm
Do you believe you have falsified published  MEGA results to date? Future results?

What is your confidence level? 10,50,90?

Has the simulation been vetted of errors and artifacts?

I think the published MEGA results are extremely suspect and most likely false-positive.

My confidence level is >90

My understanding is that Tajmar's team was able to open and run my simulations. According to Tajmar from a few days ago, they are "with full speed on that topic." 

It is just a matter of time before more simulations are published from independent labs.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 11/17/2018 06:59 pm
This is also one of the points that Woodward was making in the message you posted, which you seem to have misconstrued. He was not stating that it is impossible to fool ANY thrust balance in this way or that only real thrust will result in a displacement of the beam, but rather that a properly calibrated balance (like the one he has built, he assumes), regardless from the movements of the masses inside the Faraday cage, cannot show a steady displacement of the beam. I don't see any faulty reasoning in this.

The Fullerton balance is calibrated using electrostatic coils. How is that supposed to prevent false-positives from multi-body dynamics? Just claiming that something is "properly calibrated" and therefore is not susceptible to false-positives, is not very convincing.


With "calibrated" I mean a balance that does not behave like a pivoted beam, that is one with sufficient high restoring torque in relation to the the balance beam moment of inertia and of course to the expected thrust, if any; it should also not undergo excitation of any kind at a frequency close to resonance.

I'm pretty sure Woodward balance is not excited close to resonance, and that the restoring torque is of proper magnitude for the balance beams and loads. I'm of the opposite opinion regarding your system.

I encourage you to read the whole comment (and my previous one), in case you haven't.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/17/2018 07:33 pm
With "calibrated" I mean a balance that does not behave like a pivoted beam, that is one with sufficient high restoring torque in relation to the the balance beam moment of inertia and of course to the expected thrust, if any; it should also not undergo excitation at a frequency of any kind close to resonance.

I'm pretty sure Woodward balance is not excited close to resonance, and that the restoring torque is of proper magnitude for the balance beams and loads. I'm of the opposite opinion regarding your system.

Okay, I think a better term may be "optimized."  The force from the PZT actuator is vastly more than the spring stiffness (what you call restoring torque) of the central bearings in any balance that I know of.  The central bearings do not "restore" as you put it, but act as another spring in the system. Without the damping, the balance would swing back and forth harmonically over a period of ~6 seconds for a long time. I just don't see how that makes much of a difference. Are you saying that because the natural frequency of my pendulum is ~40 seconds, while Woodward's is ~6 seconds that this somehow makes his invulnerable to false-positives from multi-body dynamics? 

The biggest difference is that I do not have a bottom bearing that will constrain the angular movement to one degree of freedom. This makes a little wobble in the data since there is a small twist from the damping fluid arm being on one side and below. My position is this is small and not the major contributing factor to the false-positives produced. Since I am finished testing the Emdrive, I have been planning on making some changes to my torsion pendulum to use the exact same flexure bearings as Woodward (which I have purchased), but I think I will wait until more simulations come out that prove my point so I am not wasting my time. 

I have run tests at all kinds of frequencies all the way up to 5Khz with the same results. The only difference is that as the frequency increases, the magnitude of the signal becomes very small. That is the nature of the voice-coil actuators I am using, unfortunately - the higher the frequency, the shorter the stroke. So I typically run the tests at fairly low frequency as that produces a signal that I can see on the screen without having to take the data into another program and zoom in.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 11/17/2018 09:11 pm
Okay, I think a better term may be "optimized."  The force from the PZT actuator is vastly more than the spring stiffness (what you call restoring torque) of the central bearings in any balance that I know of.  The central bearings do not "restore" as you put it, but act as another spring in the system. Without the damping, the balance would swing back and forth harmonically over a period of ~6 seconds for a long time.

I call it "restoring torque" because it resets the beam back to "position 0" when it is unexcited. The bearing is not there only for damping.

The difference in magnitude between the internal forces used to reshuffle the content of the Faraday's cage and the maximum torque the bearing can exert doesn't matter, as long as those internal forces don't manage to push on something external to te cage and beam and create a torque, or, putted differently, if those internal forces become somehow external.

I don't think that it is correct to consider the central bearing as an additional spring in the multi-body system, because contrary to all the other parts which are contained inside the cage, isolated and hanging at the extremity of the beam, the bearing connects the cage with the fixed ground.

In your simulation you have shown how the masses m3/m4 get displaced while the device is running on a flat surface with no drag, not how the CoM gets displaced relative to the cage (maybe you assumed its displacement follows the same trend? It doesn't look that clear to me).
If for simplicity we assume that the CoM does move like m3/m4, then ,during the arbitrary long periods between the initial and final spike transient (the steady part of the signal), when the masses m3/m4 are on average constantly displaced, the bearing will reset to position 0 and there will be no signal detected.

The balance is sensitive to transient internal accelerations of the CoM of the cage content, but once the CoM assumes its new average position relative to the cage the beam will also be in the position 0 on average.

 
I just don't see how that makes much of a difference. Are you saying that because the natural frequency of my pendulum is ~40 seconds, while Woodward's is ~6 seconds that this somehow makes his invulnerable to false-positives from multi-body dynamics?

I'm saying that multi-body dynamics of the contents of the cage cannot explain a steady deflection of the beam, unless the beam is simply pivoted.

Woodward's balance is not immune to false positives of course, but this mechanism can only work if you are in a "pivoted beam/ flat surface with no drag" situation, and I see no evidence for this to be the case with Woodward setup.
A balance with longer natural frequency, related to the moment of inertia, together with a lower restoring torque can end up achieving this more easily.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/18/2018 12:40 am
I now have the final angular degree of freedom working in the simulation, which is the central torsional bearing. As expected, if the spring stiffness is very small, the false-positive signal is hardly influenced. As the spring stiffness is increased, the signal becomes more distorted and chaotic.  :D
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 11/18/2018 01:19 am
To me it looks like inventor is artificially keeping the center of mass of the simulated drive in place, like if there was an external force blocking the device. Check out your constraints.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/18/2018 09:27 am
To me it looks like inventor is artificially keeping the center of mass of the simulated drive in place, like if there was an external force blocking the device. Check out your constraints.

There is nothing wrong with the constraints. These multi-body systems move in counterintuitive ways so it is normal that you may find it difficult to follow. I would suggest that you download Inventor, since there is a free learners license available, and play around with it. I will publish the files and anyone is free to look for problems. That would be better than trying to guess based on images.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 11/18/2018 11:26 am
To me it looks like inventor is artificially keeping the center of mass of the simulated drive in place, like if there was an external force blocking the device. Check out your constraints.
There is nothing wrong with the constraints. These multi-body systems move in counterintuitive ways so it is normal that you may find it difficult to follow. I would suggest that you download Inventor, since there is a free learners license available, and play around with it. I will publish the files and anyone is free to look for problems. That would be better than trying to guess based on images.

It would be great to see these files.
I'm pointing to the constraints because, at least to me, it looks like there's something deeply unphysical with this result; I would expect this if the the drive or even just one part of it was grounded together with the central pivot.

If you have built this new simulation on top of the old one it's very much possible that Inventor automatically grounded it if you didn't specify otherwise. Don't know if you are aware of this.

https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/inventor-products/getting-started/caas/CloudHelp/cloudhelp/2014/ENU/Inventor/files/GUID-6D86BBDF-BA42-4898-92E6-1676BD7C02BD-htm.html (https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/inventor-products/getting-started/caas/CloudHelp/cloudhelp/2014/ENU/Inventor/files/GUID-6D86BBDF-BA42-4898-92E6-1676BD7C02BD-htm.html)

Quote
Autodesk Inventor always grounds the first part placed into an assembly to provide a fixed, foundational part to which you can constrain other parts.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/18/2018 12:33 pm
If you have built this new simulation on top of the old one it's very much possible that Inventor automatically grounded it if you didn't specify otherwise. Don't know if you are aware of this.

That is from 2014. Inventor no longer grounds the first object placed in the assembly. Grounded parts have to be specified manually. The only part grounded in the new simulation is the central pivot - as it should be. No other parts are grounded. Grounded parts cannot move, so the sim wouldn't work the same if any other parts are grounded.

It is interesting to see the responses of different people. Some can tell right away from the sims that it is obviously a trick, while others find it so counterintuitive as to defy reality. Multi-body dynamics are not intuitive!  :o
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 11/18/2018 12:46 pm
That is from 2014. Inventor no longer grounds the first object placed in the assembly. Grounded parts have to be specified manually.

It appears Inventor 2019 behaves in just the same way.

https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/inventor-products/getting-started/caas/CloudHelp/cloudhelp/2019/ENU/Inventor-Help/files/GUID-2E0B9110-BBAE-482B-A9AF-953BC40E8F2A-htm.html?st=grounded (https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/inventor-products/getting-started/caas/CloudHelp/cloudhelp/2019/ENU/Inventor-Help/files/GUID-2E0B9110-BBAE-482B-A9AF-953BC40E8F2A-htm.html?st=grounded)

Quote
Choose a fundamental part or subassembly, such as a frame or base plate, to be the first component in an assembly. Except for the first placed component, all placed components are unconstrained and ungrounded. [..] The first component you place in an assembly is automatically grounded.


Grounded parts cannot move, so the sim wouldn't work the same if any other parts are grounded.

The simulation could work just fine if, in addition to the central pivot, one of the masses of the multi-body drive (excluding the L-bracket/m3) was fixed. All the other masses would just move around it.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/18/2018 01:19 pm
The simulation could work just fine if, in addition to the central pivot, one of the masses of the multi-body drive (excluding the L-bracket/m3) was fixed. All the other masses would just move around it.

The only component grounded is the central pivot.  All other components move.  If any other components were grounded, that would be a huge obvious error, but it is NOT the case. It is a simple thing to check.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 11/18/2018 02:16 pm
Sorry, but I find this result very suspicious.

I'm looking specifically at the active Spring/Damper/Jack joint representing the PZT stack.
It looks like it is a joint that inserts a force between two components, and while you can specify the spring characteristics like the stiffness, free length, wire radius, radius and number of turns, the spring itself has no mass ( previously I was considering the sping as one of the masses of the system)

https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/inventor-products/learn-explore/caas/CloudHelp/cloudhelp/2014/ENU/Inventor/files/GUID-24E27706 (https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/inventor-products/learn-explore/caas/CloudHelp/cloudhelp/2014/ENU/Inventor/files/GUID-24E27706)

That's hardly correct in the situation we are trying to study.
I'm under the impression that, since it is not a fully physical part, it is this spring joint that is "grounded": it actively exerts forces on both the brass and end cap, but its position (the coordinates of its "virtual" center of mass) stays the same.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/18/2018 02:28 pm
I'm under the impression that, since it is not a fully physical part, it is this spring joint that is "grounded": it actively exerts forces on both the brass and end cap, but its position stays the same.

The spring/dampers are free to move. They are not grounded. That would cause all kinds of problems.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 11/18/2018 03:46 pm
The spring/dampers are free to move. They are not grounded. That would cause all kinds of problems.

Since the springs are joints and not physical parts with mass (which is a little problematic for this specific case), they of course cannot be "grounded".

However, the PZT-spring is the active driver of the oscillations and while its endings can move indipendently from one another, the whole spring cannot "slide" along the central axis on which it is defined unless its ends do the same, moving together in whatever direction  of space.

This is what it would be needed to achieve, in reality, a real displacement of the beam and the device, and it does require an external force.

But according to your own presentation, the reaction mass and the end cap move quite symmetrically (slide 52) around their initial positions; of course the amplitude is different, due to the differences between the reaction and endcap masses, but the point is that nowhere the two move in the same direction. Since they represent the ends of the spring there's no sliding (the end cap receives also a contribution from the L-bracket in the front, but I'm only looking at the effect of the PZT-spring).

The PZT-spring is effectively fixed. Its ends move and extend of different amounts during a cycle, but overall it remains in the same position.
The animation you provided in the same presentation confirms that.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/18/2018 04:22 pm
It may not be widely known, but John E. Brandenburg was hired recently to join Woodward's team. Brandenburg published a book several years ago which claims there was a Martian thermonuclear holocaust some 300 million years ago. He supports these claims with images of the face on Mars, among other things.

Brandenburg has now sent out to a few dozen people a risk benefit analysis titled: Risk-Benefit analysis of the MEGA project in the Context of the Oumuamau Encounter

It is full of some seriously "off-the-deep-end" stuff, but can be summarized with the following snippet:

"I am now convinced , based on the Spitzer and other data, that Oumuamua is most likely an interstellar probe sent to scout the Earth and its civilization.  To conclude otherwise is to place the Earth and its inhabitants at great risk.  How do we respond to this situation of great risk? We undertake to expand our space capabilities , particularly in the areas of space propulsion,  power and weaponry.  Benefit is the probability of an event weighted by the positive consequences if the event occurs.  The MEGA project , even if it probability of success ( at least in some minds) is low,  will have great potential benefits in this Oumuamua situation and will help mitigate risk."
John E. Brandenburg, 2018

Brandenburg goes on to say that people spending time and energy trying to debunk the MEGA results should find something else to work on and that little is lost if the MEGA device turns out to be bunk science. He believes that much will be lost if the project is killed before it is finished.

Do these kinds of arguments made by team members help or hinder the project?

What is meant by finishing the project?

If I am to look at Woodward's published work to date, the project will be finished once there is a 0.4c interstellar spaceship on its way to Proxima Centauri.

Realistically though, will the project be finished when 100uN of signal is achieved? Is the project finished when the device is tested on a frictionless surface and it just sits there and wiggles?

I'm just not clear what the end-game is for Woodward and emails like this from team members do not inspire more confidence.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 11/18/2018 07:20 pm
Realistically though, will the project be finished when 100uN of signal is achieved? Is the project finished when the device is tested on a frictionless surface and it just sits there and wiggles?
In my opinion, this is exactly the right question, and one that it seems most proponents of things like this refuse to consider. What would it take for them to decide the drive doesn't work. If they refuse to even consider that possibility, then how can you be sure they are actually running a good experiment, and not blinding themselves to errors, or making up excuses for any null result.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 11/20/2018 12:07 am
It may not be widely known, but John E. Brandenburg was hired recently to join Woodward's team. Brandenburg published a book several years ago which claims there was a Martian thermonuclear holocaust some 300 million years ago. He supports these claims with images of the face on Mars, among other things.

Brandenburg has now sent out to a few dozen people a risk benefit analysis titled: Risk-Benefit analysis of the MEGA project in the Context of the Oumuamau Encounter

It is full of some seriously "off-the-deep-end" stuff, but can be summarized with the following snippet:

"I am now convinced , based on the Spitzer and other data, that Oumuamua is most likely an interstellar probe sent to scout the Earth and its civilization.  To conclude otherwise is to place the Earth and its inhabitants at great risk.  How do we respond to this situation of great risk? We undertake to expand our space capabilities , particularly in the areas of space propulsion,  power and weaponry.  Benefit is the probability of an event weighted by the positive consequences if the event occurs.  The MEGA project , even if it probability of success ( at least in some minds) is low,  will have great potential benefits in this Oumuamua situation and will help mitigate risk."
John E. Brandenburg, 2018

Brandenburg goes on to say that people spending time and energy trying to debunk the MEGA results should find something else to work on and that little is lost if the MEGA device turns out to be bunk science. He believes that much will be lost if the project is killed before it is finished.

Do these kinds of arguments made by team members help or hinder the project?

What is meant by finishing the project?

If I am to look at Woodward's published work to date, the project will be finished once there is a 0.4c interstellar spaceship on its way to Proxima Centauri.

Realistically though, will the project be finished when 100uN of signal is achieved? Is the project finished when the device is tested on a frictionless surface and it just sits there and wiggles?

I'm just not clear what the end-game is for Woodward and emails like this from team members do not inspire more confidence.

It will never be  a finished project in your eyes, because you confabulate the idea your simulations to date call  his results into question.  You probably will not at first take, accept him floating into a room on a chair with no support other than his work.

If you will not accept a 10mN signal which is quite within the range of the scale to resolve with very high reliability, why would you accept a 60uN or even mention of 100uN with no particularly greater reliability?

" Instead it is an issue of separate multi-body dynamics with the components of the device ceasing to act as a single rigid body (as Woodward assumes). "

No it's not, because he's not measuring any single component of the drive, but the net displacement of the system.  Among other things, a laser light source on the wire swinging it's beam across a scale.

Not only has Woodward taken great pains to show false positives are not present, you are busily inventing "false positives" which his actual system cannot create in the first place.

" Since the center of mass must remain stationary (there is no propulsion), the geometry shifts a little. "  <--  Which could produce no net torque over many seconds time, and that is what his balance measures.  You are claiming, are you not, the forces involved are so great the clamping force of the structural components is overcome and they stretch elastically, permitting a displacement of the centroids of the components with respect to each other, the displacement of one is measured, not of the overall centroid of the assembly?  Such stretching and relaxation could only take place at the frequency imposed, not the far longer pulse period measured.  If you think other wise, what degree of stretching is required of the elements being stretched?  Are they heating up as such mechanical work demands?

You have not nearly shown in a mass energy balance for every component involved, that your concerns even pass the laugh test.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 11/20/2018 12:35 am
The central bearings do not "restore" as you put it, but act as another spring in the system.

Exactly, a spring opposing the net displacement of the MET which overcomes inertia of the device quite promptly when it is switched off, returning it to it's original position.  If what you propose is correct, then the "thrust" signature of the MET would be an "N" and not a square wave corresponding to the "on" pulse of the device.

It is however, such a square wave.

Try to think clearly.  If the displacement measured is a false positive caused as you say, the centroid of the several components does not change with respect to each other in sum, but the centroid of the component the displacement sensor is mounted on does change, it primarily pivots around the axis of the bearing, the equivalent of a beam mounted on one end about which it can pivot and the other end given a small shove normal to the axis of the bearing.  This would be a prompt rising edge to the displacement measured.  The bearing then produces a restoring force which moves the center of the whole suspended system against the measured displacement.  This damps out as would any other impulse to the system, while the device is running and the bearing is in a damped relaxed state, the centroid of the whole assembly must be displaced from it's original position with respect to the bearing or the bearing is moving until all flexural forces are damped (this would be seen in the displacement signal).  When it is shut off, the centroid of the assembly must return to its original relationship to the mounting of the bearing, because no energy is then vibrating it's components into a new, energized displacement with respect to each other.  This is seen in the displacement sensor as a falling "below" it's original displacement. An "N" shape to the displacement.

Not a square wave.

Where is you discussion or knowledge of the time constants of the system with respects to this which must at some set of competing rates occur?

Or are you claiming you've disproved Hooke as well as Einstein?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 11/20/2018 12:38 am
In my opinion, this is exactly the right question, and one that it seems most proponents of things like this refuse to consider. What would it take for them to decide the drive doesn't work.


That's simple, Meberbs, someone actually faithfully replicating the work and showing a null result.  So far, everyone actually duplicating the work, duplicates the result.

Tajmar as yet has yet in fact to attempt  it.  Fearn and Woodward give a null result from Tajmar their blessing, that would be worthwhile.  But cooking components and leaving out bits doesn't cut it, and should not.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 11/20/2018 06:02 am
In my opinion, this is exactly the right question, and one that it seems most proponents of things like this refuse to consider. What would it take for them to decide the drive doesn't work.


That's simple, Meberbs, someone actually faithfully replicating the work and showing a null result.  So far, everyone actually duplicating the work, duplicates the result.

Tajmar as yet has yet in fact to attempt  it.  Fearn and Woodward give a null result from Tajmar their blessing, that would be worthwhile.  But cooking components and leaving out bits doesn't cut it, and should not.
No one has duplicated the results that Woodward has claimed. Tajmar did attempt a faithful replication, and the available evidence is not enough to determine where the mistake or miscommunication was and certainly not enough to claim intent.

Based on Woodward's behavior he will never give a null result his blessing. There will always be some new excuse that can be made up to claim it was done wrong. Especially if there is a flaw in Woodward's experiments he can just point to any correction of that problem as destroying the effect.

I know you have been around long enough to be familiar with Monomorphic's work, so your tirade against him makes no sense. The difference between what he has said and the junk you put in his mouth is doubting something because of finding an error source comparable to the signal and doubting for no reason.

Woodward's response to Monomorphic indicates no interest in removing false positives. Meanwhile your claims that Monomorphic is wrong makes it seem like you have not actually read what Monomorphic has said since your explanation ignores the results presented.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 11/20/2018 12:23 pm
In my opinion, this is exactly the right question, and one that it seems most proponents of things like this refuse to consider. What would it take for them to decide the drive doesn't work.


That's simple, Meberbs, someone actually faithfully replicating the work and showing a null result.  So far, everyone actually duplicating the work, duplicates the result.

Tajmar as yet has yet in fact to attempt  it.  Fearn and Woodward give a null result from Tajmar their blessing, that would be worthwhile.  But cooking components and leaving out bits doesn't cut it, and should not.
No one has duplicated the results that Woodward has claimed.

Yes, they have.  Your bare assertion to the contrary has no more relevance than your insistence all signals seen to date are too small to be dispositive.

Tajmar did attempt a faithful replication, and the available evidence is not enough to determine where the mistake or miscommunication was and certainly not enough to claim intent.

No, he obviously did not.  I have never claimed to know what he thought he was doing, but between not hooking everything needed and supplied, and overvoltaging the device, he certainly did not attempt a replication faithfully.  At best he did so haphazardly.


Based on Woodward's behavior he will never give a null result his blessing.

Every time someone has claimed to have genuinely attempted a replication and found a null result, he has been able to show how no, they have not.  This is not the same as what you claim.

There will always be some new excuse that can be made up to claim it was done wrong. Especially if there is a flaw in Woodward's experiments he can just point to any correction of that problem as destroying the effect.

The reality is he's been able to show the flaw is in the other's work, from the Oak Ridge stupidity to Tajmar's cooking the sample device.   Again, this confounds your statements.

I know you have been around long enough to be familiar with Monomorphic's work, so your tirade against him makes no sense.

Other than showing he hasn't even thought through what the consequences of his claims are.


The difference between what he has said and the junk you put in his mouth is doubting something because of finding an error source comparable to the signal and doubting for no reason.

I have put nothing in his mouth.  I have merely taken what he claims he has shown and proven there is no possibility of it replicating the signal produced by Woodward and duplicated by others.  What Monomorphic claims is happening must produce an N shaped displacement, at the least a rising and falling edge, it can not produce a square wave.

Woodward's response to Monomorphic indicates no interest in removing false positives.

Monomorphic doesn't have a false positive.

Meanwhile your claims that Monomorphic is wrong makes it seem like you have not actually read what Monomorphic has said since your explanation ignores the results presented.

Oh I've read it.  It falls into the category of work described by Don Lancaster as, "not even wrong".
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 11/20/2018 12:33 pm
Monomorphic I will try again, being as precise as I possibly can.

Your claim is that the dynamic response of the assembly to the power signal imposed, causes the net movement of the centers of mass of the several components with respect to each other without changing the overall center of the mass of the assembly.

Is that a fair statement as far as it goes?

The movement of the the center of mass of the component which has the displacement sensor attached about the center of mass of the assembly is seen as a "false positive".

Is that a fair statement as far as it goes?


Praytell, in this thread of 83 pages, provide a link to what you think is the most complete and concise description of your work, or to the first post in a string of them you think is definitive.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/20/2018 01:12 pm
Your claim is that the dynamic response of the assembly to the power signal imposed, causes the net movement of the centers of mass of the several components with respect to each other without changing the overall center of the mass of the assembly.

The movement of the the center of mass of the component which has the displacement sensor attached about the center of mass of the assembly is seen as a "false positive".

Praytell, in this thread of 83 pages, provide a link to what you think is the most complete and concise description of your work, or to the first post in a string of them you think is definitive.
"Due to the asymmetric motion inside the box, the center of mass of the box and its contents shifts relative to the box. But the center of mass must still remain where it was before (relative to the laboratory). So the box moves aside, while its center of mass stays put.

Newton's laws are working properly, as they always do."

I have placed a copy of the presentation I gave at the Estes Park Advanced Propulsion Workshop on google drive. That should bring you up to speed. Make sure you download and play from your computer so you can see the movies on slides 6, 38, 40, 42, 45, 48, & 64:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1YsxHFo-G5iARPtx_FeGQ641-3ygy6umj

The first half is on the Emdrive experiments that I was working on that came up negative for thrust, so the mach effect stuff starts on slide 32.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/20/2018 01:29 pm
It will never be  a finished project in your eyes, because you confabulate the idea your simulations to date call  his results into question.  You probably will not at first take, accept him floating into a room on a chair with no support other than his work.

This is unfair and insulting. Experiments that would be much more convincing than the torsion balance have been suggested. Woodward has so far resisted running those experiments.

Thankfully we have teams like TU Dresden who are building a frictionless rotary test stand of very high quality. If the device can produce an acceleration curve while spinning around, then that would be very convincing.

You can read about that in the attached PDF
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: soms42 on 11/20/2018 01:41 pm
The central bearings do not "restore" as you put it, but act as another spring in the system.

Exactly, a spring opposing the net displacement of the MET which overcomes inertia of the device quite promptly when it is switched off, returning it to it's original position.  If what you propose is correct, then the "thrust" signature of the MET would be an "N" and not a square wave corresponding to the "on" pulse of the device.

Using monomorfics arguments, a null-test (resonating device without expected mach-effect properties) should also give a thrust signal.
Looks like Fearn and Woodward have thought of that: https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.6178

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 11/20/2018 01:44 pm
It will never be  a finished project in your eyes, because you confabulate the idea your simulations to date call  his results into question.  You probably will not at first take, accept him floating into a room on a chair with no support other than his work.

This is unfair and insulting. Experiments that would be much more convincing than the torsion balance have been suggested. Woodward has so far resisted running those experiments.

No one has demonstrated any technical insufficiency to the torsion balance.

Thankfully we have teams like TU Dresden who are building a frictionless rotary test stand of very high quality. If the device can produce an acceleration curve while spinning around, then that would be very convincing.

Why more convincing than the torsion balance in a vacuum.  Far many more spurious influences to TU Dresden's proposed mechanism...what is gained other than complexity?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/20/2018 01:53 pm
Using monomorfics arguments, a null-test (resonating device without expected mach-effect properties) should also give a thrust signal.
Looks like Fearn and Woodward have thought of that: https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.6178

No. The perfect symmetry of the null device is what makes it immune from the false-positive effect. There is no anharmonic (asymmetric) movement to create the necessary conditions for the false-positive signal to form.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LeCvMcEjIk
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 11/20/2018 02:00 pm
"Due to the asymmetric motion inside the box, the center of mass of the box and its contents shifts relative to the box. But the center of mass must still remain where it was before (relative to the laboratory). So the box moves aside, while its center of mass stays put."

Newton's laws are working properly, as they always do."

And you are saying for example, the displacement of the surface of the box where the displacement sensor is, produces the signal you say is a false positive?  That is a yes/no question.  If so, this is a complete and errorless restatement of your claim:

Your claim is that the dynamic response of the assembly to the power signal imposed, causes the net movement of the centers of mass of the several components with respect to each other without changing the overall center of the mass of the assembly with respect to the location of it's suspension -- and the mount of that suspension is effectively a fixed point.
...
The movement of the the center of mass of the component which has the displacement sensor attached to it (with the quite reasonable assumption made the point of attachment of the sensor does not change appreciably relative to the center of mass of that component) about the center of mass of the assembly is seen as a "false positive".
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/20/2018 02:07 pm
Why more convincing than the torsion balance in a vacuum.  Far many more spurious influences to TU Dresden's proposed mechanism...what is gained other than complexity?

Because without the central bearing returning the device to zero position, it should be free to accelerate. This will create an acceleration curve full of data that can be used to determine more information about the supposed thrust.

If the device does not work, then it will just sit there and wiggle.

The thing has to move beyond the torsional pendulum at some point...
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 11/20/2018 02:14 pm
If the device does not work, then it will just sit there and wiggle.

The thing has to move beyond the torsional pendulum at some point...

And prior to that, scaling with respect to frequency and voltage should be confirmed, reducing further work to engineering.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/20/2018 02:18 pm
And prior to that, scaling with respect to frequency and voltage should be confirmed, reducing further work to engineering.

I'm not opposed to that work continuing while a new experiment is being constructed.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 11/20/2018 02:21 pm
Is this a complete and errorless restatement of your claim:

Your claim is that the dynamic response of the assembly to the power signal imposed, causes the net movement of the centers of mass of the several components with respect to each other without changing the overall center of the mass of the assembly with respect to the location of it's suspension -- and the mount of that suspension is effectively a fixed point.

The movement of the the center of mass of the component which has the displacement sensor attached to it (with the quite reasonable assumption made the point of attachment of the sensor does not change appreciably relative to the center of mass of that component) about the center of mass of the assembly is seen as a "false positive".
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/20/2018 02:26 pm
Is this a complete and errorless restatement of your claim:

Your claim is that the dynamic response of the assembly to the power signal imposed, causes the net movement of the centers of mass of the several components with respect to each other without changing the overall center of the mass of the assembly with respect to the location of it's suspension -- and the mount of that suspension is effectively a fixed point.

The movement of the the center of mass of the component which has the displacement sensor attached to it (with the quite reasonable assumption made the point of attachment of the sensor does not change appreciably relative to the center of mass of that component) about the center of mass of the assembly is seen as a "false positive".


I was not avoiding the question, but I have a hard time following your syntax.  Perhaps if you simplified the statements I could better answer.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 11/20/2018 02:32 pm
I was not avoiding the question, but I have a hard time following your syntax.  Perhaps if you simplified the statements into simpler sentences I could better answer.

I'll try this.

Two components A and B (or more) move relative to each other when the power signal is applied.  A is attached to the suspension system and has the sensor on it.  B is held away from (or toward to) A by the action of the power signal.  Center of mass of A and B does not change in sum, but the center of mass of A and B have changed.  Because the center of mass of A has changed and it's shape has not changed appreciably, the displacement sensor on it's surface registers a false positive.

Is this a complete and errorless restatement of your claim?

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/20/2018 02:43 pm
Is this a complete and errorless restatement of your claim?

No, that is not an error free and complete restatement. It is a good bit more complicated than that.

I don't see the point of you trying to explain it in a single sentence or two and having me agree to that.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 11/20/2018 02:47 pm
Is this a complete and errorless restatement of your claim?

No, that is not an error free and complete restatement. It is a good bit more complicated than that.

What complication?

I don't see the point of you trying to explain it in a single sentence or two and having me agree to that.

I suspect if you can not restate your theory succinctly, you really have no idea what you are talking about.

And that Woodward has quickly picked up on that in dismissing you.

You are, after all, also saying it is all simple Newtonian physics.   What is too simple about how I have characterized your claims?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/20/2018 02:56 pm
I suspect if you can not restate your theory succinctly, you really have no idea what you are talking about.

And that Woodward has quickly picked up on that in dismissing you.
I've stated it many times and published the simulation data.   Please refer to those. 

I can see from your post history that you are an enthusiastic supporter of Woodward. You talk about how team members are your heroes and openly call anyone who disagrees "idiots".

You are obviously biased and I will leave it at that. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 11/20/2018 03:03 pm
I suspect if you can not restate your theory succinctly, you really have no idea what you are talking about.

And that Woodward has quickly picked up on that in dismissing you.
I've stated it many times and published the simulation data.   Please refer to those.

No, you never have phrased it succinctly.

I can see from your post history that you are an enthusiastic supporter of Woodward. You talk about how team members are your heroes and openly call anyone who disagrees "idiots".

Many are idiots, for example all of them claiming the Mach Efect must violate the conservation of momentum.

You are obviously biased and I will leave it at that.

Not more biased than you are, certainly.

You have never stated your idea simply.  I believe that is because you can not, or you already understand if you state it simply enough to not be obfuscatory, the holes in your claim are manifest.

For example, given the onset and recovery times you both give in your graphs of data, if what you claim is happening is in fact happening, your result must have an N shape where Woodward's is far more a square wave.

You have no false positive with respect to Woodward's claims.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 11/20/2018 04:01 pm
BTW Monomorphic, your having a video up claiming there is anything about a "Henry Bull" reaction motor/Dean Drive alike to the MET is exemplary of sufficient dishonesty/confabulation on your part, you should be dismissed.  They have nothing even potentially to do with each other, there is no frictional surface in an MET by which a Dean Drive effect could operate.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 11/20/2018 04:20 pm
I thank you, Monomorphic, for calling attention to your Youtube channel.  Your 5Hz oscillator is quite illuminating as to your never having thought through the concept of the Mach Effect at all.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 11/20/2018 04:26 pm
Good Lord Monomorphic, if your "Multi-body Simulation of the Mach Effect Device " posted four days ago has anything to do with it, you've made an utter joke of yourself.  You've simulated an Dean Drive and named it an MET.  Congratulations, you've only proved a Dean Drive is a Dean Drive.  While it's upside down, you've even duplicated the "N" shape I knew would be there, only with a frictional surface between M3 and the base, there is a net displacement.

EDIT:  Or are you only phasing the mass' movements to get the wave shape you want?  In any case, until there is a spring with damping reflective of Woodward's scale between your m3 and the base, you aren't replicating anything about what he is doing, and you're saying nothing about it.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 11/20/2018 04:28 pm
I'll try this.

Two components A and B (or more) move relative to each other when the power signal is applied.  A is attached to the suspension system and has the sensor on it.  B is held away from (or toward to) A by the action of the power signal.  Center of mass of A and B does not change in sum, but the center of mass of A and B have changed.  Because the center of mass of A has changed and it's shape has not changed appreciably, the displacement sensor on it's surface registers a false positive.

Is this a complete and errorless restatement of your claim?

I understand this describes what people think as the cause of the 'thrust' registered by a Harry Bull Drive (http://rexresearch.com/bull/1bull.htm). Woodward's experiment, however, might involve more than that because he does not use the hanging balance. I think some nonlinear behavior of his torsion balance beam might also be involved.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 11/20/2018 04:36 pm
Good Lord Monomorphic, if your "Multi-body Simulation of the Mach Effect Device " posted four days ago has anything to do with it, you've made an utter joke of yourself.  You've simulated an Dean Drive and called it an MET.  Congratulations, you've only proved a Dean Drive is a Dean Drive.  While it's upside down, you've even duplicated the "N" shape I knew would be there, only with a frictional surface between M3 and the base, there is a net displacement.

I suggest you to persuade Dr. Woodward to rent Monomorphic a working MET so he can test on his balance. Only by doing these we can have the majority people agree on "a faithful duplication". I can contribute $100 for the shipping of it. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Chris Bergin on 11/20/2018 04:39 pm
Keep it civil on here everyone. You clever folk do like to be "harsh" with each other!  :o

Forum rules are forum rules.

Next uncivil post and it gets deleted and a period on the naughty step, so don't waste everyone's time by doing it.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 11/20/2018 04:56 pm
I'll try this.

Two components A and B (or more) move relative to each other when the power signal is applied.  A is attached to the suspension system and has the sensor on it.  B is held away from (or toward to) A by the action of the power signal.  Center of mass of A and B does not change in sum, but the center of mass of A and B have changed.  Because the center of mass of A has changed and it's shape has not changed appreciably, the displacement sensor on it's surface registers a false positive.

Is this a complete and errorless restatement of your claim?

I understand this describes what people think as the cause of the 'thrust' registered by a Harry Bull Drive (http://rexresearch.com/bull/1bull.htm). Woodward's experiment, however, might involve more than that because he does not use the hanging balance. I think some nonlinear behavior of his torsion balance beam might also be involved.

Not so much.  With the returning force of the torsion pendulum and without the damping, over some time frame what Monomorphic is doing would return perfectly to the original position, were it on the torsion pendulum.  With friction, it sees a net displacement for a time.  From what I can tell, all he has done is phase the reaction times of the masses involved until it gives the wave shape he wants.  In an actual model of the MET with any pretense to fidelity there would be a spring function oriented from m3 horizontally to what m3 rests on.  That spring with damping between mechanism and the base seems to be absent entirely in Monomorphic's example "Multi-body Simulation of the Mach Effect Device".
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/20/2018 05:00 pm
I suggest you to persuade Dr. Woodward to rent Monomorphic a working MET so he can test on his balance. Only by doing these we can have the majority people agree on "a faithful duplication". I can contribute $100 for the shipping of it.

Thank you for the suggestion PotomacNeuron, but I do not have all the necessary equipment to power the PZT actuator.

Also, due to the difference in lengths of my pendulum vs Woodward's, and the difference in the resolutions of our respective optical sensors, I have calculated that there is no way my torsional pendulum could detect such a small false-positive signal.  Woodward's optical sensor operates in the ~3 - 25nm (nano-meter) range while mine operates in the 3um (micro-meter) range. It is because of the much longer torsional pendulum arm and a spring stiffness half of Woodward's that my torsion pendulum can have a comparable resolution of ~0.2uN (micro-newtons).  I doubt one of Woodward's devices would even make my pendulum wiggle enough to be detected at all.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 11/20/2018 05:27 pm
I suggest you to persuade Dr. Woodward to rent Monomorphic a working MET so he can test on his balance. Only by doing these we can have the majority people agree on "a faithful duplication". I can contribute $100 for the shipping of it.

Thank you for the suggestion PotomacNeuron, but I do not have all the necessary equipment to power the PZT actuator.

Also, due to the difference in lengths of my pendulum vs Woodward's, and the difference in the resolutions of our respective optical sensors, I have calculated that there is no way my torsional pendulum could detect such a small false-positive signal.  Woodward's optical sensor operates in the ~3 - 25nm (nano-meter) range while mine operates in the 3um (micro-meter) range. It is because of the much longer torsional pendulum arm and a spring stiffness half of Woodward's that my torsion pendulum can have a comparable resolution of ~0.2uN (micro-newtons).  I doubt one of Woodward's devices would even make my pendulum wiggle enough to be detected at all.

Then use a laser and bounce it back and forth between mirrors to multiply the displacement.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 11/20/2018 05:45 pm
I suggest you to persuade Dr. Woodward to rent Monomorphic a working MET so he can test on his balance. Only by doing these we can have the majority people agree on "a faithful duplication". I can contribute $100 for the shipping of it.

Thank you for the suggestion PotomacNeuron, but I do not have all the necessary equipment to power the PZT actuator.

Also, due to the difference in lengths of my pendulum vs Woodward's, and the difference in the resolutions of our respective optical sensors, I have calculated that there is no way my torsional pendulum could detect such a small false-positive signal.  Woodward's optical sensor operates in the ~3 - 25nm (nano-meter) range while mine operates in the 3um (micro-meter) range. It is because of the much longer torsional pendulum arm and a spring stiffness half of Woodward's that my torsion pendulum can have a comparable resolution of ~0.2uN (micro-newtons).  I doubt one of Woodward's devices would even make my pendulum wiggle enough to be detected at all.

If his 4-6 uN thrust is genuine, we'd expect your balance to detect it simply because yours has 0.2uN resolution. Think it over, you will see that if your balance does not detect anything, it is a proof that any thrust will be less than 0.2uN verses claimed 4-6 uN. On the other hand, if you detect 4-6uN, we'd be happy to claim it is unlikely his balance caused the thrust. Isn't that good? The mechanical difference of the devices is a blessing, not a curse.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/20/2018 05:57 pm
Think it over, you will see that if your balance does not detect anything, it is a proof that any thrust will be less than 0.2uN verses claimed 4-6 uN. On the other hand, if you detect 4-6uN, we'd be happy to claim it is unlikely his balance caused the thrust. Isn't that good? The mechanical difference of the devices is a blessing, not a curse.

Yes, I have thought about that and am aware that it would be a null result test. That is why I recommended testing the device on pendulum arms of different length. As long as all other parameters are kept the same, I predicted the signal should be diminished when the arm is extended. That would show if it is a mechanical artifact or real thrust.

One caveat is that I am not sure what the effect of the additional mass of the extended pendulum arm would do. I have yet to model this experiment so I am basing this prediction on the geometry only. It could be the added mass also has an influence. Perhaps a telescoping arm whose mass stays the same would work.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 11/20/2018 06:06 pm
Think it over, you will see that if your balance does not detect anything, it is a proof that any thrust will be less than 0.2uN verses claimed 4-6 uN. On the other hand, if you detect 4-6uN, we'd be happy to claim it is unlikely his balance caused the thrust. Isn't that good? The mechanical difference of the devices is a blessing, not a curse.

Yes, I have thought about that and am aware that it would be a null result test. That is why I recommended testing the device on pendulum arms of different length. As long as all other parameters are kept the same, I predicted the signal should be diminished when the arm is extended. That would show if it is a mechanical artifact or real thrust.

This is a very good idea. There is also another test that can be helpful too: glue or screw a few dump weights to the cage of the MET or to the end of the arm, and plot the thrust as a function of the weights. If the thrust is genuine, there should not be obvious trend of the curve.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 11/20/2018 06:52 pm
Think it over, you will see that if your balance does not detect anything, it is a proof that any thrust will be less than 0.2uN verses claimed 4-6 uN. On the other hand, if you detect 4-6uN, we'd be happy to claim it is unlikely his balance caused the thrust. Isn't that good? The mechanical difference of the devices is a blessing, not a curse.

Yes, I have thought about that and am aware that it would be a null result test. That is why I recommended testing the device on pendulum arms of different length. As long as all other parameters are kept the same, I predicted the signal should be diminished when the arm is extended. That would show if it is a mechanical artifact or real thrust.

This is a very good idea. There is also another test that can be helpful too: glue or screw a few dump weights to the cage of the MET or to the end of the arm, and plot the thrust as a function of the weights. If the thrust is genuine, there should not be obvious trend of the curve.

Don't you mean there should be an obvious trend to the curve?  F = mA, and the assumption of a new displacement would take a longer time for more mass?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 11/20/2018 07:07 pm
Think it over, you will see that if your balance does not detect anything, it is a proof that any thrust will be less than 0.2uN verses claimed 4-6 uN. On the other hand, if you detect 4-6uN, we'd be happy to claim it is unlikely his balance caused the thrust. Isn't that good? The mechanical difference of the devices is a blessing, not a curse.

Yes, I have thought about that and am aware that it would be a null result test. That is why I recommended testing the device on pendulum arms of different length. As long as all other parameters are kept the same, I predicted the signal should be diminished when the arm is extended. That would show if it is a mechanical artifact or real thrust.

This is a very good idea. There is also another test that can be helpful too: glue or screw a few dump weights to the cage of the MET or to the end of the arm, and plot the thrust as a function of the weights. If the thrust is genuine, there should not be obvious trend of the curve.

Don't you mean there should be an obvious trend to the curve?  F = mA, and the assumption of a new displacement would take a longer time for more mass?

The weights should only affect the ramping, not how large the thrust is, if the thrust is genuine. If there is a trend, it means the vibration of the arm caused at least some portion of the 'thrust'.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 11/20/2018 07:12 pm
Think it over, you will see that if your balance does not detect anything, it is a proof that any thrust will be less than 0.2uN verses claimed 4-6 uN. On the other hand, if you detect 4-6uN, we'd be happy to claim it is unlikely his balance caused the thrust. Isn't that good? The mechanical difference of the devices is a blessing, not a curse.

Yes, I have thought about that and am aware that it would be a null result test. That is why I recommended testing the device on pendulum arms of different length. As long as all other parameters are kept the same, I predicted the signal should be diminished when the arm is extended. That would show if it is a mechanical artifact or real thrust.

This is a very good idea. There is also another test that can be helpful too: glue or screw a few dump weights to the cage of the MET or to the end of the arm, and plot the thrust as a function of the weights. If the thrust is genuine, there should not be obvious trend of the curve.

Don't you mean there should be an obvious trend to the curve?  F = mA, and the assumption of a new displacement would take a longer time for more mass?

The weights should only affect the ramping, not how large the thrust is, if the thrust is genuine. If there is a trend, it means the vibration of the arm caused at least some portion of the 'thrust'.

Trend in what?  It should slow the trend of adopting a new position.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 11/20/2018 07:16 pm
Think it over, you will see that if your balance does not detect anything, it is a proof that any thrust will be less than 0.2uN verses claimed 4-6 uN. On the other hand, if you detect 4-6uN, we'd be happy to claim it is unlikely his balance caused the thrust. Isn't that good? The mechanical difference of the devices is a blessing, not a curse.

Yes, I have thought about that and am aware that it would be a null result test. That is why I recommended testing the device on pendulum arms of different length. As long as all other parameters are kept the same, I predicted the signal should be diminished when the arm is extended. That would show if it is a mechanical artifact or real thrust.

This is a very good idea. There is also another test that can be helpful too: glue or screw a few dump weights to the cage of the MET or to the end of the arm, and plot the thrust as a function of the weights. If the thrust is genuine, there should not be obvious trend of the curve.

Don't you mean there should be an obvious trend to the curve?  F = mA, and the assumption of a new displacement would take a longer time for more mass?

The weights should only affect the ramping, not how large the thrust is, if the thrust is genuine. If there is a trend, it means the vibration of the arm caused at least some portion of the 'thrust'.

Trend in what?  It should slow the trend of adopting a new position.

Plot thrust versus weight. Trend of thrust becomes larger with larger weights, or becomes smaller with larger weights. Genuine thrust should not be affected by the weight.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob Woods on 11/20/2018 09:42 pm
Does anyone know where Dr's Fearn and Tajmar are in their joint test in Dresden?








Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tchernik on 11/21/2018 02:55 am
Does anyone know where Dr's Fearn and Tajmar are in their joint test in Dresden?

I don't know but there is an interesting new paper in Arxiv mentioning Tajmar and Mike McCulloch:

"Electrostatic accelerated electrons within symmetric capacitors during field emission condition events exert bidirectional propellant-less thrust"

Ankur S. Bhatt, F.M. Becker

https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.04368 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.04368)

This one seems to be closer to other asymmetric capacitor claims in the past, excepts for the apparent care on the experiment and measurements. And the cooperation with Tajmar's  Dresden team and M. McCulloch.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 11/21/2018 02:59 am
Just had a funny thought.  If they had control over the 2nd frequency generated for the MET then they could reverse the phase relationship and produce thrust in the opposite direction.  Unfortunately I think they don't have control over the 2nd signal.  I think its inherent in the PZT stack.  If they did, two PZT stacks facing the same direction could produce thrust in opposite directions, at each end of the beam. 

I don't think reversing the direction of the PZT stack at the other end of the beam would help because the viberations would be constructive not destructive.  Unless maybe they have them out of phase by 180 degrees. 

The problem might be in the inherent design of the MET.  The frame that holds the MET should grab it at center of mass.  If you hold it at center of mass there should be no vibration.  Vibration would only add noise anyways so its desirable to eliminate.  Didn't some one say Woodward was looking for a vibration sensor to prove the beam wasn't vibrating?  Does that mean he doesn't think his MET frame vibrates and wants to prove it?  Or am I mistaken in what a read a while back. 

found it:
If i understand correct you are talking about measurement errors due to vibrations in the arm. I agree, Woodward did not address those. The influence depends very much on how measurements are done.

It is not simply an issue of "vibrations in the arm."  Instead it is an issue of separate multi-body dynamics with the components of the device ceasing to act as a single rigid body (as Woodward assumes).  This re-positions the location of the center of mass with respect to the geometry. Since the center of mass must remain stationary (there is no propulsion), the geometry shifts a little.

This is the same mistake that Woodward is making. He is now looking for a vibrometer to prove that there are no vibrations in the arms of the pendulum. However, since what is being measured is due to multi-body dynamics, and not simply "vibrations," the vibrometer experiment will not prove anything.

But wouldn't the arm being part of the mutibody viberation, displacing the arm on average, be what we are considering. 

Or is it that the accelerated weight now spends most of its time in the low acceleration position and less time in the high acceleration area that now shifts the center of mass for the system?  I remain unsure that would even shift the center of mass (highly doubt it would - almost certain).  If it did shift the center of mass wouldn't that just vibrate the beam? 

If so I see Woodward's need for sensing vibration.  But I don't understand.  Shouldn't vibrations in the beam be inherently detectable via sensors already there?  Seems to me he was already trying to eliminate vibrations with the magnetic damper. 

I would think vibrations should be eliminated at the source to eliminate noise.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 11/21/2018 03:35 am
No one has duplicated the results that Woodward has claimed.
Yes, they have.  Your bare assertion to the contrary has no more relevance than your insistence all signals seen to date are too small to be dispositive.
Strange how you continue to assert that there are replications without listing what they are. My claim was a negative, so I can't prove it, but I can point to this post (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1875127#msg1875127) which list multiple replications that have not produced the same results as Woodward as stated in the post by a supporter of Woodward. If there is someone who has claimed comparable data to Woodward, please share.
Also, you are misrepresenting what I have previously said as I pointed out specific data sets that had apparent unexplained artifacts, which calls into question any data set on the same apparatus at a level comparable to the artifacts, unless the artifacts can be fully explained and characterized. Those multiple caveats are greatly different than the blanket way way you presented my previous statements as being.

Tajmar did attempt a faithful replication, and the available evidence is not enough to determine where the mistake or miscommunication was and certainly not enough to claim intent.
No, he obviously did not.  I have never claimed to know what he thought he was doing, but between not hooking everything needed and supplied, and overvoltaging the device, he certainly did not attempt a replication faithfully.  At best he did so haphazardly.
Again, you try to blame Tajmar, when it could easily have been a miscommunication on Woodward's part that caused the problems. Unless you have new evidence to share, implying anything less than clean intent of doing a good replication from all sides I will just direct to the recent warning from the mods. The reasons why an attempt failed do not change whether an attempt was made.

I know you have been around long enough to be familiar with Monomorphic's work, so your tirade against him makes no sense.
Other than showing he hasn't even thought through what the consequences of his claims are.
You seem to have misunderstood, I was referring to the effort he put in to test the emDrive and related work. Claiming he would deny at first sight a clear demonstration of propellantless propulsion is simply inconsistent with that.
The difference between what he has said and the junk you put in his mouth is doubting something because of finding an error source comparable to the signal and doubting for no reason.
I have put nothing in his mouth.
See below.
...You probably will not at first take, accept him floating into a room on a chair with no support other than his work.

If you will not accept a 10mN signal which is quite within the range of the scale to resolve with very high reliability, why would you accept a 60uN or even mention of 100uN with no particularly greater reliability?...

Meanwhile your claims that Monomorphic is wrong makes it seem like you have not actually read what Monomorphic has said since your explanation ignores the results presented.
Oh I've read it.  It falls into the category of work described by Don Lancaster as, "not even wrong".
As the continued conversation showed, if you did read it, you did not understand it. Not everything can be boiled down to a clear, simple explanation. If "It is not that simple, go see this other document for the details" was not a valid explanation, I could easily bring up simple problems with the Mach effect. I don't do so, because I know the phrase I put in quotes is the correct response to them, and to usefully bring them up I would have to do that more complicated math myself first.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 11/21/2018 05:23 am
Does anyone know where Dr's Fearn and Tajmar are in their joint test in Dresden?

I don't know but there is an interesting new paper in Arxiv mentioning Tajmar and Mike McCulloch:

"Electrostatic accelerated electrons within symmetric capacitors during field emission condition events exert bidirectional propellant-less thrust"

Ankur S. Bhatt, F.M. Becker

https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.04368 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.04368)

This one seems to be closer to other asymmetric capacitor claims in the past, excepts for the apparent care on the experiment and measurements. And the cooperation with Tajmar's  Dresden team and M. McCulloch.

I still tend to think its related to the generation of gravitational waves (the mach effect, the gravity impulse generator, and these other effects).  The electron can generate its own magnetic and has it electric field. 

Something interesting to think of is that in superconductors we have electron pairing - Cooper pairs.  Basically the atomic lattice in type 1 superconductors is such as to create an atomic orbital thought the entire material with no resistance to current.  Also in atomic orbitals we also have electron pairing and again no light emission while the electron goes around (because its non-unique).  In quantum entanglement we have superposition of 50% spin up and 50% spin down.  I think its the vacuum with reverse time operators - collapsing the wave function funnels the energy to 1 state via the vacuum.  Quantum tunneling through barriers via old particle being swallowed by negative energy and new particle created in vacuum some distance away within the wave function - conservation of energy inherent.  Some one posted a paper a while back where they modeled the nucleolus of the atom as polarizing the vacuum and modeled atomic orbitals as acoustic vibrations of the vacuum. 

Now gravitational waves can be modeled as qudrapolor.  I wonder if its related to the pancaking of the electrons electric field or protons via relativistic effects.  It's a coupling between electro-magnetic and relativistic which is interesting. 

Black holes send off energy into the void to merge so energy and momentum can be lost to it.  Relativistic effects do change effective mass via coupling with the vacuum?  Is the Mach effect related or are there better avenues? 

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=912189209304440725&hl=en&as_sdt=5,26&sciodt=0,26 (http://Gravitational-magnetic-electric FieldsInteraction(v2))
Yin Zhu (朱寅)
Agriculture Department of Hubei Province, Wuhan, China
[email protected]
(November 24, 2017)

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=11477032744883619708&as_sdt=5,26&sciodt=0,26&hl=en (http://Theoretical limits on the efficiency of a quantum vacuum thruster)
2014
G. Modanese
Free University of Bolzano, Faculty of Science and Technology, P.za Università 5, Bolzano, Italy
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: sanman on 11/21/2018 06:27 am

Something interesting to think of is that in superconductors we have electron pairing - Cooper pairs.  Basically the atomic lattice in type 1 superconductors is such as to create an atomic orbital thought the entire material with no resistance to current.  Also in atomic orbitals we also have electron pairing and again no light emission while the electron goes around (because its non-unique).

Nitpick: electron doesn't go around in an orbital (which is why I so dislike that word, because it's a legacy term that's such a misnomer). Also, spin-up spin-down pairing doesn't affect emission spectra beyond hyperfine.

But you may recall Dr Tajmar's infamous original experiment of gravitomagnetism, where he tried to detect the Lens-Thirring effect (frame-dragging) for a superconductive disc:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/1970877_Experimental_Detection_of_the_Gravitomagnetic_London_Moment



Quote
  In quantum entanglement we have superposition of 50% spin up and 50% spin down.  I think its the vacuum with reverse time operators - collapsing the wave function funnels the energy to 1 state via the vacuum.  Quantum tunneling through barriers via old particle being swallowed by negative energy and new particle created in vacuum some distance away within the wave function - conservation of energy inherent.  Some one posted a paper a while back where they modeled the nucleolus of the atom as polarizing the vacuum and modeled atomic orbitals as acoustic vibrations of the vacuum. 

Now gravitational waves can be modeled as qudrapolor.  I wonder if its related to the pancaking of the electrons electric field or protons via relativistic effects.  It's a coupling between electro-magnetic and relativistic which is interesting.

What pancaking? Electrons are non-deformable point-charges, by definition.
 
Quote
Black holes send off energy into the void to merge so energy and momentum can be lost to it.  Relativistic effects do change effective mass via coupling with the vacuum?  Is the Mach effect related or are there better avenues? 

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=912189209304440725&hl=en&as_sdt=5,26&sciodt=0,26 (http://Gravitational-magnetic-electric FieldsInteraction(v2))
Yin Zhu (朱寅)
Agriculture Department of Hubei Province, Wuhan, China
[email protected]
(November 24, 2017)

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=11477032744883619708&as_sdt=5,26&sciodt=0,26&hl=en (http://Theoretical limits on the efficiency of a quantum vacuum thruster)
2014
G. Modanese
Free University of Bolzano, Faculty of Science and Technology, P.za Università 5, Bolzano, Italy
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/21/2018 01:32 pm
If so I see Woodward's need for sensing vibration.  But I don't understand.  Shouldn't vibrations in the beam be inherently detectable via sensors already there?  Seems to me he was already trying to eliminate vibrations with the magnetic damper. 

As the vibrations move through the spring/dampers in the system to other degrees of freedom, the vibration is smoothed out into the signal - sort of like a low pass filter.  There may be some vibrations that get through, but it is not the pendulum arm vibrating at high frequency that causes the signal.

The result below surprised me because I was not expecting the original signal at m3 to be distorted like it was. I was expecting it to look the same and to simply be transferred as-is. Just goes to show how counter-intuitive these multi-body dynamics are.

Please note, the grey ground in the simulation was a friction free surface. No friction or gravity was calculated for these sims.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 11/21/2018 04:10 pm

Something interesting to think of is that in superconductors we have electron pairing - Cooper pairs.  Basically the atomic lattice in type 1 superconductors is such as to create an atomic orbital thought the entire material with no resistance to current.  Also in atomic orbitals we also have electron pairing and again no light emission while the electron goes around (because its non-unique).

Nitpick: electron doesn't go around in an orbital (which is why I so dislike that word, because it's a legacy term that's such a misnomer). Also, spin-up spin-down pairing doesn't affect emission spectra beyond hyperfine.

But you may recall Dr Tajmar's infamous original experiment of gravitomagnetism, where he tried to detect the Lens-Thirring effect (frame-dragging) for a superconductive disc:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/1970877_Experimental_Detection_of_the_Gravitomagnetic_London_Moment



Quote
  In quantum entanglement we have superposition of 50% spin up and 50% spin down.  I think its the vacuum with reverse time operators - collapsing the wave function funnels the energy to 1 state via the vacuum.  Quantum tunneling through barriers via old particle being swallowed by negative energy and new particle created in vacuum some distance away within the wave function - conservation of energy inherent.  Some one posted a paper a while back where they modeled the nucleolus of the atom as polarizing the vacuum and modeled atomic orbitals as acoustic vibrations of the vacuum. 

Now gravitational waves can be modeled as qudrapolor.  I wonder if its related to the pancaking of the electrons electric field or protons via relativistic effects.  It's a coupling between electro-magnetic and relativistic which is interesting.

What pancaking? Electrons are non-deformable point-charges, by definition.
 
Quote
Black holes send off energy into the void to merge so energy and momentum can be lost to it.  Relativistic effects do change effective mass via coupling with the vacuum?  Is the Mach effect related or are there better avenues? 

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=912189209304440725&hl=en&as_sdt=5,26&sciodt=0,26 (http://Gravitational-magnetic-electric FieldsInteraction(v2))
Yin Zhu (朱寅)
Agriculture Department of Hubei Province, Wuhan, China
[email protected]
(November 24, 2017)

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=11477032744883619708&as_sdt=5,26&sciodt=0,26&hl=en (http://Theoretical limits on the efficiency of a quantum vacuum thruster)
2014
G. Modanese
Free University of Bolzano, Faculty of Science and Technology, P.za Università 5, Bolzano, Italy

Quote from: https://www.quora.com/How-did-Feynman-explain-that-magnetic-fields-are-created-by-moving-charges-due-to-length-contraction
It has everything to do with the length contraction of the electric field lines of the moving electrons.

Relativistic length contraction of the electrons moving in a wire would cause the electric fields of the electrons to become pancaked, more concentrated, pointing out of the sides of the wire.
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-4ea19d5cd1edaddaaa2bc3e18dcc9aff.webp)

Or see Purcells book Electricity and Magnetism chapter 5.6 "Point charge with constant velocity"

The enhancement of the electric field perpendicular to the velocity of the charge is actually a velocity through its magnetic field.  So then the magnetic field superimposed over the charges normal electric field gives its relativistic electric field. 

Now the weird thing is depending on your relative velocity the angle of this pancaked electric field changes.  So multiple observers moving in different directions observe different pancaked electric fields.  I still want to think its related to the vacuum some how.  Quadrapolar because it enhances the electric field at the sides of the electron and reduces the electric field in front and behind.  However that makes it charge specific.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tchernik on 11/21/2018 04:11 pm

Now gravitational waves can be modeled as qudrapolor.  I wonder if its related to the pancaking of the electrons electric field or protons via relativistic effects.  It's a coupling between electro-magnetic and relativistic which is interesting. 

Black holes send off energy into the void to merge so energy and momentum can be lost to it.  Relativistic effects do change effective mass via coupling with the vacuum?  Is the Mach effect related or are there better avenues? 


In this particular case, what called my attention is the apparent validation of a field effect as potential cause of the observed phenomenon, by causing reversal and changes on the measured force by interposing conductors a certain distance from the apparently thrusting capacitors (preventing galvanic or straight physical interactions).

This seems to agree with McCulloch's theory of inertia coming from Unruh waves, by proving that conductors at certain distances can produce interference with the Unruh radiation of the quickly accelerating masses (the electrons).

And the thrust per watt levels measured are already above the 0.4 N/Kw that Harold White gives as reference for  interplanetary missions.

Of course, these results need to be replicated and thoroughly validated before any conclusions are made.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 11/21/2018 04:35 pm
If so I see Woodward's need for sensing vibration.  But I don't understand.  Shouldn't vibrations in the beam be inherently detectable via sensors already there?  Seems to me he was already trying to eliminate vibrations with the magnetic damper. 

As the vibrations move through the spring/dampers in the system to other degrees of freedom, the vibration is smoothed out into the signal - sort of like a low pass filter.  There may be some vibrations that get through, but it is not the pendulum arm vibrating at high frequency that causes the signal.

The result below surprised me because I was not expecting the original signal at m3 to be distorted like it was. I was expecting it to look the same and to simply be transferred as-is. Just goes to show how counter-intuitive these multi-body dynamics are.

Please note, the grey ground in the simulation was a friction free surface. No friction or gravity was calculated for these sims.

Wow he used active damping to cancel vibrations of the MET - By anti vibrating the MET.  Now if you grab that MET some where along the PZT stack you should hit center of mass and if you hold it there,  there would be no vibrating of the MET and hence no need for active damping. 

That is an interesting problem. 

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/assets/31037.0/1527975.jpg)

Edit: I get the impression that if the beam vibrated it would be displaced via conservation of momentum.  Similarly with active damping while the viberations may be reduced it still cant counter conservation of momentum.

That is normally when m1 is displaced m2 would also be displaced and with out active damping the beam m4 would also be displaced.  However m2 is forced to not be displaced by active means.  At a result m4 is actively displaced to conserve momentum because the MET is not held at center of mass. 

One thing however.  You have a friction-less beam.  I don't see a spring attached to the beam.  To model it correctly wouldn't you need to have a spring attached to an immovable wall that represents the torrison cable attached to the earth?  That is if we want to accurately model the system?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/23/2018 02:37 am
One thing however.  You have a friction-less beam.  I don't see a spring attached to the beam.  To model it correctly wouldn't you need to have a spring attached to an immovable wall that represents the torrison cable attached to the earth?  That is if we want to accurately model the system?[/b]

What the newer sim that takes this into account shows is that so long at the spring stiffness of the final angular degree of freedom is low, as in the 0.007 lbf-in/deg of Woodward's balance, the signal is hardly influenced.  I think it is best to think of it not so much that the arm is being pushed to one side by an external-like force, but that the zero position of the balance changes while the device is in operation.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 11/23/2018 12:22 pm
One thing however.  You have a friction-less beam.  I don't see a spring attached to the beam.  To model it correctly wouldn't you need to have a spring attached to an immovable wall that represents the torrison cable attached to the earth?  That is if we want to accurately model the system?[/b]

What the newer sim that take this into account show is that so long at the spring stiffness of the final angular degree of freedom is low, as in the 0.007 lbf-in/deg of Woodward's balance, the signal is hardly influenced.  I think it is best to think of it not so much that the arm is being pushed to one side by an external-like force, but that the zero position of the balance changes while the device is in operation.

While I am not certain what you mean by "zero position", there is the sum of the center of gravities of the varied components while at rest and before being energized, and this can not change.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob Woods on 11/24/2018 01:41 am
I think it is best to think of it not so much that the arm is being pushed to one side by an external-like force, but that the zero position of the balance changes while the device is in operation.


If that is occurring, is there not the potential for both additive and subtractive net effects?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 11/27/2018 02:45 pm
One thing however.  You have a friction-less beam.  I don't see a spring attached to the beam.  To model it correctly wouldn't you need to have a spring attached to an immovable wall that represents the torrison cable attached to the earth?  That is if we want to accurately model the system?[/b]

What the newer sim that takes this into account shows is that so long at the spring stiffness of the final angular degree of freedom is low, as in the 0.007 lbf-in/deg of Woodward's balance, the signal is hardly influenced.  I think it is best to think of it not so much that the arm is being pushed to one side by an external-like force, but that the zero position of the balance changes while the device is in operation.

okay, it did seem possible that with very low spring stiffness attached to the Earth that the spring may not put it back to center.  Was it evaluated beyond the period of the pendulum oscillation?  That is given enough time for the pendulum to naturally return to its zero position.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 11/27/2018 02:46 pm
An interesting article that may be related to The Mach effect generating gravitational waves.  https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/ligo-doesn-t-just-detect-gravitational-waves-it-makes-them-too
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: soms42 on 11/27/2018 03:18 pm
One thing however.  You have a friction-less beam.  I don't see a spring attached to the beam.  To model it correctly wouldn't you need to have a spring attached to an immovable wall that represents the torrison cable attached to the earth?  That is if we want to accurately model the system?[/b]

What the newer sim that takes this into account shows is that so long at the spring stiffness of the final angular degree of freedom is low, as in the 0.007 lbf-in/deg of Woodward's balance, the signal is hardly influenced.  I think it is best to think of it not so much that the arm is being pushed to one side by an external-like force, but that the zero position of the balance changes while the device is in operation.

To me it seemed very unlikely that the resonating piezo stack could 'push', especially because nobody could explain it better than that is was because of 'multi body dynamics'. So i made a small simulation myself (using a clumsy and buggy physics simulation program called step), and guess what: the piezo stack really seems to exert is force!

This was very counter-intuitive so i experimented a bit and i think found out the cause: while the stack expands, it pushes the balance away. But because the stack is not positioned exactly orthogonal to the line from the balance axis to the stack, it is pushed away from the balance axis exerting a force in the other direction (hence the startup transient)! Then the way back it will do the opposite but a bit more because the radius of the stack to the center of the balance was longer. It looks like this does not average out to zero!

Still very counter intuitive. :-\ I can still be wrong.

Edit: i added another simulation run in which it is shown that the deviation of the balance is more or less related to the amplitude of the resonance.

Another simulation shows a 0 measurement when the piezo resonance is exactly orthogonal to the balance-arm.

Conclusion: the balance used by Woodward can give a false positive. The simulation does not say anything about whether the woodward-mach-effect is real or not.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/27/2018 08:14 pm
Conclusion: the balance used by Woodward can give a false positive. The simulation does not say anything about whether the woodward-mach-effect is real or not.

I've also been working on including all five (5) major degrees of freedom in Woodward's balance.  I have even been able to identify other false positive signals by varying which bolts come loose when.  ;)

This confirms my prediction that as the dynamics move through the system the "vibrations" are smoothed out into the signal.  It is not the pendulum arm swinging back and forth wildly that produces the signal, so any attempts to detect vibrations in the pendulum will likely return very small values. I would be surprised if a vibrometer detected more than ten to a hundred pico-meters worth of vibration displacement in the pendulum itself.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 11/28/2018 02:26 am
Conclusion: the balance used by Woodward can give a false positive. The simulation does not say anything about whether the woodward-mach-effect is real or not.

I've also been working on including all five (5) major degrees of freedom in Woodward's balance.  I have even been able to identify other false positive signals by varying which bolts come loose when.  ;)

This confirms my prediction that as the dynamics move through the system the "vibrations" are smoothed out into the signal.  It is not the pendulum arm swinging back and forth wildly that produces the signal, so any attempts to detect vibrations in the pendulum will likely return very small values. I would be surprised if a vibrometer detected more than ten to a hundred pico-meters worth of vibration displacement in the pendulum itself.

Which point in your model are you calling your "sensor" ?

You still have the N shape which shows you are not detecting any false positive.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 11/28/2018 03:52 am
You still have the N shape which shows you are not detecting any false positive.
What in the world are you talking about? The shape in the plots attached to Monomorphic's post shows an initial transient settling into a fixed offset, which is exactly what is expected from a positive signal. Since the simulation is setup without any real thrust being input, that makes it a false positive.

The details of the startup transient for a real signal can vary for several reasons, some related to the measurement setup properties, but the spikes Monomorphic shows are similar to ones that have been seen in data from Woodward.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: soms42 on 11/28/2018 06:23 am
This confirms my prediction that as the dynamics move through the system the "vibrations" are smoothed out into the signal.  It is not the pendulum arm swinging back and forth wildly that produces the signal, so any attempts to detect vibrations in the pendulum will likely return very small values. I would be surprised if a vibrometer detected more than ten to a hundred pico-meters worth of vibration displacement in the pendulum itself.

I can confirm this.

On the bright side: this false positive is very easy to prevent. Either by using a parallellogram construction for the balance arm, or by mounting the brass of the MET on the end of the arm using a flex bearing so it can not exert any torsion force on the balance.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: SeeShells on 11/28/2018 03:00 pm
Conclusion: the balance used by Woodward can give a false positive. The simulation does not say anything about whether the woodward-mach-effect is real or not.

I've also been working on including all five (5) major degrees of freedom in Woodward's balance.  I have even been able to identify other false positive signals by varying which bolts come loose when.  ;)

This confirms my prediction that as the dynamics move through the system the "vibrations" are smoothed out into the signal.  It is not the pendulum arm swinging back and forth wildly that produces the signal, so any attempts to detect vibrations in the pendulum will likely return very small values. I would be surprised if a vibrometer detected more than ten to a hundred pico-meters worth of vibration displacement in the pendulum itself.

Monomorphic,

Been quite busy and haven't kept up on all the posts and I may have missed this one test.

I have a question that maybe you've done with your simulation software. What happens when you remove the flexure bearings or torsion wire spring actions and numerically replace it with zero resistance action, equivalent to a air bearing?

My Very Best,
Shell
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/28/2018 03:55 pm
I have a question that maybe you've done with your simulation software. What happens when you remove the flexure bearings or torsion wire spring actions and numerically replace it with zero resistance action, equivalent to a air bearing?

When that is done, as in the video below, the device just wiggles in place. Due to conservation of momentum, all components return to their original positions.

The grey ground block in the video is a friction free surface similar to an air bearing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YANmlydNp04

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: SeeShells on 11/28/2018 04:13 pm
I have a question that maybe you've done with your simulation software. What happens when you remove the flexure bearings or torsion wire spring actions and numerically replace it with zero resistance action, equivalent to a air bearing?

When that is done, as in the video below, the device just wiggles in place. Due to conservation of momentum, all components return to their original positions.

The grey ground block in the video is a friction free surface similar to an air bearing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YANmlydNp04
Thanks.
Explain to me the construction of the MEGA device and the PZT stacks and how you activated them using similar frequencies of the MEGA builds.
Shell
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/28/2018 07:13 pm
Explain to me the construction of the MEGA device and the PZT stacks and how you activated them using similar frequencies of the MEGA builds.

The parts were drafted in Autodesk Inventor using information Woodward provided in various published works. Those parts were then assembled and brought into a dynamic simulation environment. The PZT actuator is a spring/damper driven by a harmonic sinusoidal signal like Woodward uses. Any drive frequency can be specified as well as the phase and amplitude.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: SeeShells on 11/28/2018 09:11 pm
Explain to me the construction of the MEGA device and the PZT stacks and how you activated them using similar frequencies of the MEGA builds.

The parts were drafted in Autodesk Inventor using information Woodward provided in various published works. Those parts were then assembled and brought into a dynamic simulation environment. The PZT actuator is a spring/damper driven by a harmonic sinusoidal signal like Woodward uses. Any drive frequency can be specified as well as the phase and amplitude.

Thanks Monomorphic, I'm just trying to understand the extent of your simulation and the limits of Autodesk Inventor.

Does that mean that the PZT isn't a true electrical E/M simulation of PZT actions driven by  multiple electrical sinusoidal signals but a harmonic spring and dampener and your using the same frequencies as Woodward uses?
 

Shell
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/28/2018 11:07 pm
Does that mean that the PZT isn't a true electrical E/M simulation of PZT actions driven by  multiple electrical sinusoidal signals but a harmonic spring and dampener and your using the same frequencies as Woodward uses?

There is no E/M simulation of the PZT. That would be overkill in my opinion as the forces can be expressed using functions. You are welcome to try, but I'm not going to waste my time on it. Not calculating the E/M properties is probably beneficial to Woodward as there is no way his PZT stack behaves as well as the spring/damper. It is very likely the stack does not expand with perfect uniformity and this would have a very large anharmonic effect. The movies I post use frequencies that can been seen so you can view the odd jiggling. Higher frequencies on the order of what Woodward uses do not change the outcome of the solution, just the time it takes to process.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 11/29/2018 05:37 am
Explain to me the construction of the MEGA device and the PZT stacks and how you activated them using similar frequencies of the MEGA builds.

The parts were drafted in Autodesk Inventor using information Woodward provided in various published works. Those parts were then assembled and brought into a dynamic simulation environment. The PZT actuator is a spring/damper driven by a harmonic sinusoidal signal like Woodward uses. Any drive frequency can be specified as well as the phase and amplitude.

Thanks Monomorphic, I'm just trying to understand the extent of your simulation and the limits of Autodesk Inventor.

Does that mean that the PZT isn't a true electrical E/M simulation of PZT actions driven by  multiple electrical sinusoidal signals but a harmonic spring and dampener and your using the same frequencies as Woodward uses?
 

Shell
In my opinion it has to do with the center of mass of the MET.  If the accelerated mass is displaced from its original location on average then the anchor mass is also displaced from its position on average.  The anchor mass if being held directly by the beam, would vibrate the beam and displace the beam on average. 

In Woodward's case he has an active damper which eliminates the anchor mass from vibrating.  Yet still the accelerated mass is still displaced from its original position on average.  If the active damper keeps the anchor mass from vibrating and being displaced then the active damper and beam are instead displaced on average though with less vibrations. 

I think it comes from conservation of momentum or displacement about the center of mass of the MET. 

This doesn't disprove the mach effect.  It just means there is a layer of noise over top of the signal your looking for.  I suppose you could even simulate the system, then subtract the predicted displacement from the data and look for thrust. 

I would prefer to build an MET that is held at the center of mass.  Maybe then using the active damper would be optional. 

regarding blue text see image from post https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1879024#msg1879024:
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/assets/31037.0/1527975.jpg)

Edit: I guess it's a little difficult for me to visualize the torsion spring pushing back on a beam that isn't vibrating, and that spring not wanting to return to its zero.  That's why I asked if the system had been evaluated with a spring of low stiffness attached to earth and that the simulation was evaluated over a time for the spring to return to its zero position. 

The reply was :
One thing however.  You have a friction-less beam.  I don't see a spring attached to the beam.  To model it correctly wouldn't you need to have a spring attached to an immovable wall that represents the torrison cable attached to the earth?  That is if we want to accurately model the system?[/b]

What the newer sim that takes this into account shows is that so long at the spring stiffness of the final angular degree of freedom is low, as in the 0.007 lbf-in/deg of Woodward's balance, the signal is hardly influenced.  I think it is best to think of it not so much that the arm is being pushed to one side by an external-like force, but that the zero position of the balance changes while the device is in operation.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/29/2018 12:30 pm
This doesn't disprove the mach effect.  It just means there is a layer of noise over top of the signal your looking for.  I suppose you could even simulate the system, then subtract the predicted displacement from the data and look for thrust. 

I wouldn't underestimate the difficulty of creating a simulation accurate enough to do this.

Much easier to conduct other experiments that are designed to expose the Newtonian artifact for what it is. TU Dresden is currently building a levitating rotary test stand of very high quality. My understanding is it will be finished some time late next year. This business should finally be put to rest then.   

The simulation results by themselves do not invalidate the effect. But let's remember what happened at Estes Park 2018:

1. Lance Williams and Jose Rodal presented strong arguments that Woodward's theory is based on incorrect assumptions of general relativity that is not found in any textbook or research paper.

2. TU Dresden exhaustively tested a device without any success. They tested the device at the resonant frequency of the PZT stack and reported null results. These results were confirmed on another experiment that was designed to directly detect the transient mass fluctuations by spinning the device.

3. Numerical solutions and real-world experiments were presented that could explain Woodward's results with Newtonian mechanics. 

Taken together, I think this portends the imminent falsification of the Woodward effect as it is currently formulated.

We should be asking ourselves what we think is more likely: the device moves due to the action of stars billions of light years away, or it's due to plain ol' Newtonian mechanics.  :-\


“Better the hard truth, I say, than the comforting fantasy.”
― Carl Sagan
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 11/29/2018 01:42 pm
This doesn't disprove the mach effect.  It just means there is a layer of noise over top of the signal your looking for.  I suppose you could even simulate the system, then subtract the predicted displacement from the data and look for thrust. 

I wouldn't underestimate the difficulty of creating a simulation accurate enough to do this.

Much easier to conduct other experiments that are designed to expose the Newtonian artifact for what it is. TU Dresden is currently building a levitating rotary test stand of very high quality. My understanding is it will be finished some time late next year. This business should finally be put to rest then.   

The simulation results by themselves do not invalidate the effect. But let's remember what happened at Estes Park 2018:

1. Lance Williams and Jose Rodal presented strong arguments that Woodward's theory is based on incorrect assumptions of general relativity that is not found in any textbook or research paper.

2. TU Dresden exhaustively tested a device without any success. They tested the device at the resonant frequency of the PZT stack and reported null results. These results were confirmed on another experiment that was designed to directly detect the transient mass fluctuations by spinning the device.

3. Numerical solutions and real-world experiments were presented that could explain Woodward's results with Newtonian mechanics. 

Taken together, I think this portends the imminent falsification of the Woodward effect as it is currently formulated.

We should be asking ourselves what we think is more likely: the device moves due to the action of stars billions of light years away, or it's due to plain ol' Newtonian mechanics.  :-\


“Better the hard truth, I say, than the comforting fantasy.”
― Carl Sagan


But we do know gravitational radiation can be projected into the vacuum in a way that imparts real momentum.  If this wasn't the case and black holes orbiting each other wouldn't lose energy to the vacuum. 

It looks to me that the intended motion of low acceleration at one end of motion and massive acceleration at the other end of motion is and intended to create a phased array of gravitational waves that projects overall momentum in one direction.  I would be reluctant to just give up on the idea that it is possible.

Edit:
Personally I have been thinking what I would like to see is a test of type 1 superconductors in a cavity with the assorted frequencies to induce the Mach effect motion of the cooper pairs.  Type 1 because I think their orbitals extend through almost the entire material so the electrons have an actual path.  Much colder conditions required to test them though. 

Because of the lower number of actual electrons involved the current velocities and accelerations are much larger.  This should enhance the relativistic coupling effects. 

That or I should take a closer look at LIGO and see how they are focusing on coupling to the vacuum. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: SeeShells on 11/29/2018 02:15 pm
Does that mean that the PZT isn't a true electrical E/M simulation of PZT actions driven by  multiple electrical sinusoidal signals but a harmonic spring and dampener and your using the same frequencies as Woodward uses?


There is no E/M simulation of the PZT. That would be overkill in my opinion as the forces can be expressed using functions. You are welcome to try, but I'm not going to waste my time on it. Not calculating the E/M properties is probably beneficial to Woodward as there is no way his PZT stack behaves as well as the spring/damper. It is very likely the stack does not expand with perfect uniformity and this would have a very large anharmonic effect. The movies I post use frequencies that can been seen so you can view the odd jiggling. Higher frequencies on the order of what Woodward uses do not change the outcome of the solution, just the time it takes to process.
I agree. In a general sense PZT E/M actions can be modeled as a spring, it saves time and gives a ball park answers, although PZT isn't a spring. We used spring models in the 80's when doing design work on Sonobouys using PZT materials.  And yes, we found limitations in the spring modeling.

One limit in your simulations, you couple the low frequency harmonics to the torsion arm, which it will do. And it will cause a displacement like your simulation shows. There is no argument there. We need to consider Woodward's devices operate at a higher frequency which will decouple from the arm. 33KHz will not displace the mass of the arm. In your simulation the arm is a low frequency movement coupled to your spring driven device and directly to the torsion spring (or C-Flex).

The frequency decoupling of the higher frequencies of the PZT (33KHz) from the torsion arm  vs the lower frequencies that couple to the arm and C-Flex (wire) are two different actions and both showing displacement.

My take from this is that you need to model the PZT frequencies. Although we all can wait until the MEGA device is tested on a frictionless test bed.

Shell
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/29/2018 07:22 pm
33KHz will not displace the mass of the arm.
I disagree with this statement. The pendulum arm is displaced by higher frequencies in the simulation and clearly by the frequencies Woodward uses.  I've run the simulations up to 1kHz and real-world experiments at 5kHz and there is no indication that the effect has a frequency cutoff limit. The only effect is that as the frequency increases, the magnitude of the signal decreases. 

The more interesting question is why does Woodward excite the MET at 36kHz instead of the PZT stack main resonance at 30-31kHz?  This has actually been a point of contention between Woodward and TU Dresden (who so far conducted their testing at the PZT resonance of 30-31 kHz).

The simplest way to explain this 5kHz discrepancy is to say that Woodward is exciting the resonant frequency of one or more parts of the device. My simulations assume that the parts coming loose are the bolts.

Has anyone calculated the resonant frequencies of the bolts?

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: SeeShells on 11/29/2018 07:54 pm
33KHz will not displace the mass of the arm.
I disagree with this statement. The pendulum arm is displaced by higher frequencies in the simulation and clearly by the frequencies Woodward uses.  I've run the simulations up to 1kHz and real-world experiments at 5kHz and there is no indication that the effect has a frequency cutoff limit. The only effect is that as the frequency increases, the magnitude of the signal decreases. 

It is exactly as I would expect and as you approach the 33KHz in your simulation it should be almost in the noise.

The more interesting question is why does Woodward excite the MET at 36kHz instead of the PZT stack main resonance at 30-31kHz?  This has actually been a point of contention between Woodward and TU Dresden (who so far conducted their testing at the PZT resonance of 30-31 kHz).

As you compress the stack the resonate frequency will increase.
This is a great resource to learn about PZT and stacks.
http://www.piezo.ws/piezoelectric_actuator_tutorial/Piezo_Design_part3.php

The simplest way to explain this 5kHz discrepancy is to say that Woodward is exciting the resonant frequency of one or more parts of the device. My simulations assume that the parts coming loose are the bolts.

That's a simple take but the stack is coupled to the endcaps via the bolts.

Shell
Has anyone calculated the resonant frequencies of the bolts?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/29/2018 08:01 pm
It is exactly as I would expect and as you approach the 33KHz in your simulation it should be almost in the noise.

Exactly, just like the signal is almost in the noise like in Woodward's results. It all depends on their unique torsional pendulum damping and the resolution of the optical sensor. There is no noise in the simulations though.

Speaking of noise, that brings up another interesting thing I have noticed. Initial conditions have a noticeable influence on the signal. I haven't had the time to investigate this fully, but it shows that it might be a good idea to simulate a little noise in the beam before the device is turned on.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: SeeShells on 11/29/2018 09:38 pm
It is exactly as I would expect and as you approach the 33KHz in your simulation it should be almost in the noise.

Exactly, just like the signal is almost in the noise like in Woodward's results. It all depends on their unique torsional pendulum damping and the resolution of the optical sensor. There is no noise in the simulations though.

I need to review but wasn't your signal about the same as Woodward's at only 100Hz? (Found it.) Increasing your sim to 33KHz it shouldn't be seen at all let alone in the sub un range. see attachment

Speaking of noise, that brings up another interesting thing I have noticed. Initial conditions have a noticeable influence on the signal. I haven't had the time to investigate this fully, but it shows that it might be a good idea to simulate a little noise in the beam before the device is turned on.

Maybe although I don't think it will lead to much.

Shell
color edit

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/29/2018 10:41 pm
I need to review but wasn't your signal about the same as Woodward's at only 100Hz? (Found it.) Increasing your sim to 33KHz it shouldn't be seen at all let alone in the sub un range. see attachment

This is a product of the mass of the pendulum and oscillator components, stroke of the oscillator, resolution of the optical sensors, and mounted radius of the optical sensors. Since these parameters are very different in my pendulum vs Woodward's and my devices vs Woodward's you are comparing apples to oranges.

This has been explained before and I have already calculated there is no way Woodward's device would be detectable on my torsional pendulum, even though I can detect 0.2uN (provided it is a false positive signal). Woodward's device only moves ~25 nano-meters and my optical sensor can only detect 3 micro-meters.

Conversely, if you were to put the oscillators I have built on Woodward's balance, the signal would be off the scale.





Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: SeeShells on 11/29/2018 11:58 pm
I need to review but wasn't your signal about the same as Woodward's at only 100Hz? (Found it.) Increasing your sim to 33KHz it shouldn't be seen at all let alone in the sub un range. see attachment

This is a product of the mass of the pendulum and oscillator components, stroke of the oscillator, resolution of the optical sensors, and mounted radius of the optical sensors. Since these parameters are very different in my pendulum vs Woodward's and my devices vs Woodward's you are comparing apples to oranges.

This has been explained before and I have already calculated there is no way Woodward's device would be detectable on my torsional pendulum, even though I can detect 0.2uN (provided it is a false positive signal). Woodward's device only moves ~25 nano-meters and my optical sensor can only detect 3 micro-meters.

Conversely, if you were to put the oscillators I have built on Woodward's balance, the signal would be off the scale.

This is where it becomes apples and pears. Your mechanical "offset" will only move the beam only a set amount or distance, nor will it be a accumulative thrust signature, just a offset.  Considering that a Mach effect is being seen with the Woodward drive a series of chirped pulses will push the beam until the spring resistance overcomes the accumulated thrust and be further than your offset and out of the noise.

This is the main difference your test cannot see. This is also why I asked if you modeled the E/M properties and the >33KHz driving frequency. This is why I've not chosen to use the C-Flex bearings even though I have a set I could use.

Shell
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/30/2018 10:51 am
This is why I've not chosen to use the C-Flex bearings even though I have a set I could use.

Since you mention the flexure bearings, I wanted to share something I received a week ago or so that I was not aware of. This was sent to me by Duncan Cumming, who reported null results with a MLT in 2006:

“I have seen Jim's apparatus at Fullerton a few times, and there is a feature with which you may or may not be familiar. He puts a weight of about 50 grams on top of his beam, and moves it back and forth to zero the beam deflection. This implies that his C-Flex bearings are slightly off vertical, so that a mass on top of the beam generates a slight torque. Have you factored this into your simulations?”

This is likely how Woodward is able to trick the torsional spring rate of the pendulum into moving to a new zero position while the device in in operation.

This shows that a simple Revolution joint is not sufficient to describe Woodward's central bearings. A much more complicated situation exists that has to be modeled.






Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 11/30/2018 01:50 pm
This is why I've not chosen to use the C-Flex bearings even though I have a set I could use.

Since you mention the flexure bearings, I wanted to share something I received a week ago or so that I was not aware of. This was sent to me by Duncan Cumming, who reported null results with a MLT in 2006:

“I have seen Jim's apparatus at Fullerton a few times, and there is a feature with which you may or may not be familiar. He puts a weight of about 50 grams on top of his beam, and moves it back and forth to zero the beam deflection. This implies that his C-Flex bearings are slightly off vertical, so that a mass on top of the beam generates a slight torque. Have you factored this into your simulations?”

This is likely how Woodward is able to trick the torsional spring rate of the pendulum into moving to a new zero position while the device in in operation.

This shows that a simple Revolution joint is not sufficient to describe Woodward's central bearings. A much more complicated situation exists that has to be modeled.
We discussed this with SeeShells awhile ago, In commenting SeeShells post about this bearing, https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1699380#msg1699380 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1699380#msg1699380) I said: ... The weight of the experiment platform will droop the part of the bearing that is fixed to the platform. ... thus any mass center shift will induce force that is hard to separate from thrust. ...

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: SeeShells on 11/30/2018 03:17 pm
This is why I've not chosen to use the C-Flex bearings even though I have a set I could use.

Since you mention the flexure bearings, I wanted to share something I received a week ago or so that I was not aware of. This was sent to me by Duncan Cumming, who reported null results with a MLT in 2006:

“I have seen Jim's apparatus at Fullerton a few times, and there is a feature with which you may or may not be familiar. He puts a weight of about 50 grams on top of his beam, and moves it back and forth to zero the beam deflection. This implies that his C-Flex bearings are slightly off vertical, so that a mass on top of the beam generates a slight torque. Have you factored this into your simulations?”

This is likely how Woodward is able to trick the torsional spring rate of the pendulum into moving to a new zero position while the device in in operation.

This shows that a simple Revolution joint is not sufficient to describe Woodward's central bearings. A much more complicated situation exists that has to be modeled.
You raise a question when you state this miss-alignment, that if it was true, then a 180 degree rotation of the device you would see a totally different set of results from the first. From the test results I've seen they don't.

I come from a time where computer modeling simply wasn't available, and no we didn't use burnt sticks and a flat rock to do calculations. Computer modeling has its place in engineering but also it's limitations in modeling the real world.

Do you agree or disagree with my statement?
Quote
This is where it becomes apples and pears. Your mechanical "offset" will only move the beam only a set amount or distance, nor will it be a accumulative thrust signature, just a offset.  Considering that a Mach effect is being seen with the Woodward drive a series of chirped pulses will push the beam until the spring resistance overcomes the accumulated thrust and be further than your offset and out of the noise.
 

And just so we're clear. I'm not out to bash you or others but to seek out the truth. If I didn't operate that way my company wouldn't have been able to produce viable equipment for the semiconductor industry or design imaging systems for the Superconducting Super Collider, also you know I left the design of a plain Jane EMDrive on the table a couple years ago because of lack of performance and results.   


Shell
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 11/30/2018 03:32 pm
Do you agree or disagree with my statement?
Quote
This is where it becomes apples and pears. Your mechanical "offset" will only move the beam only a set amount or distance, nor will it be a accumulative thrust signature, just a offset.  Considering that a Mach effect is being seen with the Woodward drive a series of chirped pulses will push the beam until the spring resistance overcomes the accumulated thrust and be further than your offset and out of the noise.
 
Shell

Do not know how monomorphic thought, but I think it is worth a close look.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/30/2018 04:33 pm
Computer modeling has its place in engineering but also it's limitations in modeling the real world.
Do you agree or disagree with my statement?

I think I would have to disagree. Computer modeling is used successfully on the smallest and largest scales.

The Fullerton balance and MET are well within the bounds of something we can simulate very accurately. It all depends on how much time one wants to put into it.

But I feel this diverts us from the current subject, which is that we may now have the final piece of the puzzle to fully explain the Woodward effect false-positive signal.

It is not even as complicated as modeling the bearings not aligned. It is simply modeling the balance as a balance so it can move in 3D just like the Fullerton balance.  By adding masses to zero out the simulated balance, just like Woodward does, then any center of mass changes will change the zero position of the balance in the shape of the signal.  ;D

This means there are actually at least 7 degrees of freedom to simulate instead of the 5 I originally thought. 3 of those 7 are the angular degrees of freedom associated with the central bearings.

I'm working on modeling a suitable 3 degree of freedom central bearing now. It is possible the central bearing needs up to 6 degrees of freedom, but I will start with 3 to see if that is sufficient.





Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: SeeShells on 11/30/2018 04:47 pm
Computer modeling has its place in engineering but also it's limitations in modeling the real world.
Do you agree or disagree with my statement?

I think I would have to disagree. Computer modeling is used successfully on the smallest and largest scales.

The Fullerton balance and MET are well within the bounds of something we can simulate very accurately. It all depends on how much time one wants to put into it.

But I feel this diverts us from the current subject, which is that we may now have the final piece of the puzzle to fully explain the Woodward effect false-positive signal.

It is not even as complicated as modeling the bearings not aligned. It is simply modeling the balance as a balance so it can move in 3D just like the Fullerton balance.  By adding masses to zero out the simulated balance, just like Woodward does, then any center of mass changes will change the zero position of the balance in the shape of the signal.  ;D

This means there are actually at least 7 degrees of freedom to simulate instead of the 5 I originally thought. 3 of those 7 are the angular degrees of freedom associated with the central bearings.

I'm working on modeling a suitable 3 degree of freedom central bearing now. It is possible the central bearing needs up to 6 degrees of freedom, but I will start with 3 to see if that is sufficient.
This is what I was asking...

Do you agree or disagree with my statement?

Quote
This is where it becomes apples and pears. Your mechanical "offset" will only move the beam only a set amount or distance, nor will it be a accumulative thrust signature, just a offset.  Considering that a Mach effect is being seen with the Woodward drive a series of chirped pulses will push the beam until the spring resistance overcomes the accumulated thrust and be further than your offset and out of the noise.

Shell
 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/30/2018 05:05 pm
Your mechanical "offset" will only move the beam only a set amount or distance, nor will it be a accumulative thrust signature, just a offset.  Considering that a Mach effect is being seen with the Woodward drive a series of chirped pulses will push the beam until the spring resistance overcomes the accumulated thrust and be further than your offset and out of the noise.
I'm not trying to be rude, but these sentences make no sense to me, especially the second one. I've read them several times now, sorry.

If you are saying that real thrust would look different from a center of mass offset, then I disagree for reasons shared already.





Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: SeeShells on 11/30/2018 05:18 pm
Your mechanical "offset" will only move the beam only a set amount or distance, nor will it be a accumulative thrust signature, just a offset.  Considering that a Mach effect is being seen with the Woodward drive a series of chirped pulses will push the beam until the spring resistance overcomes the accumulated thrust and be further than your offset and out of the noise.
I'm not trying to be rude, but these sentences make no sense to me, especially the second one. I've read them several times now, sorry.

If you are saying that real thrust would look different from a center of mass offset, then I disagree for reasons shared already.
Ok, I'm sorry you are having a hard time with this but let me put it another way.

Simulations have their limits and only a real world test will define what works and not.

When you put your Autocad simulation mechanical spring assembly on a frictionless surface you see no movement... correct? Considering there is a Mach Effect, if a real PZT device was put on a frictionless surface you will see movement.

Shell

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/30/2018 05:33 pm
Simulations have their limits and only a real world test will define what works and not.
This is an unsustainable opinion. So we are to build and test everything everyone in the world dreams up, or does this just mean the ones you personally believe in?

If Fullerton's balance can be shown to be flawed in a simulation, then it casts serious doubts on the reality of the measurements and the mach effect.




Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: SeeShells on 11/30/2018 06:06 pm
Simulations have their limits and only a real world test will define what works and not.
This is an unsustainable opinion. So we are to build and test everything everyone in the world dreams up, or does this just mean the ones you personally believe in?

If Fullerton's balance can be shown to be flawed in a simulation, then it casts serious doubts on the reality of the measurements and the mach effect.
Interesting that you will not accept that their are limits to computer simulations. I can't help but think of The weather forecast or how models disagree on hurricane predictions. You assume your model reflects a 100% representation of a device, I say how can it, it simply can not. You're not even modeling the E/M actions of the PZT.

Quote
But it is also a crucial fact about simulations that they are intended to offer conclusions on the basis of variable manipulation under simplified conditions. In that regard, they are like experiments, and can fail in all the ways that experiments can fail.
http://www.pgrim.org/articles/howsimulationsfail.pdf
How simulations fail
Patrick Grim · Robert Rosenberger ·
Adam Rosenfeld · Brian Anderson ·
Robb E. Eason

Quote
This is an unsustainable opinion. So we are to build and test everything everyone in the world dreams up, or does this just mean the ones you personally believe in?

I'm not wanting to upset you, nothing is gained.

Shell



Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 11/30/2018 06:38 pm
This is why I've not chosen to use the C-Flex bearings even though I have a set I could use.

Since you mention the flexure bearings, I wanted to share something I received a week ago or so that I was not aware of. This was sent to me by Duncan Cumming, who reported null results with a MLT in 2006:

“I have seen Jim's apparatus at Fullerton a few times, and there is a feature with which you may or may not be familiar. He puts a weight of about 50 grams on top of his beam, and moves it back and forth to zero the beam deflection. This implies that his C-Flex bearings are slightly off vertical, so that a mass on top of the beam generates a slight torque. Have you factored this into your simulations?”

This is likely how Woodward is able to trick the torsional spring rate of the pendulum into moving to a new zero position while the device in in operation.

This shows that a simple Revolution joint is not sufficient to describe Woodward's central bearings. A much more complicated situation exists that has to be modeled.
We discussed this with SeeShells awhile ago, In commenting SeeShells post about this bearing, https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1699380#msg1699380 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1699380#msg1699380) I said: ... The weight of the experiment platform will droop the part of the bearing that is fixed to the platform. ... thus any mass center shift will induce force that is hard to separate from thrust. ...




The use of a small mass for calibrating the beam horizontal position is mentioned in the book, at page 164, no mistery here.

In the same paragraph tests to check whether a static vertical force over the beam can produce a stationary horizontal displacement are described. No evidence of this was found.


By adding masses to zero out the simulated balance, just like Woodward does, then any center of mass changes will change the zero position of the balance in the shape of the signal.  ;D


It looks like you haven't yet decided if this alleged false-positive effect you are proposing is dynamic, caused by the accelerations of the different masses of the system, or static/near-static, caused by an overall change in the total CoM of the Faraday's cage content.


Here you are referring to the latter, but earlier you mocked Woodward for not understanding that the effect is dynamic..

If "any center of mass changes will change the zero position" a DC signal offset should do that too, but this test was already conducted and came out negative.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/30/2018 07:21 pm
It looks like you haven't yet decided if this alleged false-positive effect you are proposing is dynamic, caused by the accelerations of the different masses of the system, or static/near-static, caused by an overall change in the total CoM of the Faraday's cage content.

It seems like we are discussing two things, but they really are connected: Multibody-dynamics of the MET from the bolts shaking loose and the parts moving & a flawed torsional pendulum that can't distinguish between real thrust and these COM offsets.  It is still a multi-body dynamics problem - there are just more degrees of freedom now!  ;)

Today I am discussing how best to model the central torsion bearings as that is the next step. I think I should use 3 revolution joints so the pendulum is free to move in 3D.






Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: soms42 on 11/30/2018 07:27 pm
Why this focus on this semi realistic simulation with all its confusing complexities when only simulating the essence of it (like i did) does show exactly the same: the torsion balance can give a false positive using only newtonian mechanics.

The resonating endcap is pushing orthogonal to its resonance (due to balance end-cap vibration interaction)!
 So, since endcap push force it directed next to the axis, it will exert a torsion force.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 11/30/2018 11:05 pm
It seems like we are discussing two things, but they really are connected: Multibody-dynamics of the MET from the bolts shaking loose and the parts moving & a flawed torsional pendulum that can't distinguish between real thrust and these COM offsets.  It is still a multi-body dynamics problem - there are just more degrees of freedom now!  ;)

I have seen no evidence for the bolts coming loose during operation and not being adjusted, currently it is your conjecture.

Regarding the COM offsets, which you are now separating from your "multi-body false-positive" hypothesis, the point is that it has been shown that the balance can infact distinguish them from real thrust, because while the DC offset experiments don't say anything about "multi-body false-positive", they definitely show that "any center of mass changes will change the zero position of the balance in the shape of the signal" is not true.

Moreover your simulations, as you have presented them, do not provide any information about the COM of the system, only about the motion of one particular part. Your statements about COM offsets are baseless.


I'm sure that by adding an increasing amount of strategically placed degrees of freedom you could eventually fit any signal; whether these degrees of freedom are actually found in the real system, however, requires some careful evaluation, and the correctness of their implementation in the simulation must be checked too. I have my doubts, especially on this second point.


@soms42

Why this focus on this semi realistic simulation with all its confusing complexities when only simulating the essence of it (like i did) does show exactly the same: the torsion balance can give a false positive using only newtonian mechanics.

The resonating endcap is pushing orthogonal to its resonance (due to balance end-cap vibration interaction)!
 So, since endcap push force it directed next to the axis, it will exert a torsion force.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in your previous post you stated that you were only able to obtain a deflection in your simulation by making the stack not perfectly orthogonal to the beam, right?

If this is so, then your simulation didn't show the same thing of Monomorphic's one; it actually contradicted it, because your showed it isn't possible to obtain a steady deflection for a perfectly orthogonal stack, while he showed the exact opposite.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: soms42 on 12/02/2018 03:17 pm
Why this focus on this semi realistic simulation with all its confusing complexities when only simulating the essence of it (like i did) does show exactly the same: the torsion balance can give a false positive using only newtonian mechanics.

The resonating endcap is pushing orthogonal to its resonance (due to balance end-cap vibration interaction)!
 So, since endcap push force it directed next to the axis, it will exert a torsion force.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in your previous post you stated that you were only able to obtain a deflection in your simulation by making the stack not perfectly orthogonal to the beam, right?

If this is so, then your simulation didn't show the same thing of Monomorphic's one; it actually contradicted it, because your showed it isn't possible to obtain a steady deflection for a perfectly orthogonal stack, while he showed the exact opposite.

You described my findings correct so I think you can be right. I'm not sure. The thing is that i do not always understand the total setup of monomorphic's simulations.
What i showed  (and i thought monomorphic did as well) was that the balance used by Woodward can give a false positive, showing a thrust signature that looks very much like the graphs Woodward published.
This gives serious doubt to the validity of Woodwards measurements. But i think it does say nothing on the validity of the Woodward Mach effect. We just have to find a way without false positives.



Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: SeeShells on 12/03/2018 06:26 pm
Why this focus on this semi realistic simulation with all its confusing complexities when only simulating the essence of it (like i did) does show exactly the same: the torsion balance can give a false positive using only newtonian mechanics.

The resonating endcap is pushing orthogonal to its resonance (due to balance end-cap vibration interaction)!
 So, since endcap push force it directed next to the axis, it will exert a torsion force.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in your previous post you stated that you were only able to obtain a deflection in your simulation by making the stack not perfectly orthogonal to the beam, right?

If this is so, then your simulation didn't show the same thing of Monomorphic's one; it actually contradicted it, because your showed it isn't possible to obtain a steady deflection for a perfectly orthogonal stack, while he showed the exact opposite.

You described my findings correct so I think you can be right. I'm not sure. The thing is that i do not always understand the total setup of monomorphic's simulations.
What i showed  (and i thought monomorphic did as well) was that the balance used by Woodward can give a false positive, showing a thrust signature that looks very much like the graphs Woodward published.
This gives serious doubt to the validity of Woodwards measurements. But i think it does say nothing on the validity of the Woodward Mach effect. We just have to find a way without false positives.
Very true and well said, this is what I've been trying to convey, but on both sides of the fence, simulation and real world tests. The simulation using Autocad Inventor needs to potentially be run on another simulator. (Augmenter mentioned many posts ago this simple fact.)  Woodward's team needs to address a potential false positive.

Basic investigative research is all that's needed here.

Shell

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 12/04/2018 11:56 pm
Finite Element Analysis (FEA) of the C-Flex E-10 bearing is complete.  This was done with the files provided by C-Flex. I tested these with a 6 lbm load (in both compression and tensile), which is the maximum I expect from Woodward's balance.  This is just an estimate though as I do not believe the mass of the balance is known. The E-10 bearings are rated for 5.7 lbm compression and 22.8 lbm tensile. 

PotomacNeuron was correct. The load causes the bearings to droop and pitch to an angle. This confirms that simulating the central bearing is more complicated than originally anticipated.  :o



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFvSwgqbYoc



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSi7n4f_nyU
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob Woods on 12/05/2018 02:02 am
What about side-to-side deformation?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 12/05/2018 02:52 am
What about side-to-side deformation?

Much worse even than compression and tensile! These flexure bearings are NOT designed for shear forces whatsoever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MA75Z0Rc_o
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob Woods on 12/05/2018 07:59 am
Thanks Jamie!

So following on your work and Shell's and others, folks need to build a better test apparatus. You have presented good evidence that false positives are possible or even likely. The Traveller talked about a rotary suspended rig but never published any results. (I'm guessing it has its own design problems such as coriolis effects.)

So what the hell are Heide and Martin up to? Time to share with people who are very interested.

We need DATA.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Augmentor on 12/05/2018 10:07 pm
Monomorphic,

The drilling down to the bearings and other components in the system are enlightening.

I have a few questions. First, for the casual reader, a little background information to act as a general guide to the role of simulation.

In the worlds of systems, aerospace and products, there is an interactive exchange between four areas of research, design and development (RDD) including theory, experiment, modeling and simulation. The preference is to align all four areas. The four approaches are scientifically used in basic research and development (basic R&D) to determine the essence of the effect (hard science) as well as product R&D to develop a product for manufacturing. In all instances, nature has the final say in experiments and products since the real world offers surprises and shocks, and the scientists and engineers may not have planned for all contingencies and unintended consequences.

A fifth area, animation, is important since it is used to convey ideas for the common good. As such, animation is usually a simplified version to show design, changes, movement/flow and internal details, typically for an audience from general to specialist. A fly through presentation, both static and dynamic, can provide details, planned, suspected and even unexpected. While closely related by computer and software, animation is not simulation which provides far greater detail and relies more on finite analysis methods applied to the representive design. Data may be the result of an equation(s), numerical analysis of data, or both.

Experiments can be broken down into four groups:

1. Power Supply
2. Instrumentation
3. Device or unit under test (DUT, UUT)
4. Thermodynamics - passive or active
 
Assumptions are made in all four, and importantly, need to match what nature is telling us. Assumptions can be stated/stipulated by Size (volume), Weight (mass) and Power (kWe, kWhr) - (SWAP),  analyze numerical and curve fitted. Error bars show systematic and random error range. The goal is to make precise AND accurate measurements.

Just because you have a high precision instrument or simulation does not mean you have an accurate reading or representation. Precision and accuracy are not the same; yet are required especially since thermodynamics may cause expansions and contractions that affect operations and readings. So the appropriate temperature range also need to be determined since that is one of the usual suspects for artifacts and inaccurate readings

That said,

1. What is the eventual goal for simulation?

2. What is the standard for experiment and simulation(?), perhaps experiment or simulation aka nature or computer?

3. Is simulation or experiment as a standard or is this simply a POV of both?

4. Is iterative improvement being used in a data exchange with the theorists, models and experimentalists?

5. Is simulation being used to produce changes to the other three areas of theory, modeling and experiment?

6. Is the simulation used as an accelerator to remove obstacles or to challenge theory, modeling and experiment?

7. Is the simulation used to claim the experiment is wrong or the theory, modeling and experiment is wrong?

8. What are the limits of simulation?

Best

Augmentor

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: soms42 on 12/09/2018 12:13 pm
What about side-to-side deformation?

Much worse even than compression and tensile! These flexure bearings are NOT designed for shear forces whatsoever.

Very nice simulations!

The used flex bearing are indeed only designed as zero-friction rotational bearings with a rotational freedom of a few degrees (if i remember correct up to +/-30 degrees max). However, when rotating they act as a torsion spring which is used in the balance to measure the force.
A rough estimate with a deflection of 10um for a force measurement, means that the balance rotates about +-0.00001 degrees. I think that all other deformations can be considered constant during the measurements, so they should not be influencing the measurement.

So, in what way are those simulations relevant?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 12/09/2018 04:23 pm
Very nice simulations!

The used flex bearing are indeed only designed as zero-friction rotational bearings with a rotational freedom of a few degrees (if i remember correct up to +/-30 degrees max). However, when rotating they act as a torsion spring which is used in the balance to measure the force.
A rough estimate with a deflection of 10um for a force measurement, means that the balance rotates about +-0.00001 degrees. I think that all other deformations can be considered constant during the measurements, so they should not be influencing the measurement.

So, in what way are those simulations relevant?
The Finite Element Analysis (FEA)of the bearings proves what was suspected for a while and predicted by several people here. This from PotomacNeuron:

"The weight of the experiment platform will droop the part of the bearing that is fixed to the platform. Even if the other part of the bearing is installed perfectly vertical, the movement of the platform will not be in the horizontal plane. Thus any mass center shift will induce force that is hard to separate from thrust."

It is relevant because it gives me a better idea how to simulate the central flexure bearing - using the constraints and joints available to me in Inventor. A simple revolution joint, that constrains the movement of the central bearing to 2 degrees of freedom is obviously not sufficient. The joint needs the full 3 degrees of freedom of the real-world bearing to be accurately simulated. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star One on 12/09/2018 06:58 pm
Thanks Jamie!

So following on your work and Shell's and others, folks need to build a better test apparatus. You have presented good evidence that false positives are possible or even likely. The Traveller talked about a rotary suspended rig but never published any results. (I'm guessing it has its own design problems such as coriolis effects.)

So what the hell are Heide and Martin up to? Time to share with people who are very interested.

We need DATA.

Has he departed from these parts again, The Traveller?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 12/12/2018 09:54 pm
Thanks Jamie!

So following on your work and Shell's and others, folks need to build a better test apparatus. You have presented good evidence that false positives are possible or even likely. The Traveller talked about a rotary suspended rig but never published any results. (I'm guessing it has its own design problems such as coriolis effects.)

So what the hell are Heide and Martin up to? Time to share with people who are very interested.

We need DATA.

It would be good to have a mechanical drawing set of Dr. Woodward's gear.  It would help to see if for example Monomorphic's ideas bear any relationship to reality on the real side.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 12/25/2018 11:20 pm
The heated materials would  gain ~ .0000004% in mass , evidencing the veracity of E = MC2 once again .  The uneven mass gain might seem tiny , but in a weightless environment the effect would soon become apparent . 
Per the above, a diagram would help, some of what you wrote is confusing trying to follow.

Besides which it is not clear in what step you claim the conservation law breaking magic is supposed to happen. The mass gain is accounted for in the conservation of momentum and energy. The only effect would be the device moving from the radiation pressure (if the laser radiation is coming from an external source), and also from the asymmetric thermal radiation reaction, which would be less than a photon rocket. (Less because it would be radiated in a spread of directions, in contrast to a laser which is nearly unidirectional.)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Augmentor on 12/26/2018 02:48 am
Ok, so again there is no diagram and a raw idea of a “technological demonstrator”, not an engine.

Simply stating that E = m c^2 is not the solution to transient mass...it’s just not sufficient enough to provide a description of a potential process.

Is momentum conserved? In this case, one has to consider angular momentum, not just linear momentum.

That said, the Woodward equation depends on quick pressure change, quick enough to cause an acceleration of both external and internal mass. Substituting photons for electrons is obvious. Adding rotating rollers requires angular momentum considerations.

Do the math. Use the wave equation and not just the particle equations.

A useful exercise would be to draw a isometric or schematic diagram of the idea as well as a block diagram of the process.

The idea as presented can be upgraded to using carbon nanotubes and reducing the expensive laser to LEDs. Of course, this will complicate the math, EM and nonlinear resonance modes.







Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 01/14/2019 02:18 pm
This is the latest plot from Woodward regarding the TU Dresden replication efforts sent out to his email list several days ago. It appears that Heidi Fearn's visit was fruitful in that they were able to see the same signal shape as seen by Fullerton and Buldrini, and simulated/replicated by me. The big problem is the signal was measured at ~0.065uN, which is well over an order of magnitude less than what is being measured at Fullerton. TU Dresden's measurements are of the same order as the Buldrini measurements, but still less than half of those!

Woodward claims there is only a "calibration" problem now, but I find it hard to believe that Fullerton's calibration was off by such an enormous amount.  The more likely explanation, which I have written of before, is that Newtonian Artifacts caused by multi-body dynamics will show different magnitudes of apparent "thrust" on specific balances because of unique differences in the pendulum arm length, optical sensor specs, moment of inertia, spring stiffness, etc.   If it was real thrust, it would show the same magnitude of thrust on all properly calibrated balances, regardless of the physical parameters of the balances.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 01/14/2019 02:26 pm
This is the latest plot from Woodward regarding the TU Dresden replication efforts sent out to his email list several days ago. It appears that Heidi Fearn's visit was fruitful in that they were able to see the same signal shape as seen by Fullerton and Buldrini, and simulated/replicated by me. The big problem is the signal was measured at ~0.065uN, which is well over an order of magnitude less than what is being measured at Fullerton. TU Dresden's measurements are of the same order as the Buldrini measurements, but still less than half of those!

Woodward claims there is only a "calibration" problem now, but I find it hard to believe that Fullerton's calibration was off by such an enormous amount.  The more likely explanation, which I have written of before, is that Newtonian Artifacts caused by multi-body dynamics will show different magnitudes of apparent "thrust" on specific balances because of unique differences in the pendulum arm length, optical sensor specs, moment of inertia, spring stiffness, etc.   If it was real thrust, it would show the same magnitude of thrust on all properly calibrated balances, regardless of the physical parameters of the balances.

What was the wattage? How does this new data compare to a photon rocket?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 01/14/2019 02:58 pm
What was the wattage? How does this new data compare to a photon rocket?

I do not know yet as that info was not shared.  I would suggest asking Woodward for this information. 

It seems the signal is getting smaller and smaller with every partial replication. My suspicion is that either the moment of inertia is very different on the Fullerton balance, or the laser displacement sensor used by Woodward has a very different displacement constant than that used by TU Dresden and Buldrini - or a combination of both. But these too should not have an influence on real thrust if the balance is properly calibrated.

Now that TU Dresden can replicate the signal, it should be a simple matter for them to perform experiments suggested by those here and elsewhere that can determine if it is real thrust or a false-positive.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: MathewOrman on 01/17/2019 08:18 am
What was the wattage? How does this new data compare to a photon rocket?

I do not know yet as that info was not shared.  I would suggest asking Woodward for this information. 

It seems the signal is getting smaller and smaller with every partial replication. My suspicion is that either the moment of inertia is very different on the Fullerton balance, or the laser displacement sensor used by Woodward has a very different displacement constant than that used by TU Dresden and Buldrini - or a combination of both. But these too should not have an influence on real thrust if the balance is properly calibrated.

Now that TU Dresden can replicate the signal, it should be a simple matter for them to perform experiments suggested by those here and elsewhere that can determine if it is real thrust or a false-positive.

You are right, Newtonin's remnant force I suspect from gyro procession effect and in space there will be no thrust at all...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhldn0ef138&feature=youtu.be
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star One on 01/18/2019 05:04 pm
Well it looks like at least someone in government was interested in warp drives.

The Government’s Secret UFO Program Funded Research on Wormholes and Extra Dimensions (https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/3kg8v5/the-governments-secret-ufo-program-funded-research-on-wormholes-and-extra-dimensions)

Quote
Yet another title, “Warp Drive, Dark Energy, and the Manipulation of Extra Dimensions,” was attributed to theoretical physicist Richard Obousy, director of the nonprofit Icarus Interstellar, which claims to be “researching technologies that will enable breakthroughs in interstellar travel.” Obousy was credited by Gizmodo in 2009 for creating “a scientifically accurate warpship design” that could hypothetically be propelled through space by manipulating dark energy.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: birdman on 01/18/2019 05:09 pm
Well it looks like at least someone in government was interested in warp drives.

The Government’s Secret UFO Program Funded Research on Wormholes and Extra Dimensions (https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/3kg8v5/the-governments-secret-ufo-program-funded-research-on-wormholes-and-extra-dimensions)

Quote
Yet another title, “Warp Drive, Dark Energy, and the Manipulation of Extra Dimensions,” was attributed to theoretical physicist Richard Obousy, director of the nonprofit Icarus Interstellar, which claims to be “researching technologies that will enable breakthroughs in interstellar travel.” Obousy was credited by Gizmodo in 2009 for creating “a scientifically accurate warpship design” that could hypothetically be propelled through space by manipulating dark energy.

Screw all this physics talk about resonance and shear and wattage, just say "dark energy" and be done with it!
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 02/07/2019 08:54 pm
I learnt today that there will be no proceedings of the 2018 Estes Park workshop edited, because Heidi Fearn received only 3 or 4 papers from attendees, even after sending reminders and having extended the initial deadline. What a shame!
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: programmerdan on 02/07/2019 09:51 pm
I learnt today that there will be no proceedings of the 2018 Estes Park workshop edited, because Heidi Fearn received only 3 or 4 papers from attendees, even after sending reminders and having extended the initial deadline. What a shame!

That is a shame, I was looking forward to reading the proceedings.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Mark7777777 on 02/08/2019 02:44 am
I learnt today that there will be no proceedings of the 2018 Estes Park workshop edited, because Heidi Fearn received only 3 or 4 papers from attendees, even after sending reminders and having extended the initial deadline. What a shame!

Perhaps the raw video will be uploaded.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 02/08/2019 04:54 pm
Perhaps the raw video will be uploaded.

Yes, I can confirm: videos will be uploaded to the SSI website, if their authors gave the appropriate approval.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 02/14/2019 04:20 pm
Well it looks like at least someone in government was interested in warp drives.

The Government’s Secret UFO Program Funded Research on Wormholes and Extra Dimensions (https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/3kg8v5/the-governments-secret-ufo-program-funded-research-on-wormholes-and-extra-dimensions)

Quote
Yet another title, “Warp Drive, Dark Energy, and the Manipulation of Extra Dimensions,” was attributed to theoretical physicist Richard Obousy, director of the nonprofit Icarus Interstellar, which claims to be “researching technologies that will enable breakthroughs in interstellar travel.” Obousy was credited by Gizmodo in 2009 for creating “a scientifically accurate warpship design” that could hypothetically be propelled through space by manipulating dark energy.

Screw all this physics talk about resonance and shear and wattage, just say "dark energy" and be done with it!

The problem being dark energy is just another thing we don't really understand thgough at least it's defined and there are papers of people looking into it.  (personally I think it might be energy being lost to the vacuum causing the vacuum to swell expanding space, sort of like black hole mergers lose energy to the vacuum, but that's just speculation.  Haven't looked into it enough.)  Using fancy words that don't improve our understanding doesn't help either which you see a lot of and may be what's disturbing you.  Being clear and concise and conveying fundamental ideas is whats important.  A problem a lot of people have is conveying ideas in a way other people understand.  The "keep it simple..." being a related phrase.  Some times it requires education to understand where they are coming from.  Terminology is useless unless there is a mutual understanding.  One of the reasons I hate abbreviations.  What they mean can be ambiguous unless defined beforehand.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob Woods on 02/15/2019 04:53 am
A problem a lot of people have is conveying ideas in a way other people understand.  The "keep it simple..." being a related phrase.  Some times it requires education to understand where they are coming from.  Terminology is useless unless there is a mutual understanding.  One of the reasons I hate abbreviations.  What they mean can be ambiguous unless defined beforehand.
10 points!
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: MikeFidler on 02/25/2019 01:29 am
Piezoelectricity-Induced Room Temperature Superconductor.

This patent looks like it has some relation to the Woodward's effect. If you read it thru it makes many good points and it looks to be easy to duplicate, the materials are easy to buy and not costly. The question is if anything is left out in the details of the patent?

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/02/if-these-us-navy-patents-are-made-then-we-are-in-a-star-trek-technology-world.html

https://techlinkcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/RTSC.pdf
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 02/25/2019 02:47 am
Piezoelectricity-Induced Room Temperature Superconductor.

This patent looks like it has some relation to the Woodward's effect. If you read it thru it makes many good points and it looks to be easy to duplicate, the materials are easy to buy and not costly. The question is if anything is left out in the details of the patent?

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/02/if-these-us-navy-patents-are-made-then-we-are-in-a-star-trek-technology-world.html

https://techlinkcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/RTSC.pdf
No, see my response in the emDrive thread, if you read the patent, you see that it does not have any intelligible scientific merit:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1914865#msg1914865

The other "inventions" by the same person in the first link you provided seem comparably unrelated to the actual laws of physics of the universe we live in.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: MikeFidler on 02/25/2019 04:44 am
But you do not know how the laws work, so let me talk to a detective.

The Piezoelectric Effect and polarization of the vacuum are prominent in all four patents.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 02/25/2019 06:13 am
But you do not know how the laws work, so let me talk to a detective.

The Piezoelectric Effect and polarization of the vacuum are prominent in all four patents.
A couple things:
-don't just double post like that, posts have an edit button you can use if you forgot to add something to your post.
-I am not enforcing any laws (mother nature enforces physical laws), but I explain relatively basic and well known physics when relevant.
-Your statement that "I do not know how the laws work" is wrong, has no support, and amounts to an ad hominem attack.
-there are three patents listed in the link you posted, not four
-You failed to address any of the issues I pointed out.
-You mention piezoelectric effect and vacuum polarization, but vacuum polarization is not mentioned in the patent for the supposed superconductor as far as I saw. Simply stating that those terms were used does nothing to change the fact that there are major problems with the claims made in those patents.

Also while I am here, I should mention that unsupported claims of room-temperature superconductivity are kind of silly. It is trivial to demonstrate the Meissner effect by levitating a magnet, if someone really had made such a discovery, it would not be hard to convince others of it and have it validated.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/25/2019 12:24 pm
So I see, you are the sheriff around here, nice to know the you are enforcing the laws!

That there device bears an uncanny resemblance to my fourth grade science fair project which included a galvanized nail, two D sized batteries, and a length of wire carefully coiled around the nail.  YMMV.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 02/26/2019 02:31 pm
So I see, you are the sheriff around here, nice to know the you are enforcing the laws!

That there device bears an uncanny resemblance to my fourth grade science fair project which included a galvanized nail, two D sized batteries, and a length of wire carefully coiled around the nail.  YMMV.

if you ask me I think it's purposefully convoluted by even suggesting that it's super conductive.  I don't see how it's relevant.  Even if it's to replicate the Mach effect, they don't suggest the theory behind it.  Where is the anchor and where's the modulated mass.  They need to suggest the relation of the frequencies between the pulses. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 02/26/2019 02:51 pm
So I see, you are the sheriff around here, nice to know the you are enforcing the laws!

That there device bears an uncanny resemblance to my fourth grade science fair project which included a galvanized nail, two D sized batteries, and a length of wire carefully coiled around the nail.  YMMV.

if you ask me I think it's purposefully convoluted by even suggesting that it's super conductive.  I don't see how it's relevant.  Even if it's to replicate the Mach effect, they don't suggest the theory behind it.  Where is the anchor and where's the modulated mass.  They need to suggest the relation of the frequencies between the pulses.
But the device isn't supposed to be replicating the Mach effect to begin with. Someone just suggested that it is similar, though I think it has more similarities to the fourth grade science fair project.

Although I agree the setup is rather convoluted from any perspective given what it supposedly is, and a lot of important information is left out. (Another reason I dislike analyzing patents, they actually discourage some specifics so the patent can cover as many variations as they can get away with.)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/27/2019 12:24 pm
(Another reason I dislike analyzing patents, they actually discourage some specifics so the patent can cover as many variations as they can get away with.)

I first became aware of problems in the patent office in the early 80's, when software, which is literally literature, was deemed patentable.

"Patentability of Business Methods and Software"

From:

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/publications/blt/2014/05/05_jones/

The above article also points out the current issue with patent trolls, but one thing the article misses is the seemingly random award of patents for improbable ideas.  IIRC, somewhere on NSF, a fellow was awarded a patent for the idea of digging a tube down a mountain in order to house a mag-lev launch assist for a rocket.  We wer taught that one cannot patent an idea.  But anyhow...
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 03/19/2019 11:24 am
The videos from the Estes Park "Advanced Propulsion Workshop 2018," sponsored by Space Studies Institute (SSI) have been posted!

Here is the full video list from the event:  https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL_YvUODKu7CsdWPGxPm4uVxGdSv_m7gwb

Dr. Lance Williams:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gfXO94nDZ0

Dr. Jose Rodal: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lNDKt0nR7A

Professor Woodward:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0E3Hr0ogMc

TU Dresden:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnT9by1-Ydo

Dr. Heidi Fearn:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxGeFlcZoWk

My Presentation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6q2QsV9RNjU

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 03/20/2019 04:42 am
I wanted to link this thread to a post in the EM drive thread that I though might be related to the mach effect.  Its the negative energy characteristics of sound waves which I was wondering if it could also be related to space time waves and inflation of the vacuum as dark energy. 

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1922788#msg1922788
Quote
The gravitational mass carried by sound waves
Angelo Esposito, Rafael Krichevsky, Alberto Nicolis

Some possible relations to the early beginning of the universe where it inflates faster than light if there is any connection to the dark energy and inflation of the vacuum.  Some kind of early friction that caused rapid expansion.  Energy dumped into the vacuum. 

Maybe the waves are variations around a medium density but that density, if thermally excited with enough energy behaves like thermal inflating air such that the waves osculate around a new thermal level.  If the waves are thermally excited then they would have a negative gravity behavior (like a hot air baloon).  I think they suggest a relativistic parallel to this where relativity enhances this effect.  Not completely sure.  Considering a space time wave analogy or gravity waves parallel. 

If space time can be inflated like this then the question is if it could provide the negative mass effect in the mach effect. 

edit: on further thought my mind wondered to the great voids where matter seems to be missing.  I questioned if maybe large negative gravity could be at work in the voids.  If what is in the voids could be responsible for universal expansion.  Supposing energy lost to the vacuum behaves as thermall excited vacuum and gains negative gravitational effects it might rush away from gravitational fields and push matter away.  With out the limits of atmosphere it may migrate to voids.  If so voids might be anti-gravitational, the dark energy, time might run faster in voids, and there might be non-local faster than light effects.  Further contrasting the slower time along filaments due to gravity. 

A question might be would there be indications of negative gravitational effects on light passing through voids, if voids are such. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_(astronomy)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9d/Structure_of_the_Universe.jpg/300px-Structure_of_the_Universe.jpg)

Edit2  expansion and observable universe  (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/03/05/how-much-of-the-unobservable-universe-will-we-someday-be-able-to-see/amp/)

It's also interesting that we live on the edge of one of the largest voids or in it.  I wonder how far in the void our Galaxy is.

Another thing to think about is the great repulser and the great attractor. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 03/28/2019 01:26 am
The videos from the Estes Park "Advanced Propulsion Workshop 2018," sponsored by Space Studies Institute (SSI) have been posted!
...

My Presentation:
...

Jamie,

Great job on the presentation and on the experiments. Where are you currently in the modeling? Where you left off was that these mechanical 3-body systems in free space, should just oscillate and not produce thrust.

I would agree with that assessment if you are not considering any radiation from the system. However, the AL end cap puts the maximum acceleration concentrated at one end. Larmor radiation is proportional to the Mean Square Acceleration, and the square of the charge. It pertains to any charged object which is oscillating or changing inertia. I believe the end cap of the MEGA is charged, which is why the bolts are insulated. It is in electrical contact with the electrode at that end.

My questions are;
Is there only Larmor radiation from the charged surfaces?
Is there also gravitational wave Larmor radiation being radiated by the Quadrupole of the PZT stack?
Does the oscillating AL surface reflect Unruh radiation, and if so, how much force is there?
Is there Larmor radiation emitted from the individual nuclei of the vibrating AL mass?

In the latter, I would not expect the electrons to exactly cancel out the radiation from the nucleus, because the conduction electrons are loosely bound in AL and their acceleration is damped by electrical resistance. These are the things that need to be added to your simulations before you can confidently say if there will be thrust in free space, or not.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: soms42 on 03/28/2019 06:20 pm
I finally did see (almost) all the presentations.
About the presentation of  Rodal: do i understand it correct that he can explain the Woodward effect without the need for retarded waves, just using self-interaction?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 03/30/2019 01:39 pm
I finally did see (almost) all the presentations.
About the presentation of  Rodal: do i understand it correct that he can explain the Woodward effect without the need for retarded waves, just using self-interaction?

I would have to go back and listen again but if I remember correctly it seemed that he was suggesting a time-dependent wave.  Something that is time dependent isn't instantaneous. I think he was suggesting multiple effects.  I think one might define space time here via the entire universe but the other smaller effect as a local time dependent perturbation via local matter which I want to speculate would be something like a gravitational wave. 

I think it might be similar to how local matter having a large gravitational field that is rotating can affect the local space-time but doesn't affect the distance SpaceTime as much.  Because the universe as a whole isn't rotating.  A wave that Carries off a perturbation could then have an effect on the rest of the universe without breaking the light speed limit. 

this is one of the reasons I was interested in podkletnov's  gravity impulse generator seeming to have a negative Mass/gravitational repulsive effect (I.e. it pushed a pendulum away.  Some people find podkletnov contraversial but we are considering new physics here. I was wondering if there is a correlation with that and the negative mass in the Mach effect equation.  There is a paper I also linked above that seemed related possibly suggesting that airwaves could have negative relativistic gravitational Mass.  It struck me that thermally excited air does repel away from gravity.  Relativistic effects seem to sometimes enhance classical effects. 

I then began to speculate if energy could be lost the vacuum this way as black holes that are merging, they generate gravitational waves also and seem to lose energy this way. Maybe the vacuum could be full of thermally excited energy.  maybe this could be the negative energy associated with the universal constant that pushes the universe apart.  And then speculated that the voids that exists between the filaments in the universe maybe regions where that energy concentrates.  My speculation is that when the vacuum is thermally excited, like a balloon it swells, time speeds up, the Planck length increases, and the speed of light non-locally, increases however locally remains c.  My speculation was that the voids being thermally excited vacuum are gravitationally repulsive pushing a universe apart.  This would be the nature of dark energy.

There was a scientist also talking about the great repulser and the great attractor.  I think you can look him up on YouTube.  My guess would be these would be related to massive separations of such energy on a large scale. 

I may have to go back and listen to Rodal again to be sure he was suggesting time dependant Waves, but that was the impression I got.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: RERT on 03/30/2019 05:38 pm
Very hard to intuit a Schwarzschild-like solution for a time-varying mass in GR which does not involve the field variation radiating outward. Geometrically such a thing can't obviously be a quadrupole, and I suspect it is a spherical PP wave, not a regular gravitational wave.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 03/30/2019 08:56 pm
I finally did see (almost) all the presentations.
About the presentation of  Rodal: do i understand it correct that he can explain the Woodward effect without the need for retarded waves, just using self-interaction?

I think Dr. Rodal was saying that the Woodward Effect cannot be explained by the "stars out there" because the mach effect device cannot couple with these distant masses.  By saying that it was a self-interaction, I understood that to be a false-positive.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 03/30/2019 09:08 pm
Where are you currently in the modeling? Where you left off was that these mechanical 3-body systems in free space, should just oscillate and not produce thrust.

I took the model as far as I could until it became obvious that properly simulating the flexure bearings with the constraints available in Autodesk Inventor was not going to be easy.  I can do a simple Finite Element Analysis of the bearings, but that is not the same as simulating them interacting with other masses using multi-body dynamics. We would need to write a custom bearing constraint or do a detailed Finite Element Analysis of the entire balance - which is not easy stuff to do! 

I am contemplating two options going forward, both of which could not start until after I move into my new home this fall, which also involves moving my lab. The first option is to do the detailed FEA analysis of the whole balance. The second option, is to build a replica of Woodward's balance and show how it can be tricked in real life.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 03/30/2019 09:40 pm
Where are you currently in the modeling? Where you left off was that these mechanical 3-body systems in free space, should just oscillate and not produce thrust.

I took the model as far as I could until it became obvious that properly simulating the flexure bearings with the constraints available in Autodesk Inventor was not going to be easy.  I can do a simple Finite Element Analysis of the bearings, but that is not the same as simulating them interacting with other masses using multi-body dynamics. We would need to write a custom bearing constraint or do a detailed Finite Element Analysis of the entire balance - which is not easy stuff to do! 

I am contemplating two options going forward, both of which could not start until after I move into my new home this fall, which also involves moving my lab. The first option is to do the detailed FEA analysis of the whole balance. The second option, is to build a replica of Woodward's balance and show how it can be tricked in real life.

While I would argue that the thrust from the MEGA is real and due to radiated momentum, I also believe that any slow-response balance is going to act like a peak-detector and so the thrust recorded would be larger than the average. I'm not sure the word "tricked" is appropriate.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: WarpTech on 03/30/2019 09:44 pm
I finally did see (almost) all the presentations.
About the presentation of  Rodal: do i understand it correct that he can explain the Woodward effect without the need for retarded waves, just using self-interaction?

I think Dr. Rodal was saying that the Woodward Effect cannot be explained by the "stars out there" because the mach effect device cannot couple with these distant masses.  By saying that it was a self-interaction, I took that to be a false-positive.

Not necessarily! Self-interaction also implies the Radiation-reaction of charged, oscillating objects. As stated in my other post, the radiation is proportional to the (charge x acceleration)2. Since it is not symmetrical, there will be thrust.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 03/30/2019 11:59 pm
Where are you currently in the modeling? Where you left off was that these mechanical 3-body systems in free space, should just oscillate and not produce thrust.

I took the model as far as I could until it became obvious that properly simulating the flexure bearings with the constraints available in Autodesk Inventor was not going to be easy.  I can do a simple Finite Element Analysis of the bearings, but that is not the same as simulating them interacting with other masses using multi-body dynamics. We would need to write a custom bearing constraint or do a detailed Finite Element Analysis of the entire balance - which is not easy stuff to do! 

I am contemplating two options going forward, both of which could not start until after I move into my new home this fall, which also involves moving my lab. The first option is to do the detailed FEA analysis of the whole balance. The second option, is to build a replica of Woodward's balance and show how it can be tricked in real life.

While I would argue that the thrust from the MEGA is real and due to radiated momentum, I also believe that any slow-response balance is going to act like a peak-detector and so the thrust recorded would be larger than the average. I'm not sure the word "tricked" is appropriate.
I think you may have missed the point of Monomorphic's modelling.

Monomorphic has been working to show that certain types of vibrating objects can make a false positive signal even when there is exactly zero real force being produced. The word "tricked" is therefore an accurate description.

You seem to be trying to tie in an unrelated discussion about radiation reaction forces. The existence and general magnitude of electromagnetic radiation forces are well understood, and too small to be relevant for what Monomorphic is showing. What you mention about a balance acting as a "peak" detector is related to certain experimenters on devices like this who appear to not understand dynamic responses and therefore misread the outputs.

Also, worth noting that "radiated momentum" from electromagnetism, has the same momentum/energy ratio that gravitational waves have. This is not a coincidence, and if force from any propellantless propulsion device is experimentally demonstrated, but at that level, then it does not "work." We already know how to generate that level of force, the "new physics" and actual utility comes only if someone comes up with something better than that.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 03/31/2019 02:06 am
I guess I'm curious.  The gravitational braking of black holes.  They brake purely off the force you would get from photons? 

https://physics.aps.org/story/v25/st22
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 03/31/2019 07:09 pm
I guess I'm curious.  The gravitational braking of black holes.  They brake purely off the force you would get from photons? 

https://physics.aps.org/story/v25/st22
Yes, same force/power level that you get from photons, though it is not photons. (I should note that as far as I know, to define the energy and momentum of gravitational waves requires certain approximations, just due to the general difficulties with defining global conservation laws in GR, but given that gravitational waves have been detected and match the theory, the approximations are probably fine.)

It is not just braking though (which seems to be a relatively new area of research), but the initial kick that they are slowing relative to is also from gravitational waves during the initial merger.

The reason this works is because the amount of energy released through gravitational waves during a black hole merger is massive, even relative to the size of the black hole. For the merger of 2 black holes that resulted in an 80 solar mass black hole, 5 solar masses of energy were released in the form of gravitational waves.

https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/gravitational-waves-biggest-black-hole-merger-ever-detected-revealed
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: soms42 on 03/31/2019 07:51 pm
I was thinking of something like https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9604044 or https://arxiv.org/abs/1002.0351.

The idea is that the whole math for quadrupole radiation is only valid for free moving objects in space (gravitationally bound). It still is just (gravitational) radiation with a normal radiation action-reaction force (like a photon rocket). That is something completely different than the Woodward-mach effect.

Back to the lectures: whether or not the Woodward-mach effect is real must still be decided (at least for me):
- the Dresden experiments are very precise but it looks like they perform the experiments without much  understanding of the intended effect which makes the results more or less worthless,
- the Woodward+Fearn experiments still do not address possible false positives satisfactory.
- i did read somewhere, sorry i forgot where, that the discovery of the Higgs boson disproved the Hoyle–Narlikar interpretation. There are other challenges for that theory as well. Could this be bad for the Woodward mach effect theory?

I think i have to build an experiment myself... I am not sure i have the time to do that.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 04/12/2019 11:44 am
i did read somewhere, sorry i forgot where, that the discovery of the Higgs boson disproved the Hoyle–Narlikar interpretation. There are other challenges for that theory as well. Could this be bad for the Woodward mach effect theory?

If you refer to the Creation-Field (C-field) of the eternal quasi steady-state model of the universe as developed by Fred Hoyle & Jayant Narlikar (where multiple mini-bangs occur in quasars generating matter, instead of the initial creation instant aka the Big Bang), well this has nothing to do with Woodward's current developments about Mach effects. Indeed, Heidi Fearn does not use the C-field. In other words, her Gravitational Absorber Theory (GAT) is the Hoyle-Narlikar theory minus C-field, therefore it is no more steady-state and is compatible with the accelerating expansion of the universe and the Big Bang model. Thus, I do not think that the Higgs is especially related to the GAT, which is a Machian and conformal representation of general relativity.

As Fearn likes to say: "The Hoyle-Narlikar theory reduces to Einstein's general relativity in the limit of a smooth fluid model of particle distribution and a transformation of coordinates into the rest frame of the fluid to simplify the field equations. The two theories make the same predictions."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle–Narlikar_theory_of_gravity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle–Narlikar_theory_of_gravity)
Since Wikipedia's Bureau of Unadvertising Liability and Laudable Science for Hitherto Indecent Tactics has made the internal link to Fearn's GAT disappear from the HN page, don't forget to also have a look at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect#Gravitational_absorber_theory
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 04/16/2019 03:13 am
I guess I'm curious.  The gravitational braking of black holes.  They brake purely off the force you would get from photons? 

https://physics.aps.org/story/v25/st22
Yes, same force/power level that you get from photons, though it is not photons. (I should note that as far as I know, to define the energy and momentum of gravitational waves requires certain approximations, just due to the general difficulties with defining global conservation laws in GR, but given that gravitational waves have been detected and match the theory, the approximations are probably fine.)

It is not just braking though (which seems to be a relatively new area of research), but the initial kick that they are slowing relative to is also from gravitational waves during the initial merger.

The reason this works is because the amount of energy released through gravitational waves during a black hole merger is massive, even relative to the size of the black hole. For the merger of 2 black holes that resulted in an 80 solar mass black hole, 5 solar masses of energy were released in the form of gravitational waves.

https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/gravitational-waves-biggest-black-hole-merger-ever-detected-revealed

Ok to continue on this.  I think I just found an interesting article here.  https://physics.aps.org/story/v19/st17 .  I think its related to the mach effect.  Notice that the black hole system they mention is propelled up to about 1% the speed of light in energy dissipation.

Notice it deals with a large black hole and a small black hole.  I think this parallels to the mach effect in that you need an anchor and an accelerated mass.  Now put the smaller black hole into a highly elliptical orbit and its acceleration will be asymmetric.  When this happens the small black hole with be rapidly accelerated at perihelion.  This induces the focused gravitational wave in a single direction (asymmetric) providing propulsion. 

While the propelled black holes may have not yet been detected, they are expected to behave as such and it seems to be the same effect that is responsible for the braking of black holes.  That is, this should be the same phenomena as the gravitational waves we are currently detecting via LIGO.  When the black holes are of equal mass there isn't any asymmetric projection of gravitational waves so no propulsion effect.  When there is asymmetric acceleration we should possibly get some massive propulsion.  Eventually the energy should be dissipated from the elliptical orbit and the propulsion should die away but not before shooting the black hole system out of its host galaxy (propellantless propulsion - or is it?). 

I think its possible the gravitational waves behave like negative mass.  We also see this in the Mach effect with the negative mass worm hole term. 
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/e62b998a10ec8b78115845895fb3f412789ad871)
This negative mass I think has negative gravitational aspects - possible parallel with Podkletnov's gravity impulse generator Eugene Podkletnov google (https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=JUa1XO7YOfCwtgWcwYO4Cg&q=podkletnov+gravity+impulse+generator&oq=podkletnov+&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.35i39j0l4j0i30l3.421.3975..6053...0.0..0.85.842.12......0....1..gws-wiz.....0..0i131j0i10.co_BIhT2vqo)
Could this negative mass term may be part of the dark energy pushing the universe apart and that it is repelled from gravitational sources.  Could large amounts of this negative mass exist in the voids of the universe between the galactic filaments? galactic voids and filaments - google (https://www.google.com/search?ei=xEa1XPmbDoKUtQXKj7fIBg&q=galactic+voids+and+filaments&oq=galactic+voids+and+filaments&gs_l=psy-ab.3...5029.6826..7182...0.0..0.95.765.9......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j35i304i39j0i13i30j0i13i5i30.eOEJDec7MAw)
Not only this but the repulsive gravitational wave then imparts the missing momentum to the rest of the universe so that momentum is conserved. 
Gravity waves being quadrapole might possibly have in them the reverse polarized wave that travels back in time as the reverse time operator?  But that reverse time operator travels with the forward time wave via the gravity wave or in machian terms - gravitational absorber theory.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect#Gravitational_absorber_theory
Why might gravity waves be negative mass?  See this paper at this link below:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1922788#msg1922788
Quote
The gravitational mass carried by sound waves
Angelo Esposito, Rafael Krichevsky, Alberto Nicolis

Maybe the vacuum that is being inflated like a hot gas.  This possibly thermally expands the local plank length counteracting the normal Lorentz contraction that slows time.  I think it not only behaves like a negative mass but it pushes away gravitational objects.  In a sense I think this is what is braking the black hole.  It is gravitationally repelled from its own wave.  The larger the wave the greater the relativistic coupling and exchange of energy between the black hole and space time.  I think its possible this enhances the energy exchange way above what is achievable with photon propulsion which brings up another thought I would like to look into. 

You see in a kinetic collision the energy exchanged with a system depends on the relative masses of the systems colliding.  If you work out the physics of newtons cradle then you find the only time in which 100% the energy is exchanged in a collision are when the masses are equal.  Every other collision exchanges less energy.  I did the newtons cradle energy exchange calculation with a photon colliding with an object and I was able to extract the Doppler effect with 2nd order effects that depended on the objects relative mass. 
Dustin research gate, decelerating light for propellantless propulsion (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311406776_Is_the_frustum_EM_Drive_4_decelerating_light_for_propellantless_propulsion)
equation (14)
Photon emission is about half that of a ballistic photon collision.  When your dealing with photons almost all the energy goes into the photon and very little energy goes into the larger mass which is why photon propulsion is so useless.  Once the energy is lost to photons its quite hard to get it back unless you use pressure of many reflections to enhance the energy exchange (photon rocket) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_rocket.  Pressure is also necessary to enhance energy exchange between the hot gas in a combustion chamber of a car engine and the large mass of the car (PV curve area = energy exchanged). (notice the pressure developed in the repulsive gravitational wave a black hole generates which slows the black hole)  What I am saying is I have my doubts this black hole braking effect is purely watts/newton equal to just photon propulsion because with the energy needed to brake the black hole - way more massive amounts of energy are being blasted into the vacuum than is ever transferred to the black hole system.  In fact it seems the coupling of the black holes to the vacuum (or pressure between the vacuum and black hole) is highly dependent on their acceleration.  Just like in the mach effect.  Coincidence? 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 04/16/2019 06:07 am
Ok to continue on this.  I think I just found an interesting article here.  https://physics.aps.org/story/v19/st17 .  I think its related to the mach effect.  Notice that the black hole system they mention is propelled up to about 1% the speed of light in energy dissipation.

Notice it deals with a large black hole and a small black hole.
...
When the black holes are of equal mass there isn't any asymmetric projection of gravitational waves so no propulsion effect.
Did your read the link you posted? While a large and small black hole would have been my first guess for strongest assymetry, GR is not particularly intuitive to random guesses, and the physicists found:
Quote
Several papers in the past few months have reported recoils up to 500 kilometers per second. The “best-case scenario,” as several teams have found, includes two black holes of equal masses, rapidly spinning in opposite directions around parallel axes. But in a recent paper, David Merritt, Manuela Campanelli, and their colleagues, at the Rochester Institute of Technology in New York state suggested that if the spin axes were parallel–rather than perpendicular–to the orbital plane, very large kicks could result [1].

Most of the rest of your post involves you running off in an unrelated direction making nonsensical statements about concepts you don't seem to have a basic grasp of.

A couple specifics:

Why might gravity waves be negative mass?  See this paper at this link below:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1922788#msg1922788
I almost responded to that paper before, but didn't feel like spending the time on it. The short version is that that paper describes something that may be an interesting or useful model, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is what physically happens, and it certainly does not describe true "negative mass" in terms of negative spatial curvature. It certainly does not apply to gravitational waves.

What I am saying is I have my doubts this black hole braking effect is purely watts/newton equal to just photon propulsion because with the energy needed to brake the black hole - way more massive amounts of energy are being blasted into the vacuum than is ever transferred to the black hole system.
So in other words, you doubt the results of physicists who have gone through lots of difficult math to accurately predict answers, because you find the results of a complicated theory that accurately models everything it has been tested on to be unintuitive to you.

  In fact it seems the coupling of the black holes to the vacuum (or pressure between the vacuum and black hole) is highly dependent on their acceleration.  Just like in the mach effect.  Coincidence?
Your statement seems to have been pulled from your imagination with no apparent basis in reality, parts of it literally make no sense.

Honestly, I think you spend too much time looking for random connections and piecing together physics buzzwords, trying to fit them into your personal mental model. If you really want to get into this kind of detail, you should spend the time learning the actual math involved in the physics you are trying to discuss. As it is, you end up writing a lot of posts like this one that are effectively meaningless.

I don't believe you intend it this way, but when you make claims contrary to the understanding of basically all physicists, and twist various unrelated results, (or just flat out apparently not read the article you linked to as it seems happened in this post), or otherwise act like you can come up with revolutionary physics ideas when you barely have any idea what you are talking about; it comes across to me as rather disrespectful to the physicists who put a lot of time  and effort into actually understanding their field and doing all of the hard math to get to their results.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 04/16/2019 08:41 pm
I don't have a lot of time but I wanted to reference this post here.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/274735/can-gravitational-wave-create-anti-gravity-i-e-repulsive-gravity

Quote
Bob - gravitational waves are not a 'linear approximation'. Yes weak ones can be very well modelled by a linear approximation, but waves can be be very much in the non linear regime. Please note the question - which was not about negative mass, but rather if gravitational waves can create a repulsive effect, which they certainly can. The transverse nature of the waves has nothing to do with attraction or repulsion. – Tom Andersen Aug 17 '16 at 22:55

Quote
I will re-form your question by ignoring the second and third sentence, which are not too clear.

Can gravitational wave create anti-gravity, i.e. repulsive gravity?

Yes.

Its the same as for light: if light - which carries momentum - is absorbed by an object then that object moves away from the light source.

The trick with gravitational waves is that normal matter does not absorb gravitational waves very well. (But there is always some absorption).

To Maximize the Effect:
If gravitational waves impinge on any rotating object there can be repulsion or attraction. The effect is only really strong when waves impinge on a rapidly rotating compact object like a spinning black hole. To get a nice large effect the period of the waves need to be of the same size as the spin rate.

The effect when its an near coherence mode is called super radiance.

For repulsion the effect is actually an absorption of gravitational energy from the wave, so that the object starts to move in the same direction as the wave. See Figure 16 of Brito: - http://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.06570v3.pdf

The effect can be quite pronounced. 10% of the incoming energy of the wave can be absorbed.

Normally the efficiency of energy exchange between a photon and a black hole is ridiculously minuscule.  Kinetic exchange or emission.  Its actually a function of the ratio of the photons effective mass over the objects effective mass.  Something like hdf/hf=m1/m2 ish.
 Electrons are way more effected by photons than black holes.  A 10% energy exchange is way above the ratio of energy exchanged between photons and a black hole. 

This is related to what enhances the coupling.  Coupling is important in many systems and enhances energy exchange.  The combustion cycle, the photonic laser thruster ect.  Pressure enhances the energy exchanged.   
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 04/17/2019 06:06 am
Normally the efficiency of energy exchange between a photon and a black hole is ridiculously minuscule.  Kinetic exchange or emission.  Its actually a function of the ratio of the photons effective mass over the objects effective mass.  Something like hdf/hf=m1/m2 ish.
 Electrons are way more effected by photons than black holes.  A 10% energy exchange is way above the ratio of energy exchanged between photons and a black hole. 

This is related to what enhances the coupling.  Coupling is important in many systems and enhances energy exchange.  The combustion cycle, the photonic laser thruster ect.  Pressure enhances the energy exchanged.
I am not sure what you are trying to say here, because it first of all it seems completely tangential to what you quoted (unless you meant to be discussing gravitons rather than photons.)

A photon that runs into a black whole transfers 100% of its energy and momentum to the black hole, once it passes the event horizon, it is part of the black hole and that is that. A photon that is absorbed by an electron (say it is bound in an atom with the appropriate available energy level) transfers all of its energy and momentum to the electron.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 04/17/2019 07:33 am
Normally the efficiency of energy exchange between a photon and a black hole is ridiculously minuscule.  Kinetic exchange or emission.  Its actually a function of the ratio of the photons effective mass over the objects effective mass.  Something like hdf/hf=m1/m2 ish.
 Electrons are way more effected by photons than black holes.  A 10% energy exchange is way above the ratio of energy exchanged between photons and a black hole. 

This is related to what enhances the coupling.  Coupling is important in many systems and enhances energy exchange.  The combustion cycle, the photonic laser thruster ect.  Pressure enhances the energy exchanged.
I am not sure what you are trying to say here, because it first of all it seems completely tangential to what you quoted (unless you meant to be discussing gravitons rather than photons.)

A photon that runs into a black whole transfers 100% of its energy and momentum to the black hole, once it passes the event horizon, it is part of the black hole and that is that. A photon that is absorbed by an electron (say it is bound in an atom with the appropriate available energy level) transfers all of its energy and momentum to the electron.

Well were talking kinetic energy exchange from photon emission or the equivalent of photon emission as gravity waves.  I am using the first part of this paper as the basis of my understanding of the kick a photon provides as a percentage of energy exchanged with the collided object.  Is the frustum EM Drive decelerating light for propellantless propulsion? (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311406776_Is_the_frustum_EM_Drive_4_decelerating_light_for_propellantless_propulsion)
I'm only using the first part of the paper which compares a photon reflecting off a massive object.  First we have a photon and a zero kinetic energy mirror.  After reflection the mirror gains energy and the photon loses energy.  equation 1.  Equation 7 is 100% of all accounted for energy which shows a ratio or % of energy exchanged in the collision.  The plot shows that only 100% of energy is exchanged when masses are equal and the percentage is less when masses are not equal.  This is the equivalent of Newtons cradle.  We then solve for the change in frequency of the photon after the collision over its initial frequency.  A series expansion in equation 14 gives the Doppler shift with 2nd order effects via the mass of the object collided with and the photons effective mass.  A photon reflecting off  an electron exchanges a greater ratio of kinetic energy than a larger object via these 2nd order effects. 

Now these are a reflection but an emission/absorption you just divide by 2.  All this just shows how ineffective photon propulsion is.  All the kinetic energy remains in the photon.  I'm saying if the black hole is just emitting the equivalent of photons then the kick the black hole is going to get is dismal and as a percentage of energy exchanged, it will receive almost no kinetic energy.  The (h*df)/(h*f)~(mass of photon)/(mass of black hole).  Now in a photon rocket if we reflect the photon 10,000 times we have the % of kinetic energy exchanged * 10,000.  The photon gives up more energy in that case but that is better than photon propulsion efficiency.  This is pressure and coupling.  I think even LIGO uses this when they reflect laser light many times. 

When the black holes accelerate hard enough and are moving fast enough the coupling starts to increase with space time, increasing efficiency of kinetic energy exchange.  In my opinion when this happens I think it may far surpasses that of photon propulsion efficiency. 

Here they are questioning whether a gravity wave can be repulsive.  https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/274735/can-gravitational-wave-create-anti-gravity-i-e-repulsive-gravity
When an electron emits a photon it receives a kick and slows some.  Likewise when an electron absorbs a photon is also receives a repulsion.  Emission of gravity waves also seems to give a repulsion slowing the black hole, almost as if the wave that builds up has a repulsive pressure on the black hole.  Its discussed there are cases of relativistic objects that can absorb as much as 10% of the kinetic energy of an incoming gravity wave.  This to me far surpasses photon propulsion efficiency. 

Why bring it up?  I think if the mach effect works, then it works on a similar basis.  With enough component acceleration and velocity that coupling can be enhanced far beyond photon propulsion efficiency.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 04/17/2019 03:20 pm
Well were talking kinetic energy exchange from photon emission or the equivalent of photon emission as gravity waves.
In that case every use of the word "photon" in your previous post should be replaced by "graviton" (or just "gravitational wave" since graviton is specific to quantum gravity, and as far as I know only is consistently described by string theory, and does not seem relevant to this case.

I am using the first part of this paper as the basis of my understanding of the kick a photon provides as a percentage of energy exchanged with the collided object.
...
Now these are a reflection but an emission/absorption you just divide by 2.  All this just shows how ineffective photon propulsion is.  All the kinetic energy remains in the photon.
No, not really, the momentum transfer is divided by 2, but when talking about the energy, all of the energy is absorbed or emitted in those cases. This generally means being converted to/from thermal energy, potential energy (changing the energy level of an electron to a different orbital around an atom, in order for the conservation laws to balance.)

I'm saying if the black hole is just emitting the equivalent of photons then the kick the black hole is going to get is dismal and as a percentage of energy exchanged, it will receive almost no kinetic energy.  The (h*df)/(h*f)~(mass of photon)/(mass of black hole).  Now in a photon rocket if we reflect the photon 10,000 times we have the % of kinetic energy exchanged * 10,000.  The photon gives up more energy in that case but that is better than photon propulsion efficiency.  This is pressure and coupling.  I think even LIGO uses this when they reflect laser light many times.
No, large number of reflections is not what LIGO is based on, but single reflections over long distances to my knowledge.

Large number of reflections between mirrors is a way to mediate momentum transfer between 2 distant objects so that they are pushing off each other. There is no way to do this with the vacuum, and there is no such thing as a gravitational wave mirror anyway. Scientists are still learning things about GR, but it seems unlikely anything could act as a good gravitational wave mirror, and if somehow empty vacuum did, that would have been noticed in predictions and detections of gravitational waves.

When the black holes accelerate hard enough and are moving fast enough the coupling starts to increase with space time, increasing efficiency of kinetic energy exchange.  In my opinion when this happens I think it may far surpasses that of photon propulsion efficiency. 
Accelerate hard enough due to what? Moving fast enough relative to what? You seem to have some major gaps in your understanding of the previously cited papers.

Your opinion conflicts with the actual calculations done by scientists, where they found that the slowing was attributed to standard gravitational waves, with their standard energy/momentum ratio.

Here they are questioning whether a gravity wave can be repulsive.  https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/274735/can-gravitational-wave-create-anti-gravity-i-e-repulsive-gravity
When an electron emits a photon it receives a kick and slows some.  Likewise when an electron absorbs a photon is also receives a repulsion.  Emission of gravity waves also seems to give a repulsion slowing the black hole, almost as if the wave that builds up has a repulsive pressure on the black hole.  Its discussed there are cases of relativistic objects that can absorb as much as 10% of the kinetic energy of an incoming gravity wave.  This to me far surpasses photon propulsion efficiency. 
Check out equation 15 in the paper you referenced, for a relativistic mirror, the percentage of energy transferred to a mirror can be a large number when the velocity is relativistic. Of course that doesn't matter, because whether an object is relativistic depends on your choice of reference frame. Your conclusion is simply wrong.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 04/18/2019 06:51 am
Well were talking kinetic energy exchange from photon emission or the equivalent of photon emission as gravity waves.
In that case every use of the word "photon" in your previous post should be replaced by "graviton" (or just "gravitational wave"
since graviton is specific to quantum gravity, and as far as I know only is consistently described by string theory, and does not seem relevant to this case.

I am using the first part of this paper as the basis of my understanding
of the kick a photon provides as a percentage of energy exchanged with the collided object.
...
Now these are a reflection but an emission/absorption you just divide by 2.  All this just shows how ineffective photon propulsion is. 
All the kinetic energy remains in the photon.
No, not really, the momentum transfer is divided by 2, but when talking about the energy, all of the energy is absorbed or emitted in those cases.
This generally means being converted to/from thermal energy, potential energy (changing the energy level of an electron to a different orbital around an atom,
in order for the conservation laws to balance.)

The conservation of momentum and kinetic energy, are mainly all that are used in the solution.  There is no consideration of thermal energy or potential energy.  It is just the consideration of elastic collisions.  One might question then how I can say emission is half of reflection.  What I am referencing is what people commonly refer to when they reference a solar sail.  It is commonly stated that a solar sail receives twice the thrust because not only does it catch the photon but sends it back as a reflection.  If the solar sail were just a laser using emission and not reflection it should receive half the thrust as a solar sail. 

Quote
I'm saying if the black hole is just emitting the equivalent of photons
then the kick the black hole is going to get is dismal and as a percentage of energy exchanged, it will receive almost no kinetic energy. 
The (h*df)/(h*f)~(mass of photon)/(mass of black hole).  Now in a photon rocket if we reflect the photon 10,000 times we have the % of kinetic energy exchanged
* 10,000.  The photon gives up more energy in that case but that is better than photon propulsion efficiency.  This is pressure and coupling. 
I think even LIGO uses this when they reflect laser light many times.
No, large number of reflections is not what LIGO is based on, but single reflections over long distances to my knowledge.

Large number of reflections between mirrors is a way to mediate momentum transfer between 2 distant objects so that they are pushing off each other.
There is no way to do this with the vacuum, and there is no such thing as a gravitational wave mirror anyway. Scientists are still learning things
about GR, but it seems unlikely anything could act as a good gravitational wave mirror, and if somehow empty vacuum did, that would have been noticed
in predictions and detections of gravitational waves.

I believe they do use laser recycling.  Here is a link to their power-recycling mirror. 
https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/ligos-ifo 
Not only does it make the effective length of their interferometric arms longer but amplifies the laser.  I'm not sure this necessarily qualifies as increasing coupling to the vacuum but it was necessary to detect gravitational waves.  There was also a paper a while back cited that was suggesting because of that coupling LIGO was also capable of generating micro gravity waves but its been so long I'm not sure where that paper is. 

I don't think there are any gravitational wave mirrors but I was saying as the black hole reaches the necessary acceleration and velocity its coupling to the vacuum seems to increase to the point where it is rapidly decelerating.  There seems to be a pressure induced between the vacuum and the hole.  This pressure might be some virtual particle coupling, or I really don't know but, it could symbolize a lot of pressure enhancing transference of kinetic
energy and momentum.  This would be over what we commonly see using a laser for thrust at low velocity, and how objects normally interact with the vacuum at lower speeds and accelerations. 

I am proposing if the mach effect works and would be better than photon propulsion that it might be related.  One idea I was suggesting was a superconducting cavity, where electrons reach higher velocities than in copper, are induced to move with large accelerations in one direction and low acceleration in the other direction.  If the stored energy in the superconducting cavity can cause the electrons to reach large enough accelerations and velocities maybe that relativistic effect could be replicated efficiently. Superconductors have a much lower electron density than say copper enhancing velocity and acceleration. 

Quote
When the black holes accelerate hard enough and are moving fast
enough the coupling starts to increase with space time, increasing efficiency of kinetic energy exchange.  In my opinion when this happens I think
it may far surpasses that of photon propulsion efficiency. 
Accelerate hard enough due to what? Moving fast enough relative to what? You seem to have some major gaps in your understanding of the previously
cited papers.

Your opinion conflicts with the actual calculations done by scientists, where they found that the slowing was attributed to standard gravitational
waves, with their standard energy/momentum ratio.
I'm curious about this.  If the percent of kinetic energy exchanged is the same as with a massive object such as the sun firing off a laser for thrust how that percentage * 10^47 watts or so could be enough to slow the black hole.  I would assume there would need to be a larger percentage of kinetic energy exchanged, but that is a lot of power.  I'll have to work it out some time.  On the other hand I wonder if they are using some relativistic
effect to enhance the % of kinetic energy exchanged, which then is larger than the % of kinetic energy we see exchanged with a laser and non-relativistic massive objects. 
Quote

Here they are questioning whether a gravity wave can be repulsive. 
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/274735/can-gravitational-wave-create-anti-gravity-i-e-repulsive-gravity
When an electron emits a photon it receives a kick and slows some.  Likewise when an electron absorbs a photon is also receives a repulsion. 
Emission of gravity waves also seems to give a repulsion slowing the black hole, almost as if the wave that builds up has a repulsive pressure on the black hole.  Its discussed there are cases of relativistic objects that can absorb as much as 10% of the kinetic energy of an incoming gravity wave. 
This to me far surpasses photon propulsion efficiency. 
Check out equation 15 in the paper you referenced, for a relativistic mirror, the percentage of energy transferred to a mirror can be a large number
when the velocity is relativistic. Of course that doesn't matter, because whether an object is relativistic depends on your choice of reference frame.
Your conclusion is simply wrong.

The equation for the mirror isn't relativistic.  It's just a low velocity approximation.  Thats why in the serries expansion it is the low velocity approximation of the doppler shift.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Sound/dopp.html#c1
The relativistic effect which could have been calculated in the paper would require a relativistic description of the kinetic energy and momentum.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/reldop2.html
Notice the links above don't get the 2nd order effects of kinetic energy transfer via the ratio of effective masses.  With out that one wonders how a solar sail accelerates, but it does. 

While, if the mirror is relativistic it can absorb more kinetic energy, I was comparing it to laser thrust that we are used to observing.  Non-relativistic.  That form of propulsion is very ineffective and the percent of kinetic energy exchanged is very low and depends highly on the ratio of effective masses.  I'm just trying to say if properly done the mach effect might be a lot more effective via those relativistic effects. 

I guess the reference frame would be with respect to the anchor and the accelerated mass would be the relativistic object.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 04/23/2019 03:30 pm
I am using the first part of this paper as the basis of my understanding
of the kick a photon provides as a percentage of energy exchanged with the collided object.
...
Now these are a reflection but an emission/absorption you just divide by 2.  All this just shows how ineffective photon propulsion is. 
All the kinetic energy remains in the photon.
No, not really, the momentum transfer is divided by 2, but when talking about the energy, all of the energy is absorbed or emitted in those cases.
This generally means being converted to/from thermal energy, potential energy (changing the energy level of an electron to a different orbital around an atom,
in order for the conservation laws to balance.)

The conservation of momentum and kinetic energy, are mainly all that are used in the solution.  There is no consideration of thermal energy or potential energy.  It is just the consideration of elastic collisions.  One might question then how I can say emission is half of reflection.  What I am referencing is what people commonly refer to when they reference a solar sail.  It is commonly stated that a solar sail receives twice the thrust because not only does it catch the photon but sends it back as a reflection.  If the solar sail were just a laser using emission and not reflection it should receive half the thrust as a solar sail. 
Please read what I wrote again. You cannot describe emission or absorption of photons without considering other forms of energy. It is simply impossible to get both the momentum and energy to balance otherwise.

I believe they do use laser recycling.  Here is a link to their power-recycling mirror. 
https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/ligos-ifo 
Thanks, I hadn't seen an explanation of the architecture that talked about those details before. I would have thought that errors introduced by multiple reflections would cancel out any benefits, but this goes to show how extremely stable they must have built the system.

I am skipping most of the rest of your post, because it is complete nonsense, where you continue to demonstrate that you don't know the meaning of the words you are using. If you are just going to misuse terminology, I can't spend the time to explain to you all of the ways you are doing so if you don't demonstrate some willingness to learn.

Quote
Accelerate hard enough due to what? Moving fast enough relative to what? You seem to have some major gaps in your understanding of the previously
cited papers.

Your opinion conflicts with the actual calculations done by scientists, where they found that the slowing was attributed to standard gravitational
waves, with their standard energy/momentum ratio.
I'm curious about this.  If the percent of kinetic energy exchanged is the same as with a massive object such as the sun firing off a laser for thrust how that percentage * 10^47 watts or so could be enough to slow the black hole.
Percent of kinetic energy is meaningless, the specifics of kinetic energy depend on the reference frame you are measuring an interaction from. THe actual constant is the energy/momentum ratio of massless particles, which is simply c. Black holes that accelerate by emitting gravitational waves have to release a corresponding amount of energy and 100% of that energy comes from the black hole.

I would assume there would need to be a larger percentage of kinetic energy exchanged, but that is a lot of power.  I'll have to work it out some time.
Again there is nothing to work out. and you are tracking the wrong metric.

While, if the mirror is relativistic it can absorb more kinetic energy, I was comparing it to laser thrust that we are used to observing.  Non-relativistic.
I was going to explain more detail about how any equation involving photon momentum is at least partially relativistic, but there is a bigger communication problem here.

You are stating that you were comparing to a non-relativistic case, but your comparison was explicitly with a relativistic case. See the part of your statement that I bolded below.
Its discussed there are cases of relativistic objects that can absorb as much as 10% of the kinetic energy of an incoming gravity wave. 
This to me far surpasses photon propulsion efficiency. 
How am I supposed to have a conversation with you, explain anything, or answer any questions when you make a completely false statement about your own words that were still quoted in your post?

You can't compare gravitational waves in a relativistic case with photons in a non-relativistic case and then claim that gravitational waves have a different energy/momentum ratio. If you compare them in comparable situations, then you will get comparable results.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 04/26/2019 05:16 am
I am using the first part of this paper as the basis of my understanding
of the kick a photon provides as a percentage of energy exchanged with the collided object.
...
Now these are a reflection but an emission/absorption you just divide by 2.  All this just shows how ineffective photon propulsion is. 
All the kinetic energy remains in the photon.
No, not really, the momentum transfer is divided by 2, but when talking about the energy, all of the energy is absorbed or emitted in those cases.
This generally means being converted to/from thermal energy, potential energy (changing the energy level of an electron to a different orbital around an atom,
in order for the conservation laws to balance.)

The conservation of momentum and kinetic energy, are mainly all that are used in the solution.  There is no consideration of thermal energy or potential energy.  It is just the consideration of elastic collisions.  One might question then how I can say emission is half of reflection.  What I am referencing is what people commonly refer to when they reference a solar sail.  It is commonly stated that a solar sail receives twice the thrust because not only does it catch the photon but sends it back as a reflection.  If the solar sail were just a laser using emission and not reflection it should receive half the thrust as a solar sail. 

Please read what I wrote again. You cannot describe emission or absorption of photons without considering other forms of energy. It is simply impossible to get both the momentum and energy to balance otherwise.

It's perfectly acceptable.  There are plenty of examples of circumstances where the energy involved in thermal heat generated is negligible.  The discussion was of an elastic collision where the percent of energy converted to heat is negligible.  A quality solar sail is a great example where very few photons are absorbed as thermal heat.  LIGO's mirrors are another.  Another example of low thermal photon emission is a hand held LED laser. 

Using an expression of an elastic collision for just conservation of momentum, kinetic energy, momentum of a photon, and energy of a photon, the expression of the Doppler effect and secondary terms via effective mass come out.  These describe why an object accelerates when struck by photons which are considered mass-less but have effective mass via their energy.  i.e. the Doppler effect by itself doesn't show this.

Quote

I believe they do use laser recycling.  Here is a link to their power-recycling mirror. 
https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/ligos-ifo 
Thanks, I hadn't seen an explanation of the architecture that talked about those details before. I would have thought that errors introduced by multiple reflections would cancel out any benefits, but this goes to show how extremely stable they must have built the system.

I am skipping most of the rest of your post, because it is complete nonsense, where you continue to demonstrate that you don't know the meaning of the words you are using. If you are just going to misuse terminology, I can't spend the time to explain to you all of the ways you are doing so if you don't demonstrate some willingness to learn.

If you have something specific to point out then feel free.  I don't see much here worth responding to. 
Quote

Quote
Accelerate hard enough due to what? Moving fast enough relative to what? You seem to have some major gaps in your understanding of the previously
cited papers.

Your opinion conflicts with the actual calculations done by scientists, where they found that the slowing was attributed to standard gravitational
waves, with their standard energy/momentum ratio.
I'm curious about this.  If the percent of kinetic energy exchanged is the same as with a massive object such as the sun firing off a laser for thrust how that percentage * 10^47 watts or so could be enough to slow the black hole.
Percent of kinetic energy is meaningless, the specifics of kinetic energy depend on the reference frame you are measuring an interaction from. THe actual constant is the energy/momentum ratio of massless particles, which is simply c. Black holes that accelerate by emitting gravitational waves have to release a corresponding amount of energy and 100% of that energy comes from the black hole.

Percent of kinetic energy exchanged in a elastic collision isn't meaningless.  The reference frame is given in the math which was the reference frame of the mirror which had zero kinetic energy and zero momentum.  Also black holes don't just slow them selves down by grabbing their own boot straps.  There is a change (enhancement) in the coupling with space time which occurs that causes a repulse force between the (space/time) wave being generated and the black hole.  This rapidly decelerates the black hole and this pressure represents the effective coupling or exchange of kinetic energy. 

They mention a relativistic object effectively absorbing up to 10% of the kinetic energy of a gravity wave.  That relativistic object was highly coupled with space time for it to absorb that space time wave else the wave would pass right through it.  They were talking about the kinetic properties of absorption and emission. 

Effective mass of photon is (f*h/c^2)=mp .  For comparison the percentage of kinetic energy a photon exchanges with a mirror via (h*df)/(h*f)= (2*c^3*mp)/(m*(c+v)^3) so when v=0 we have 2*mp/m=(h*df)/(h*f)=(2*f*h)/(c^2*m) which is way smaller than 10%.  Only with photon recycling with thousands of reflections does this percent of kinetic exchange become some what significant. 

Quote

I would assume there would need to be a larger percentage of kinetic energy exchanged, but that is a lot of power.  I'll have to work it out some time.
Again there is nothing to work out. and you are tracking the wrong metric.

While, if the mirror is relativistic it can absorb more kinetic energy, I was comparing it to laser thrust that we are used to observing.  Non-relativistic.
I was going to explain more detail about how any equation involving photon momentum is at least partially relativistic, but there is a bigger communication problem here.

You are stating that you were comparing to a non-relativistic case, but your comparison was explicitly with a relativistic case. See the part of your statement that I bolded below.
Its discussed there are cases of relativistic objects that can absorb as much as 10% of the kinetic energy of an incoming gravity wave. 
This to me far surpasses photon propulsion efficiency. 
How am I supposed to have a conversation with you, explain anything, or answer any questions when you make a completely false statement about your own words that were still quoted in your post?

You can't compare gravitational waves in a relativistic case with photons in a non-relativistic case and then claim that gravitational waves have a different energy/momentum ratio. If you compare them in comparable situations, then you will get comparable results.

No, they are trying to compare the percent of kinetic energy a photon gives up in a collision with a mirror and then trying to say gravitational propulsion isn't any more effective.  I object.  The percent of kinetic energy a photon gives up in a reflection via its effective mass is nothing compared to 10% unless were talking a massive number of reflections of the same photon which represents a massive increase in coupling between the photon and the mirror.  Likewise there is a massive increase in coupling between space time and the black holes as they enter their death spiral. 

Also in a personal question which is related to this
Quote
As I said in the thread, your approach seems from my perspective to be extremely disrespectful of scientists. This is especially true when it gets as blatant as a plain language article saying "the effect is strongest with equal mass spinning black holes" and your responding with saying "it would be strongest with a large mass disparity."

You are miss-understanding what I am saying.  I agree that 2 large black holes orbiting a center of mass that is mass-less would produce the best effect of generating gravity waves because all the mass is being accelerated and the anchor is in the center which is mass-less.  However, this system would receive no propulsion because the system is symmetric.  The gravity waves are sent out in all directions, which counters propulsion. 

What I was saying was that to maximize gravity propulsion you need an asymmetric acceleration just like in the mach effect.  To induce this asymmetric acceleration I suggested you put a small black hole in an elliptical orbit around a large black hole.  The large black hole is the anchor.  the smaller black hole experiences the most massive acceleration and velocity at perihelion which shoots gravity waves in one direction giving the system a net propulsion. 

The article was talking about black holes that propel them selves, out of their own host galaxy, via gravitational propulsion, or something like the mach effect.  Now if you can find a way of using 2 black holes and asymmetrically accelerate them around a mass-less anchor all the more power to you.  I would agree asymmetrically accelerating all the mass is better than asymmetrically accelerating a smaller black hole around a larger.  I used the example of the small black hole around a larger black hole because it is easier to see how that small black hole is asymmetrically accelerated around the larger black hole - for illustration purposes.  i.e. I am emphasizing asymmetric  acceleration.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 04/26/2019 06:56 am
Quote
Please read what I wrote again. You cannot describe emission or absorption of photons without considering other forms of energy. It is simply impossible to get both the momentum and energy to balance otherwise.
It's perfectly acceptable.
No, in the case of emission or absorption of photons, it is essentially never acceptable. To use your own example:
Another example of low thermal photon emission is a hand held LED laser.
A handheld laser starts with 0 kinetic energy in the frame of the hand holding it. It then emits a bunch of photons that have significant energy. It feels a very tiny reaction force which has a negligible effect on the kinetic energy of the laser itself (even if the hand didn't hold it in place.) Either the energy appeared out of nowhere, or like any case of emission or absorption of photons, you need to account for other forms of energy.

Quote
I am skipping most of the rest of your post, because it is complete nonsense, where you continue to demonstrate that you don't know the meaning of the words you are using. If you are just going to misuse terminology, I can't spend the time to explain to you all of the ways you are doing so if you don't demonstrate some willingness to learn.
If you have something specific to point out then feel free.  I don't see much here worth responding to. 
I am not sure you understood what I said, so I will repeat it: Your post had a large amount of complete nonsense in it that was not worth responding to.

Quote
Percent of kinetic energy is meaningless, the specifics of kinetic energy depend on the reference frame you are measuring an interaction from. THe actual constant is the energy/momentum ratio of massless particles, which is simply c. Black holes that accelerate by emitting gravitational waves have to release a corresponding amount of energy and 100% of that energy comes from the black hole.
Percent of kinetic energy exchanged in a elastic collision isn't meaningless.  The reference frame is given in the math which was the reference frame of the mirror which had zero kinetic energy and zero momentum.
No, it really is meaningless. Since it changes with reference frame, you can make it take on any value you want. You specifically had referenced gravitational waves absorption by a relativistic object.

Also black holes don't just slow them selves down by grabbing their own boot straps.
No, they do it by emitting gravitational waves, as stated by the article you referenced.

There is a change (enhancement) in the coupling with space time which occurs that causes a repulse force between the (space/time) wave being generated and the black hole.  This rapidly decelerates the black hole and this pressure represents the effective coupling or exchange of kinetic energy. 
More complete nonsense, which you are now stating in the form of an assertion. "Change in the coupling with spacetime" is a phrase you appear to have made up, and "exchange of kinetic energy" ignores the fact that just like the laser I discussed above, when a massive object emits massless particles, the energy balance always requires another form of energy to be involved.

They mention a relativistic object effectively absorbing up to 10% of the kinetic energy of a gravity wave.  That relativistic object was highly coupled with space time for it to absorb that space time wave else the wave would pass right through it.  They were talking about the kinetic properties of absorption and emission. 

Effective mass of photon is (f*h/c^2)=mp .  For comparison the percentage of kinetic energy a photon exchanges with a mirror via (h*df)/(h*f)= (2*c^3*mp)/(m*(c+v)^3) so when v=0 we have 2*mp/m=(h*df)/(h*f)=(2*f*h)/(c^2*m) which is way smaller than 10%.  Only with photon recycling with thousands of reflections does this percent of kinetic exchange become some what significant. 
In one of my first few posts on this site, I posted a formula for the ratio of frequency of a photon before and after reflecting off of a mirror with 0 velocity in the frame of reference, which I calculated carefully doing the full energy and momentum balance.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1413761#msg1413761
The problem is that that only applies to 0 velocity, and again, I bolded the portion of your post where you mention a relativistic object. In case you don't know what the words you are using mean, "relativistic object" means that the object is moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light. If the mirror was moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light in the frame you do the calculations in, then you would find that the mirror absorbs a significant fraction of the energy of a reflected photon. You do not need large numbers of reflections, just one reflection off of a relativistic mirror.

Quote
You can't compare gravitational waves in a relativistic case with photons in a non-relativistic case and then claim that gravitational waves have a different energy/momentum ratio. If you compare them in comparable situations, then you will get comparable results.
No, they are trying to compare the percent of kinetic energy a photon gives up in a collision with a mirror and then trying to say gravitational propulsion isn't any more effective.  I object.
No, you are the one who keeps repeating a number that applies to a relativistic case and comparing to a non-relativistic case. Compare apples to apples, and they would match up.

Quote
As I said in the thread, your approach seems from my perspective to be extremely disrespectful of scientists. This is especially true when it gets as blatant as a plain language article saying "the effect is strongest with equal mass spinning black holes" and your responding with saying "it would be strongest with a large mass disparity."
You are miss-understanding what I am saying.  I agree that 2 large black holes orbiting a center of mass that is mass-less would produce the best effect of generating gravity waves because all the mass is being accelerated and the anchor is in the center which is mass-less.
No, there is no "anchor" please stop making things like that up. They generate the strongest effect for unintuitive reasons related to the physics of spinning black holes, and demonstrated by the complicated simulations performed by the scientists you cited.

However, this system would receive no propulsion because the system is symmetric.  The gravity waves are sent out in all directions, which counters propulsion. 
I have now explained repeatedly (in the thread and in PM) that the article that you cited states the exact opposite of the sentence you just wrote. They found that the strongest recoil from the emission of gravitational waves happens in the case of equal masses.

You have now had 3 chances to read that simple plain English statement, so my initial assumption that you just didn't read what you cited seems unlikely. Your continued assertions contradicting these scientists come across as you calling the scientists either idiots or liars.


What I was saying was that to maximize gravity propulsion you need an asymmetric acceleration just like in the mach effect.  To induce this asymmetric acceleration I suggested you put a small black hole in an elliptical orbit around a large black hole.  The large black hole is the anchor.  the smaller black hole experiences the most massive acceleration and velocity at perihelion which shoots gravity waves in one direction giving the system a net propulsion. 
You are just making things up at this point. The scientists that you cited did actual math and found that your intuition is simply wrong.

The article was talking about black holes that propel them selves, out of their own host galaxy, via gravitational propulsion, or something like the mach effect.
Gravitational waves are not the mach effect.

Now if you can find a way of using 2 black holes and asymmetrically accelerate them around a mass-less anchor all the more power to you.
The scientists you cited did (minus your incorrect terminology of "anchor.")

I would agree asymmetrically accelerating all the mass is better than asymmetrically accelerating a smaller black hole around a larger.  I used the example of the small black hole around a larger black hole because it is easier to see how that small black hole is asymmetrically accelerated around the larger black hole - for illustration purposes.  i.e. I am emphasizing asymmetric  acceleration.
The scientists you cited were discussing asymmetric acceleration, and contrary to your intuition, the largest effect occurs with equal masses. GR involves a lot of very difficult math, and you cannot solve it by just handwaving like you are doing.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 05/04/2019 08:11 am
Quote
Please read what I wrote again. You cannot describe emission or absorption of photons without considering other forms of energy. It is simply impossible to get both the momentum and energy to balance otherwise.
It's perfectly acceptable... a lot more to this quote.
No, in the case of emission or absorption of photons, it is essentially never acceptable. To use your own example:
Another example of low thermal photon emission is a hand held LED laser.
A handheld laser starts with 0 kinetic energy in the frame of the hand holding it. It then emits a bunch of photons that have significant energy. It feels a very tiny reaction force which has a negligible effect on the kinetic energy of the laser itself (even if the hand didn't hold it in place.) Either the energy appeared out of nowhere, or like any case of emission or absorption of photons, you need to account for other forms of energy.

...
Its perfectly acceptable because its negligible.  The factors that determine the exchange of kinetic energy/acceleration are their effective masses. The change in mass/energy of a massive object emitting photons is negligible. 

The Doppler effect probably doesn't even relate to an objects acceleration.  It's really just a change in frame by absorption and emission.  It changes the photons effective energy because the effective mass of the photon when striking a fast moving object is decreased because its observed by the absorber as red shifted thus the observer receives even less kick from it because it has a reduced effective mass.  I highly doubt a relativistic object would actually receive more acceleration from a photon than a non-relativistic one.  Probably less. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 05/04/2019 09:08 am
...
Also black holes don't just slow them selves down by grabbing their own boot straps.
No, they do it by emitting gravitational waves, as stated by the article you referenced.
Right.  So they slow them selves down by emitting space time waves suggesting a connection between the black hole and space time or a coupling.  A way of exchanging kinetic energy.  That efficiency of kinetic energy exchange appears to change as they merge.  A change in the coupling or pressure.
Quote

There is a change (enhancement) in the coupling with space time which occurs that causes a repulse force between the (space/time) wave being generated and the black hole.  This rapidly decelerates the black hole and this pressure represents the effective coupling or exchange of kinetic energy. 
More complete nonsense, which you are now stating in the form of an assertion. "Change in the coupling with spacetime" is a phrase you appear to have made up, and "exchange of kinetic energy" ignores the fact that just like the laser I discussed above, when a massive object emits massless particles, the energy balance always requires another form of energy to be involved.

It's not made up.  Coupling is defined. 
coupling (https://www.google.com/search?ei=7krNXIiJB9DUsAXqkq_ABg&q=define+coupling&oq=defeine+coupling&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.0i13i70i249j0i13l9.4386.7077..8601...0.0..0.82.578.8......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j0i7i30j0i67j0.LOxV9EY-N7Q)
cou·pling
/ˈkəp(ə)liNG/
noun
noun: coupling; plural noun: couplings
1. a device for connecting parts of machinery. a fitting on the end of a railroad vehicle for connecting it to another.
2. the pairing of two items. "the coupling of coaching and personal training" an interaction between two electrical components by electromagnetic induction, electrostatic charge, or optical link.
3. the action of mating or having sexual intercourse.

The pairing of 2 items is the obvious connection here.  The connection between space time and a black hole to generate gravity waves.  You will notice as the black holes merge they more rapidly slow and emit more energy. 

Gravity (a) acceleration increases as distances decreases per square.
To maintain a stable orbit an object that reduces the radius of its orbit (loses energy) must increase in velocity to counter the acceleration. a=v^2/r
The acceleration and velocity of the merging black holes continue to increase till they merge and their rate of deceleration (output of gravity waves) appears to increase as their velocity and acceleration increase.  One can see they rapidly decelerate at an increasing rate. 

The increase in their ability to decelerate (lose energy in the form of gravity waves) should be related to their friction with space time or their coupling which seems to increase.  This could be represented as pressure slowing the black holes.  But pressure between what?  Between spacetime. 

The energy involved is their kinetic energy which decreases as they decelerate, decrease in orbit, and allowing them to merge. 

Its like a coupling between a brick and a table top in the form of friction except what is generated is heat, which changes the bricks kinetic energy.  Its braking force.  This braking force or efficiency appears to change for black holes as they merge and their velocity and acceleration increase, decreasing their merging time. 

I am saying this is a lot like the mach effect.  The dual frequency that creates asymmetric acceleration.  Also consider that asymmetric emission of gravity waves may lead to seemingly efficient propulsion of black hole systems in general relativity.  Enough to shoot them out of their host galaxy. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 05/04/2019 04:25 pm
Right.  So they slow them selves down by emitting space time waves suggesting a connection between the black hole and space time or a coupling.  A way of exchanging kinetic energy.  That efficiency of kinetic energy exchange appears to change as they merge.  A change in the coupling or pressure.
And you again ignore everything I said about how your method of only tracking kinetic energy gives wrong answers. Please stop repeating yourself.

It's not made up.  Coupling is defined.
It is not the individual words, but the phrases and sentences you make when you put them together. (though in some of your other posts, there is a problem with individual words where you use the same word to mean different things in different contexts and then equate them.)

You will notice as the black holes merge they more rapidly slow and emit more energy. 

Gravity (a) acceleration increases as distances decreases per square.
To maintain a stable orbit an object that reduces the radius of its orbit (loses energy) must increase in velocity to counter the acceleration. a=v^2/r
The acceleration and velocity of the merging black holes continue to increase till they merge and their rate of deceleration (output of gravity waves) appears to increase as their velocity and acceleration increase.  One can see they rapidly decelerate at an increasing rate. 

The increase in their ability to decelerate (lose energy in the form of gravity waves) should be related to their friction with space time or their coupling which seems to increase.  This could be represented as pressure slowing the black holes.  But pressure between what?  Between spacetime. 

The energy involved is their kinetic energy which decreases as they decelerate, decrease in orbit, and allowing them to merge. 
You contradict yourself here. The middle bolded section where you mention them speeding up and velocity increasing is the only one consistent with reality. Look up any of the countless simulations of black holes merging, the waves peak as the black holes speed up just before they merge.

Also in the middle you mention their gravitational potential energy, but then you are back to ignoring it in your final statement. (Though you have to be very careful talking about gravitational potential energy in GR)

Its like a coupling between a brick and a table top in the form of friction except what is generated is heat, which changes the bricks kinetic energy.
No, this is a terrible analogy. friction happens from an object sliding along another object at constant velocity. Gravitational waves happen due to complicated things which to first order are proportional to acceleration.

I am saying this is a lot like the mach effect.  The dual frequency that creates asymmetric acceleration.
No, there is no "dual frequency" involved in the emission of gravitational waves.
Also, gravitational waves:
-Are a local interaction
-Are limited by relativistic rules for propulsion by massless emission
-Are consistent with standard GR
-Have had measurements of them that are widely accepted
While the Mach effect:
-Is a non-local interaction
-that supposedly bypasses local conservation laws
-Is not consistent with standard GR (for the relevant definition of Mach's principle)
-Has had measurements that have unaddressed error sources that could produce the entire signal.

So, in conclusion, no, this is basically as "opposite" to the Mach effect as you can get.

Also consider that asymmetric emission of gravity waves may lead to seemingly efficient propulsion of black hole systems in general relativity.  Enough to shoot them out of their host galaxy.
And you still don't even acknowledge that you have repeatedly stated conditions for this to happen completely opposite to the conditions stated by your own source. You seem to be misusing the word efficient, because turning a significant portion of the mass of the system into effectively pure energy to gain momentum at the same exchange rate as a photon rocket is not what most would consider "efficient." Though if you have the ability to do matter/anti-matter reactions at large scale, photon rockets are essentially the only fast method of interstellar travel consistent with known physics.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Notsosureofit on 05/04/2019 07:12 pm
Quote from meberbs: 
"Though if you have the ability to do matter/anti-matter reactions at large scale, photon rockets are essentially the only fast method of interstellar travel consistent with known physics."

If you could generate matter-antimatter pairs, eject them with some momentum, then have them annihilate, and further gain the photons momenta by reflection, would the budget look like.....

p/E = 1/c + ((1/c)^2 - (mc/E)^2)^.5 ?

Edit:  so any reasonable assumptions of real situation => p/E < 1/c.    So much for instant thoughts!
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 05/05/2019 09:46 pm
Right.  So they slow them selves down by emitting space time waves suggesting a connection between the black hole and space time or a coupling.  A way of exchanging kinetic energy.  That efficiency of kinetic energy exchange appears to change as they merge.  A change in the coupling or pressure.
And you again ignore everything I said about how your method of only tracking kinetic energy gives wrong answers. Please stop repeating yourself.

It's not made up.  Coupling is defined.
It is not the individual words, but the phrases and sentences you make when you put them together. (though in some of your other posts, there is a problem with individual words where you use the same word to mean different things in different contexts and then equate them.)

You will notice as the black holes merge they more rapidly slow and emit more energy. 

Gravity (a) acceleration increases as distances decreases per square.
To maintain a stable orbit an object that reduces the radius of its orbit (loses energy) must increase in velocity to counter the acceleration. a=v^2/r
The acceleration and velocity of the merging black holes continue to increase till they merge and their rate of deceleration (output of gravity waves) appears to increase as their velocity and acceleration increase.  One can see they rapidly decelerate at an increasing rate. 

The increase in their ability to decelerate (lose energy in the form of gravity waves) should be related to their friction with space time or their coupling which seems to increase.  This could be represented as pressure slowing the black holes.  But pressure between what?  Between spacetime. 

The energy involved is their kinetic energy which decreases as they decelerate, decrease in orbit, and allowing them to merge. 
You contradict yourself here. The middle bolded section where you mention them speeding up and velocity increasing is the only one consistent with reality. Look up any of the countless simulations of black holes merging, the waves peak as the black holes speed up just before they merge.

Also in the middle you mention their gravitational potential energy, but then you are back to ignoring it in your final statement. (Though you have to be very careful talking about gravitational potential energy in GR)
Yeah I guess I worded that a bit off.  What I was trying to say is Their potential energy is normally converted into kinetic energy but that energy is being shunted into space time instead, causing them to go into a lower orbit. 
While they are accelerating they are not reaching the kinetic energy they would have had via pressure with spacetime as their energy is being converted to gravity waves. 
Quote

Its like a coupling between a brick and a table top in the form of friction except what is generated is heat, which changes the bricks kinetic energy.
No, this is a terrible analogy. friction happens from an object sliding along another object at constant velocity. Gravitational waves happen due to complicated things which to first order are proportional to acceleration.
Yeah I know.  Its hard to relate to something this abstract.  It is just a comparison about how I thought energy was being lost to the system of the black hole and space time.  I was saying I think the brick losing energy by sliding is maybe similar to black holes sliding along space time because of a form of friction via a function of acceleration.  Not because of matter and anti-matter annihilation which is what I just figured out seems to be the point of view your coming from.  (How else is the mass of the black hole being annihilated?) If the black holes are being annihilated on one side by a form of anti-matter how would this convert their mass into gravity waves? 
Quote

I am saying this is a lot like the mach effect.  The dual frequency that creates asymmetric acceleration.
No, there is no "dual frequency" involved in the emission of gravitational waves.
Also, gravitational waves:
-Are a local interaction
-Are limited by relativistic rules for propulsion by massless emission
-Are consistent with standard GR
-Have had measurements of them that are widely accepted
While the Mach effect:
-Is a non-local interaction
-that supposedly bypasses local conservation laws
-Is not consistent with standard GR (for the relevant definition of Mach's principle)
-Has had measurements that have unaddressed error sources that could produce the entire signal.

So, in conclusion, no, this is basically as "opposite" to the Mach effect as you can get.
I am referring of a serries of frequencies that lead to asymmetric acceleration for propulsion.  In the mach effect they seem to focus on using 2 frequencies (1f and 2f in a particular phase) Emission of gravity waves in one direction would require a larger acceleration in one direction than the other. 
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1812364#msg1812364
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1485591;image)
Emphasis on your quote below.
...Gravitational waves happen due to complicated things which to first order are proportional to acceleration.
Quote

Also consider that asymmetric emission of gravity waves may lead to seemingly efficient propulsion of black hole systems in general relativity.  Enough to shoot them out of their host galaxy.
And you still don't even acknowledge that you have repeatedly stated conditions for this to happen completely opposite to the conditions stated by your own source. You seem to be misusing the word efficient, because turning a significant portion of the mass of the system into effectively pure energy to gain momentum at the same exchange rate as a photon rocket is not what most would consider "efficient." Though if you have the ability to do matter/anti-matter reactions at large scale, photon rockets are essentially the only fast method of interstellar travel consistent with known physics.

Well efficient to me is a relativistic system being able to absorb 10% of the energy in a gravity wave as kinetic energy.  That would be highly efficient compared to photon propulsion. 

Quote from: meberbs link=topic=31037.msg1942815#msg1942815 date=1556987111
...You seem to be misusing the word efficient, because turning a significant portion of the mass of the system into effectively pure energy to gain momentum at the same exchange rate as a photon rocket is not what most would consider "efficient."...

I just realized where you and I think differently.  It stems from what I bolded above in my text and your quote above.  You appear to be suggesting that the mass of the black hole is some how annihilated and sent off as energy in one direction slowing the black hole.  This is interesting to consider but I wonder have they really confirmed this?  That the black hole loses mass via some antimatter annihilation, or are you suggesting some other form of matter annihilation?  If anti-matter how is that anti-matter annihilation converted into gravity waves.  Shouldn't that annihilation be visible light rather than quadapole?  Sort of like hawking radiation? 

I was of the view that there is some friction in spacetime (assuming its inherently quadruple) that is responsible for the Lorentz contraction of a solid object.  I was supposing that there is some acceleration in which space time is not able to catch up fast enough to Lorentz contract an object. 

I was comparing to a relativistic increase in mass via Lorentz contraction and spacetime's inability to react at maximal acceleration as a negative mass.  If the object accelerates at such a rate spacetime is not able to Lorentz contract it then it has a relativistic increase in mass superimposed over a (spacetime) negative mass negating the increase in mass via Lorentz contraction. 

This negative mass wave moves off at the speed of light so eventually spacetime always catches up to the object as the wave travels off but because of the friction (via acceleration) energy is lost to the vacuum.  The spacetime wave might be gravitationally repulsive via its energy, behave like negative mass, and behave like hyperinflated vacuum (hyper inflated plank length) but be real positive energy.  The hyperinflated plank length may allow non-local faster than light propulsion but locally its still the speed of light limit. 

I was taking it that the mass of the black holes isn't being annihilated in anti-matter annihilation, or some equivalent of it.  Are they sure the mass of the black holes is reducing?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 05/07/2019 06:13 am
Its like a coupling between a brick and a table top in the form of friction except what is generated is heat, which changes the bricks kinetic energy.
No, this is a terrible analogy. friction happens from an object sliding along another object at constant velocity. Gravitational waves happen due to complicated things which to first order are proportional to acceleration.
Yeah I know.  Its hard to relate to something this abstract.
If you know that it is a terrible analogy then don't use it, it will just lead to wrong conclusions.

Not because of matter and anti-matter annihilation which is what I just figured out seems to be the point of view your coming from.  (How else is the mass of the black hole being annihilated?)
I never said anything about anti-matter or annihilation. Your statement that you are assigning to me is one that is extraordinarily wrong to the point that I find it insulting that you would assign it to me. Seriously, anti-matter has positive energy just like regular matter, and conversion of energy between forms does not require the presence of anti-matter, though the resulting mass change is negligible in most contexts outside a nuclear reactor. (and obviously significant for the case of black holes merging)

I am referring of a serries of frequencies that lead to asymmetric acceleration for propulsion.  In the mach effect they seem to focus on using 2 frequencies (1f and 2f in a particular phase) Emission of gravity waves in one direction would require a larger acceleration in one direction than the other. 
The axes of your graphs would be "amplitude" and "time" (if you were even using something physics based to begin with, which you aren't) neither of these is spatial position, which would be relevant to an asymmetry. Also, if you averaged your graphs you would find they average to 0.

Well efficient to me is a relativistic system being able to absorb 10% of the energy in a gravity wave as kinetic energy.  That would be highly efficient compared to photon propulsion. 
As I have repeatedly tried to explain to you (and you have ignored) the 10% absorption still represents efficiency exactly equal to that of a photon rocket. You are tracking a meaningless metric, but even using that metric you can get even larger % energy absorbed using a photon beam reflecting off of a relativistic mirror.

You appear to be suggesting that the mass of the black hole is some how annihilated and sent off as energy in one direction slowing the black hole.  This is interesting to consider but I wonder have they really confirmed this?
They predicted that this (gravitational waves) would happen, and then eventually, they built a sensitive enough detector to measure it, though nothing is being "annihilated." (and the energy goes in basically every direction, but not equally in all directions in general.)

If anti-matter how is that anti-matter annihilation converted into gravity waves.  Shouldn't that annihilation be visible light rather than quadapole? 
Go look up the word "quadrupole." I don't know what you think it means, but you are using it wrong. The rest of your post goes on to say a bunch more made up terms that have little to do with actual physics. It is frustrating reading your posts, because you seem to have little to no interest in learning what the words you are using actually mean.

Normally when someone admits they messed up or mispoke like you did near the beginning of your post, I am greatly appreciative of it:
Yeah I guess I worded that a bit off.
In this case you managed to immediately defeat that by putting words in my mouth I never said, and going on to simply ignore something I have explained to you repeatedly, making it seem like you have not even been reading my posts.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 05/07/2019 02:15 pm
If you could generate matter-antimatter pairs, eject them with some momentum, then have them annihilate, and further gain the photons momenta by reflection, would the budget look like.....

You're going to expend a fair amount of energy to create those pairs of particles.   More than you're going to get back when they annihilate.  Then, if you don't contain the annihilation in a, well, rocket nozzle, you can't control the direction of thrust, so ya don't really go anywhere.

Might I recommend H2 and O2?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Notsosureofit on 05/07/2019 02:30 pm

Might I recommend H2 and O2?

Certainly the popular option, as long as you can carry propellant, and generates more than sufficient increase in entropy.  The EM Drive (by Shawyer) has been more than thoroughly debunked (in my opinion).

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 05/09/2019 04:06 am
p/E = 1/c + ((1/c)^2 - (mc/E)^2)^.5 ?

Edit:  so any reasonable assumptions of real situation => p/E < 1/c.    So much for instant thoughts!
It looks like you may have realized it, but your equation shows > 1/c probably due to an incorrect assumption somewhere.

To do the math right, you first have to not that for a matter-antimatter reaction between 2 particles, the typical result is 2 photons in opposite (random) directions in the center of mass frame of the particles.

That means if the reaction happens outside the ship, you have to hope that the direction of one of them comes directly back towards the ship so you get the same full potential momentum of both photons through the reflection. Additionally, if the particles are ejected out the back at some speed, then in the frame of the ship the photon emitted towards the ship is doppler shifted to a lower frequency, and will provide less momentum upon reflection by the amount of momentum the ship had gained by accelerating the particles out the back.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 05/09/2019 11:41 am
Thank you meberbs.

That means if the reaction happens outside the ship, you have to hope that the direction of one of them comes directly back towards the ship so you get the same full potential momentum of both photons through the reflection. Additionally, if the particles are ejected out the back at some speed, then in the frame of the ship the photon emitted towards the ship is doppler shifted to a lower frequency, and will provide less momentum upon reflection by the amount of momentum the ship had gained by accelerating the particles out the back.

I had mentioned that if you don't contain the annihilation in a, well, rocket nozzle, you can't control the direction of thrust, so ya don't really go anywhere.

I suppose that technically, were one to use matter-antimatter as a propulsion scheme, that the term "nozzle" might not be correct.  As is well known, the function of a nozzle is to direct thrust from a chemical reaction.  The key point I'm making is that the term "nozzle" is a description of a function, not necessarily the means of propulsion.  In my mind, the EM frustrum is a type of nozzle; it directs the thrust in a preferred direction.

What would you call the function of a nozzle? 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Notsosureofit on 05/09/2019 12:20 pm
p/E = 1/c + ((1/c)^2 - (mc/E)^2)^.5 ?

Edit:  so any reasonable assumptions of real situation => p/E < 1/c.    So much for instant thoughts!
It looks like you may have realized it, but your equation shows > 1/c probably due to an incorrect assumption somewhere.

To do the math right, you first have to not that for a matter-antimatter reaction between 2 particles, the typical result is 2 photons in opposite (random) directions in the center of mass frame of the particles.

That means if the reaction happens outside the ship, you have to hope that the direction of one of them comes directly back towards the ship so you get the same full potential momentum of both photons through the reflection. Additionally, if the particles are ejected out the back at some speed, then in the frame of the ship the photon emitted towards the ship is doppler shifted to a lower frequency, and will provide less momentum upon reflection by the amount of momentum the ship had gained by accelerating the particles out the back.

Yes!  You are absolutely right!  My scribble sheet used only a maximum of 1/2 of the annihilation radiation.  In a real example the doppler shift would be taken into account as well.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob Woods on 05/09/2019 11:28 pm
What would you call the function of a nozzle?
Vector Director has a nice ring...
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 05/10/2019 06:19 am
Its like a coupling between a brick and a table top in the form of friction except what is generated is heat, which changes the bricks kinetic energy.
No, this is a terrible analogy. friction happens from an object sliding along another object at constant velocity. Gravitational waves happen due to complicated things which to first order are proportional to acceleration.
Yeah I know.  Its hard to relate to something this abstract.
If you know that it is a terrible analogy then don't use it, it will just lead to wrong conclusions.
You erased the words and put it out of context.  Way to go.  I would swear you don't want to come to an understanding.  The point is using a concept we understand to relate to an abstract concept.  You apparently don't think the black hole is being converted to energy and emitting photons after all but it sure sounded like it.
Quote from: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1942815#msg1942815
Also consider that asymmetric emission of gravity waves may lead to seemingly efficient propulsion of black hole systems in general relativity.  Enough to shoot them out of their host galaxy.
And you still don't even acknowledge that you have repeatedly stated conditions for this to happen completely opposite to the conditions stated by your own source. You seem to be misusing the word efficient, because turning a significant portion of the mass of the system into effectively pure energy to gain momentum at the same exchange rate as a photon rocket is not what most would consider "efficient." Though if you have the ability to do matter/anti-matter reactions at large scale, photon rockets are essentially the only fast method of interstellar travel consistent with known physics.
Not once have I suggested photon propulsion as effecient.  In fact I stated other wise.  The % of kinetic energy they exchange/photon is dismal.  A photon or a million photons or a universe of photons that impact an object of specified mass would all exchange the same % of kinetic energy/photon which is practically nothing as a percentage.  A wave exchanging 10% of its kinetic energy with a relativistic object is way more effecient.  Its effecient because its the relativistic objects that emit and absorb effectively.  Why do they emit and absorb effectively.  Because of how coupled they are via their acceleration.  Its like the acceleration changes them from being frictionless to experiencing friction.  Accleration being like a downward force increasing friction. 
***
You have also suggested that objects moving away at high velocity exchange more kinetic energy with photons.  I think this claim is absurd.  Sure the photon changes in kinetic energy because of the doppler effect but I don't think its responsible for an objects acceleration.
Quote from: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1940247#msg1940247
In one of my first few posts on this site, I posted a formula for the ratio of frequency of a photon before and after reflecting off of a mirror with 0 velocity in the frame of reference, which I calculated carefully doing the full energy and momentum balance.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1413761#msg1413761
The problem is that that only applies to 0 velocity, and again, I bolded the portion of your post where you mention a relativistic object. In case you don't know what the words you are using mean, "relativistic object" means that the object is moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light. If the mirror was moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light in the frame you do the calculations in, then you would find that the mirror absorbs a significant fraction of the energy of a reflected photon. You do not need large numbers of reflections, just one reflection off of a relativistic mirror.
***
Why is it absurd?  Because the object it impacts observes it as red shifted which only reduces its effective mass.  It physically is losing energy/mass if observed by an object moving away.  Consider the momentum exchange as well.  The photon loses momentum as it is red shifted till it has no impact fully red shifted.  The doppler effect I think is likely just an artifact of change in frames via absorption and emission.  I think whats really responsible for a solar sail acceleration is the ratio of effective mass. 


Not because of matter and anti-matter annihilation which is what I just figured out seems to be the point of view your coming from.  (How else is the mass of the black hole being annihilated?)
I never said anything about anti-matter or annihilation. Your statement that you are assigning to me is one that is extraordinarily wrong to the point that I find it insulting that you would assign it to me. Seriously, anti-matter has positive energy just like regular matter, and conversion of energy between forms does not require the presence of anti-matter, though the resulting mass change is negligible in most contexts outside a nuclear reactor. (and obviously significant for the case of black holes merging)
Well the problem was you made it sound like that in the statement. 
Quote from: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1942815#msg1942815
Also consider that asymmetric emission of gravity waves may lead to seemingly efficient propulsion of black hole systems in general relativity.  Enough to shoot them out of their host galaxy.
And you still don't even acknowledge that you have repeatedly stated conditions for this to happen completely opposite to the conditions stated by your own source. You seem to be misusing the word efficient, because turning a significant portion of the mass of the system into effectively pure energy to gain momentum at the same exchange rate as a photon rocket is not what most would consider "efficient." Though if you have the ability to do matter/anti-matter reactions at large scale, photon rockets are essentially the only fast method of interstellar travel consistent with known physics.
***
You repetedly state that you think the black hole propulsion is effectively photon propulsion or equivalent in its own way.  Highly innefecient and yet you state its effecient but its not.  (probably due to that doppler effect annalogy which I disagree with - I don't think it improves acceleration)  The only way I know of to convert a black hole into energy is hawking radiation and that requires pairs from the vacuum which one of them behave as negative energy causing reduction in mass of the black hole allowing evaporation of the black hole.  Natually my assumption would be your referring to this.  My rebuttal is that this creates real radiation not gravity waves.   Now apparently your not saying this is the mechanism so I guess were clear on that. 
Quote
I am referring of a serries of frequencies that lead to asymmetric acceleration for propulsion.  In the mach effect they seem to focus on using 2 frequencies (1f and 2f in a particular phase) Emission of gravity waves in one direction would require a larger acceleration in one direction than the other. 
The axes of your graphs would be "amplitude" and "time" (if you were even using something physics based to begin with, which you aren't) neither of these is spatial position, which would be relevant to an asymmetry. Also, if you averaged your graphs you would find they average to 0.
They already use this frequency system in emulating the mach effect.  Why do you think they use Electrostrictive materials?  Its for the frequency doubling effect.  They stimulate it with the 1f frequency and they get the 2f response from the system.  The frequency doubling effect is the 2nd frequency I introduce which induces the asymetric acceleration.
Quote from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5681540/
The top half is an illustration of the relationship between driving frequency and fibre response frequency for an electrostrictive material, showing the characteristic frequency-doubling effect that can distinguish electrostriction from other forms of electromechanical transduction, such as piezoelectricity
I continue this serries to increase the assymetry in acceleration.  You already admit a change in acceleration is what changes how an object generates gravity waves.  If the effect is non-linear it doesn't matter if the time average is zero. 

You can get the path of an osculating object if you describe forces on a system, the spring constant of a mass and its starting momentum.  You can also solve the forces needed to be applied to a system to follow a specified path. 

Quote
Well efficient to me is a relativistic system being able to absorb 10% of the energy in a gravity wave as kinetic energy.  That would be highly efficient compared to photon propulsion. 
As I have repeatedly tried to explain to you (and you have ignored) the 10% absorption still represents efficiency exactly equal to that of a photon rocket. You are tracking a meaningless metric, but even using that metric you can get even larger % energy absorbed using a photon beam reflecting off of a relativistic mirror.
And I have repetedly said to why 10% ratio of kinetic energy exchange is way more effecient than photon propulsion.  Please see the above bolded *** points.  I think we can agree to disagree. 
Quote

You appear to be suggesting that the mass of the black hole is some how annihilated and sent off as energy in one direction slowing the black hole.  This is interesting to consider but I wonder have they really confirmed this?
They predicted that this (gravitational waves) would happen, and then eventually, they built a sensitive enough detector to measure it, though nothing is being "annihilated." (and the energy goes in basically every direction, but not equally in all directions in general.)
So you are not suggesting they are converting mass into energy.  We are past this I guess.  When the energy goes in every direction we don't have black hole propulsion.  When we have directed gravitational waves we "may" have black hole propulsion.  I think we can agree on that.  And we seem to have it with out mass annihilation.  Amazing.  Enough to possibly propell them to some quite significant velocity.  Some how thats not effecient? 

Quote

If anti-matter how is that anti-matter annihilation converted into gravity waves.  Shouldn't that annihilation be visible light rather than quadapole? 
Go look up the word "quadrupole." I don't know what you think it means, but you are using it wrong. The rest of your post goes on to say a bunch more made up terms that have little to do with actual physics. It is frustrating reading your posts, because you seem to have little to no interest in learning what the words you are using actually mean.

Normally when someone admits they messed up or mispoke like you did near the beginning of your post, I am greatly appreciative of it:
Yeah I guess I worded that a bit off.
In this case you managed to immediately defeat that by putting words in my mouth I never said, and going on to simply ignore something I have explained to you repeatedly, making it seem like you have not even been reading my posts.
Thanks for stripping it out of context and putting words in mine.  I don't think it's hardly worth my time. 
Some stuff on space time and quadrupoles.
Quote from: https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.07541
Applications of an Approximate Kerr-like Metric with Quadrupole
J. R. Arce-Gamboa, F. Frutos-Alfaro
2019
In this contribution, we calculate the light deflection, perihelium shift, time delay and gravitational redshift using an approximate metric that contains the Kerr metric and an approximaction of the Erez-Rosen spacetime. The results were obtained directly using Mathematica. The results agree with the ones presented in the literature, but they are extended until second order terms of mass, angular momentum and mass quadrupole.
1 Introduction
In 1916, Karl Schwarzschild discovered a solution to the Einstein field equations in vacuum, suitable for describing the spacetime in the empty space surrounding a spherical, static object [16]. Ever since then, this metric has been used to describe a wide range of phenomena, including light deflection close to a massive star, planetary precession of the perihelion, time delay and gravitational redshifts for weak fields. G. Erez and N. Rosen introduced the effects of mass quadrupole q as exact solution in 1959 [2, 5]. This derivation had some errors which were corrected by Doroshkevich et al. [3], Winicour et al. [17] and Young and Coulter [19]. The exact solution for a rotating black hole could only be solved as late as 1963 by Roy P. Kerr [8]. There are exact solutions containing the Erez-Rosen and Kerr features, such spacetimes are cumbersome. A new approximate metric representing the spacetime of a rotating deformed body is obtained by perturbing the Kerr metric to include up to the second order of the quadrupole moment. These kinds of approximations are valid because the quadrupole moment is small generally for a variety of astrophysical objects.
In the literature, calculations that include the mass quadrupole are only done using (parameterized) post Newtonian metrics. To introduce the mass quadrupole, the gravitational potential is expressed as a multipolar expansion [9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15]. In our calculation we perform no such expansion of the gravitational potential. The quadrupole parameter is introduced from the metric.
Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrupole
Gravitational quadrupole
...
The mass quadrupole moment is also important in general relativity because, if it changes in time, it can produce gravitational radiation, similar to the electromagnetic radiation produced by oscillating electric or magnetic dipoles and higher multipoles. However, only quadrupole and higher moments can radiate gravitationally.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 05/10/2019 08:12 am
Its like a coupling between a brick and a table top in the form of friction except what is generated is heat, which changes the bricks kinetic energy.
No, this is a terrible analogy. friction happens from an object sliding along another object at constant velocity. Gravitational waves happen due to complicated things which to first order are proportional to acceleration.
Yeah I know.  Its hard to relate to something this abstract.
If you know that it is a terrible analogy then don't use it, it will just lead to wrong conclusions.
You erased the words and put it out of context.  Way to go.  I would swear you don't want to come to an understanding.  The point is using a concept we understand to relate to an abstract concept.
I shortened it to the only relevant part worth responding to. If your statement "I know" was referring to anything other than the fact that it was a terrible analogy, then you neither successfully communicated to me nor did you understand my point. Any further elaboration about the details of your analogy is irrelevant, because it is a terrible analogy that harms understanding rather than aids it.

You apparently don't think the black hole is being converted to energy and emitting photons after all but it sure sounded like it.
You apparently have not read my posts. Either that or you do not understand simple English. I have never said that the black hole emits photons, I have said that it emits gravitational waves that have the same energy/momentum ratio as photons. My original point was that for a system that is emitting gravitational waves, energy in the system is being transferred into the gravitational waves. What my previous post was denying is where you falsely claimed that I was talking about matter/antimatter annihilation which is a completely different thing.

Not once have I suggested photon propulsion as effecient.  In fact I stated other wise.  The % of kinetic energy they exchange/photon is dismal.  A photon or a million photons or a universe of photons that impact an object of specified mass would all exchange the same % of kinetic energy/photon which is practically nothing as a percentage.  A wave exchanging 10% of its kinetic energy with a relativistic object is way more effecient.
As I have repeatedly stated you are using the wrong metric, and it is trivial to show a situation where where a relativistic mirror (one moving at a high fraction of the speed of light in the chosen frame of reference) absorbs more that 10% of the energy of the photon in that frame, which proves your entire argument wrong.

Its effecient because its the relativistic objects that emit and absorb effectively.  Why do they emit and absorb effectively.  Because of how coupled they are via their acceleration.  Its like the acceleration changes them from being frictionless to experiencing friction.  Accleration being like a downward force increasing friction. 
***
Gibberish that only serves to demonstrate you have ignored the definition of the word relativistic that I have previously provided.

You have also suggested that objects moving away at high velocity exchange more kinetic energy with photons.  I think this claim is absurd.  Sure the photon changes in kinetic energy because of the doppler effect but I don't think its responsible for an objects acceleration.
You are wrong. I have pointed you to an equation for the change in energy of the photon from one of your own sources, though to be more precise you should use the relativistic equations. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect) For perfect reflection off of a mirror, no energy is lost to other forms, and all of the energy change of the photons due to the doppler shift is converted to kinetic enrgy of the mirror. (It is the case of absorption where this is not true.)

Why is it absurd?  Because the object it impacts observes it as red shifted which only reduces its effective mass.  It physically is losing energy/mass if observed by an object moving away.  Consider the momentum exchange as well.  The photon loses momentum as it is red shifted till it has no impact fully red shifted.  The doppler effect I think is likely just an artifact of change in frames via absorption and emission.  I think whats really responsible for a solar sail acceleration is the ratio of effective mass. 
You jump back and forth between something like 3 different things in just a few sentences. Just consider one reflection. Do not change reference frames, conservation laws require you to do all of your calculations in the same frame for them to mean anything. For reflection off of a mirror moving away from an incoming photon, the photon loses energy due to the Doppler shift, the mirror gains energy equal to the energy lost by the photon. For a fast enough moving mirror this energy transferred from the photon to the mirror can be arbitrarily high. Go do the math.

Quote
I never said anything about anti-matter or annihilation. Your statement that you are assigning to me is one that is extraordinarily wrong to the point that I find it insulting that you would assign it to me. Seriously, anti-matter has positive energy just like regular matter, and conversion of energy between forms does not require the presence of anti-matter, though the resulting mass change is negligible in most contexts outside a nuclear reactor. (and obviously significant for the case of black holes merging)
Well the problem was you made it sound like that in the statement. 
The statement that I made that mentioned antimatter had nothing to do with black holes or the emission of gravitational waves at all. You simply made that up.

You repetedly state that you think the black hole propulsion is effectively photon propulsion or equivalent in its own way.  Highly innefecient and yet you state its effecient but its not.
I never stated that acceleration due to emission of gravitational waves is efficient. I stated the exact opposite of that and pointed to a reference showing the enormous amount of energy converted into gravitational waves during a black hole merger which is what allows the propulsion effect to be significant.

(probably due to that doppler effect annalogy which I disagree with - I don't think it improves acceleration)
It is not an analogy, it is a mathematical fact.

The only way I know of to convert a black hole into energy is hawking radiation and that requires pairs from the vacuum which one of them behave as negative energy causing reduction in mass of the black hole allowing evaporation of the black hole.  Natually my assumption would be your referring to this.  My rebuttal is that this creates real radiation not gravity waves.   Now apparently your not saying this is the mechanism so I guess were clear on that. 
Hawking radiation has not been proven to exist, energy being carried away from black hole mergers by gravitational waves is a prediction that has been known for a long time, and has been experimentally verified, so you must be completely ignorant of the topic under discussion to not know about this.  If that is the case you need to stop making assertions, and learn the basics of the topic at hand before you try to make any predictions.

Quote
The axes of your graphs would be "amplitude" and "time" (if you were even using something physics based to begin with, which you aren't) neither of these is spatial position, which would be relevant to an asymmetry. Also, if you averaged your graphs you would find they average to 0.
They already use this frequency system in emulating the mach effect.  Why do you think they use Electrostrictive materials?  Its for the frequency doubling effect.  They stimulate it with the 1f frequency and they get the 2f response from the system.  The frequency doubling effect is the 2nd frequency I introduce which induces the asymetric acceleration.
No, your graph is just a couple of unlabelled axes of some arbitrary functions that are less assymetric than you claim "electrostrictive materials" have no bearing on my statement at all, nor to the emission of gravitational waves that you were discussing.

I continue this serries to increase the assymetry in acceleration.  You already admit a change in acceleration is what changes how an object generates gravity waves.  If the effect is non-linear it doesn't matter if the time average is zero. 
Except that series has no physical relationship to a system of 2 black holes spiralling towards each other. Since it does not describe what is happening in the physical system under consideration, it has no relevance. There are real asymmetries that exist in a system of 2 black holes that are spinning which is why 2 equal mass black holes that have just the right spin can emit asymmetric gravitational waves (expending a gigantic amount of energy in the process). Your "multiple frequency" assumption has nothing to do with this at all though.

And I have repetedly said to why 10% ratio of kinetic energy exchange is way more effecient than photon propulsion.  Please see the above bolded *** points.  I think we can agree to disagree. 
No you have not repeatedly given any reason, you have just repeatedly ignored everything I have said. We can't "agree to disagree" on this, because it is a matter of relatively simple math, when a photon reflects off of a mirror travelling at relativistic velocity, then a large fraction of the photon's energy in that frame is transferred to the mirror.

Quote
You appear to be suggesting that the mass of the black hole is some how annihilated and sent off as energy in one direction slowing the black hole.  This is interesting to consider but I wonder have they really confirmed this?
They predicted that this (gravitational waves) would happen, and then eventually, they built a sensitive enough detector to measure it, though nothing is being "annihilated." (and the energy goes in basically every direction, but not equally in all directions in general.)
So you are not suggesting they are converting mass into energy.  We are past this I guess.
No, Energy is being lost from the system and converted into gravitational waves, and due to mass energy equivalence, that can be considered as mass turning into energy, but that does not mean that antimatter or annihilation is involved. I am being careful not to specify the full details of the energy balance, because it certainly involves gravitational potential energy in GR, but gravitational potential energy is "special" in GR and I am certain I would mess up the description.

When the energy goes in every direction we don't have black hole propulsion.  When we have directed gravitational waves we "may" have black hole propulsion.  I think we can agree on that.
The word "may" is a problem. When the gravitational waves are asymmetric we do have black hole propulsion, that is simply a fundamental fact related to the existence of gravitational waves.

And we seem to have it with out mass annihilation.
You seem to be using "annihilation" to mean something other than the standard definition of the word. As I stated before, the mass of particles in nuclei change during nuclear reactions, but not antimatter or annihilation is involved.

  Amazing.  Enough to possibly propell them to some quite significant velocity.  Some how thats not effecient? 
Considering the amount of energy released is equivalent to a significant fraction of the mass of the black holes that merged, and this totals so that the energy/momentum ratio is no better than a photon rocket, it is difficult to see how this could be considered "efficient."

Quote
If anti-matter how is that anti-matter annihilation converted into gravity waves.  Shouldn't that annihilation be visible light rather than quadapole? 
Go look up the word "quadrupole." I don't know what you think it means, but you are using it wrong. The rest of your post goes on to say a bunch more made up terms that have little to do with actual physics. It is frustrating reading your posts, because you seem to have little to no interest in learning what the words you are using actually mean.

Normally when someone admits they messed up or mispoke like you did near the beginning of your post, I am greatly appreciative of it:
Yeah I guess I worded that a bit off.
In this case you managed to immediately defeat that by putting words in my mouth I never said, and going on to simply ignore something I have explained to you repeatedly, making it seem like you have not even been reading my posts.
Thanks for stripping it out of context and putting words in mine.  I don't think it's hardly worth my time. 
Some stuff on space time and quadrupoles.
I didn't strip it of any relevant context. Your usage of the word quadrupole simply indicates that you do not understand the definition of that word. You use it in a context that implies that quadrupole is a difference between electromagnetic and gravitational radiation. The sources you cite in your new post show that quadrupole radiation can occur in either case. I did not put any words in your mouth, in case you missed it, for the second of your quotes in this quote block, I was commending you (that is a good thing) for something you had said. On the other hand you have multiple times claimed that I have said things completely contrary to my actual statements. This appears to be in part because you seem to be starting from the assumption that you understand what you are talking about, when in reality you have demonstrated that you do not even know the meaning of the words you are using.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 05/16/2019 11:49 am
José Rodal's paper "A Machian wave effect in conformal, scalar–tensor gravitational theory" has just been published (15 May 2019) in General Relativity and Gravitation:

• Rodal, J.J.A., Gen. Relativ. Gravit. (2019) 51: 64. doi:10.1007/s10714-019-2547-9 (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10714-019-2547-9)
[EDIT] It has been made "open access" legally for social media sharing, see how there (https://www.springernature.com/gp/researchers/sharedit) and see https://rdcu.be/bCCCA (https://rdcu.be/bCCCA) to read the full paper :)

Congratulations, José!

Although he seems to dismiss (just a guess from the abstract, didn't read the whole paper yet) the ability of Mach effects to provide a useful mean of propellantless propulsion in space. According to Dr Rodal, Machian mass–energy fluctuations are real and could provide an artificial propellantless propulsion effect, but only if the mass-energy fluctuates from the side of the distant large mass M. If such mass-energy is made to fluctuate on the side of the little mass m (which is the case for Woodward's MEGA drive) then the predicted effect is so small that it would unfortunately be of no use for space travel.

This paper is a big achievement after years of hard work, it proves there is some substance in Woodward's original idea, but it is quite puzzling regarding the prediction of complete lack of any potential applications for space travel, especially as Rodal uses the same theoretical framework as Heidi Fearn in her Gravitational Absorber Theory (GAT), that is to say, Hoyle-Narlikar conformal theory of gravity in an non-steady state universe with an accelerating expansion, which is a Machian version of general relativity.

Your analysis of the full paper is welcome.

Quote from: José J. A. Rodal
Abstract
A frequency-dependent Machian effect previously put forward by Woodward (that for a body undergoing mass–energy fluctuations, the second time derivative of the mass–energy density is a source of a gravitational field) is discussed within Einstein’s theory and justified using Hoyle–Narlikar’s conformal gravitational theory. It is shown that Einstein’s theory has a similar term that is 3rd order post-Newtonian, but besides the issue of coordinate-dependence, the Machian significance of any field term in Einstein’s equation depends on the (universe’s) cosmological solution to the field equations. Therefore, Woodward’s theory is examined within Hoyle–Narlikar’s scalar–tensor theory of gravitation (a theory that was expressly developed with the intent to incorporate Mach’s principle) for a universe undergoing accelerating expansion (hereby accounted for by a positive cosmological constant). It is shown under gauge invariant expressions that the conformal, scalar–tensor gravitational theory of Hoyle and Narlikar has a similar term of first order when the mass–energy fluctuation is due to distant objects but that it effectively becomes a higher order effect when the mass–energy fluctuations arise from fluctuation of the (local) mass–energy (as is necessarily the case in Woodward’s experimental results, since the only mass that can be purposively fluctuated in energy, monochromatically, is the local mass, instead of the distant masses responsible for most of the inertia according to Mach’s principle). Therefore this effect appears too small for practical space travel application (unless the spaceship is near a black hole or a neutron star). Present cosmological measurements of the possible time variation of G are shown to occur at much lower frequencies and therefore cannot be used to rule out Woodward’s effect if G exhibits significant time-dependence at higher frequencies than observed in these cosmological measurements.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 05/16/2019 12:35 pm
Yay Jose!

"Therefore this effect appears too small for practical space travel application."

Seems to have been confirmed by the serious experimenters above thread.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 05/16/2019 03:35 pm
it proves there is some substance in Woodward's original idea, but it is quite puzzling regarding the prediction of complete lack of any potential applications for space travel, especially as Rodal uses the same theoretical framework as Heidi Fearn in her Gravitational Absorber Theory (GAT), that is to say, Hoyle-Narlikar conformal theory of gravity in an non-steady state universe with an accelerating expansion, which is a Machian version of general relativity.

I do not think the paper proves there is some substance to Wooward's original idea as Rodal makes it clear he is assuming a framework that he acknowledges may not be true,  "Furthermore, the derivation of such a term is coordinate-dependent and whether it has a Machian physical significance depends on the (universe’s) cosmological solution to Einstein’s equations."  I read this as IF, and these are big ifs, one makes some assumptions on faith, then there may be an extremely tiny effect.

As to why Rodal says this effect is so tiny as to not be useful, it is because the expected thrust would be many orders of magnitude less than what Woodward is claiming (unless the spaceship is near a black hole or a neutron star). Any real thrust in a laboratory on Earth would be infinitesimal.

The predicted thrust from Rodal's analysis is far below the detection range of Woodward's balance and therefore any measurements made to date are likely experimental artifacts generated by the device.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 05/16/2019 04:24 pm
Actually upon reading the paper, Rodal and Woodward profoundly disagree:

• Rodal considers the Machian interaction to occur purely locally in spacetime, with nearby matter, through gravitational waves that dilute with distance from the sources (tiny potential, hence no possible application for space propulsion, except, as Rodal says himself, for the limit impracticable case where the MEGA drive would be near a black hole).

• Woodward considers the Machian interaction to occur with cosmic matter, i.e. with the chiefly distant matter in the whole causally connected universe, through retarded/advanced waves of a Wheeler-Feynman gravitational origin, in other words: everywhere/when (with a potential ~ c²).

The two hypotheses do not give same conclusions obviously.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 05/16/2019 05:17 pm
Actually upon reading the paper, Rodal and Woodward profoundly disagree:

• Rodal considers the Machian interaction to occur purely locally in spacetime, with nearby matter, through gravitational waves that dilute with distance from the sources (tiny potential, hence no possible application for space propulsion, except, as Rodal says himself, for the limit impracticable case where the MEGA drive would be near a black hole).

• Woodward considers the Machian interaction to occur with cosmic matter, i.e. with the chiefly distant matter in the whole causally connected universe, through retarded/advanced waves of a Wheeler-Feynman gravitational origin, in other words: everywhere/when (with a potential ~ c²).

The two hypotheses do not give same conclusions obviously.


Rodal has shown that the effect is infinitesimal (unless near a black hole or neutron star) under Einstein's theory and under Hoyle-Narlikar's theory.  He points out that since the distant mass does not purposefully fluctuate "monochromatically" along with the local matter, the effect is higher order and therefore incredibly smaller than claimed by Woodward. 

There is a whole section (section 3.4) pointing out the mathematical and physical mistakes made by Fearn and Woodward in their analysis.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 05/16/2019 08:35 pm
In the paper the higher order effect found in General Relativity (at least in the harmonic gauge) has the same form of the leading term in Woodward equation.
However, it is not the actual term, because the logic underlying the derivation of Rodal's and Woodward's equation is different.

It seems to me that the disagreement is due to the definition and the role of the potential PHI used in the substitution at page 5.
Rodal uses the classical local newtonian formulation phi = -Gm/r , while Woodward, for deriving his equation, defines Phi by using the expression:

E0 = ro_0 x PHI (*)

With E0 the rest energy density and ro_0 the density.

In an earlier passage in the book he also writes down f = -Grad(PHI) .

I think it is clear from this latter expression that PHI represents the total (local+far away = phi + Phi = PHI) gravitational potential, so that the relevant term in the gradient is the local potential (since it can change spatially), while the far away contribution dominates in the expression above.


I'm not sure that the conditions of validity of the equation that Rodal uses allow for this, but physically there doesn't seem to be a problem in employing the flat-space, local weak field approximation in the presence of an extremely strong potential due to matter far away from the volume of study.

As far as I know General Relativity, being a local theory, never gives much thought on the distant universe (aside from stipulating boundary conditions), so it is usually assumed that when PHI= c^2 one must be near the event horizon of a black hole, and so the weak field approximation is strongly inappropriate, but in fact it seems that even when the local sources are weak, the far away are of this order, so that by using the latter one can still consider the "weak-field" approximation as valid. (**)

I suppose that one possible issue is how to define a "global" cosmological potential in a meaningful and rigorous way in general, though I'm aware there is at least one proposal for FRW cosmologies by Signore (which Woodward cites in the book)
I think this matter should be studied more carefully.

____________________________________________________________

(*) There is this (https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9605011.pdf) very interesting article, which shows that this expression which relates the potential (satisfying the boundary condition Phi -> c^2 for r -> inf) to the rest energy E0 is the only one consistent with Newtonian theory + the postulate that "all energy corresponds to active gravitational mass".
Woodward obtained his equation in the context of a relativistically correct newtonian theory, so this is actually a nice consistency check; it shows that, contrary to what he wrote in the book, it is not necessary to use any ad hoc convention for the signs of the potential.

For anyone curious, I found this article referred in this huge essay (https://link.springer.com/article/10.12942/lrr-2009-4#Sec3) on energy and momentum in general relativity.

(**)  This article (https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath622/kmath622.htm) on mathpages seems to somewhat support this view when it says:

 Einstein did not regard “flat” Minkowski spacetime as being free of a gravitational field. He regarded the inertial field and the gravitational field as identical, represented by the metric tensor. In particular, he did not identify curvature with gravitation, which is why in his 1907 review article he was able to speak about a “homogeneous gravitational field”. According to some modern physicists this is a contradiction in terms, because they maintain that a gravitational field is identical with intrinsic curvature of the spacetime manifold, whereas (by definition) curvature is absent from a homogeneous gravitational field. Nevertheless, it is possible – at least in principle – to construct such a thing, by a suitable arrangement of masses (a fact which strangely doesn’t seem to embarrass those who identify gravity with curvature). The resolution of this conundrum is simply that gravity is not a local phenomenon. Indeed this is another way of expressing the equivalence principle.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob Woods on 05/17/2019 01:49 am
Congratulations Jose!


An impressive achievement, and one that leaves the door open for more investigations.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 05/18/2019 04:54 am
Congratulations Jose!!

Outstanding … just simply outstanding.  Brushing up on some long neglected math to work through the paper - looking forward to it so much.

Herman
Graybeardsyseng.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: soms42 on 05/20/2019 06:58 pm
Still working through the article of Rodal. Very interesting, refreshing and disappointing when he is right ;) .

From what i read and if i understand it correct: a woodward-mach effect experiment would be more effective when a large mass (neutronstar, black hole) is nearby, then the same experiment without a nearby large mass.

Looks like a violation of the equivalence principle to me.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star-Drive on 05/22/2019 03:23 pm
Actually upon reading the paper, Rodal and Woodward profoundly disagree:

• Rodal considers the Machian interaction to occur purely locally in spacetime, with nearby matter, through gravitational waves that dilute with distance from the sources (tiny potential, hence no possible application for space propulsion, except, as Rodal says himself, for the limit impracticable case where the MEGA drive would be near a black hole).

• Woodward considers the Machian interaction to occur with cosmic matter, i.e. with the chiefly distant matter in the whole causally connected universe, through retarded/advanced waves of a Wheeler-Feynman gravitational origin, in other words: everywhere/when (with a potential ~ c²).

The two hypotheses do not give same conclusions obviously.


Rodal has shown that the effect is infinitesimal (unless near a black hole or neutron star) under Einstein's theory and under Hoyle-Narlikar's theory.  He points out that since the distant mass does not purposefully fluctuate "monochromatically" along with the local matter, the effect is higher order and therefore incredibly smaller than claimed by Woodward. 

There is a whole section (section 3.4) pointing out the mathematical and physical mistakes made by Fearn and Woodward in their analysis.

Jamie:

I've learned over 21 years of dealing with Jim Woodward that he is almost never wrong in his interpretations of General Relativity Theory (GRT) while Dr. Rodal is a newbie to the GRT field.  Thus in that vein, here is a one paragraph rebuttal to Jose' and another reviewer's argument presented in Rodal's recent paper that Jim sent out to a partial Woodward email thread.  A rebuttal that IMO needs wider distribution to those who are interested in this topic.

"Evidently, you both do not understand that Carl Brans' "spectator matter" argument and the Equivalence Principle DEMAND that the Newtonian potential that appears in the "prefactor" of the transient terms obtained in the calculation of the field equation be the locally measured invariant value that is dominated by the contributions of distant matter.  This leads both of you to the false assertion that predicted effects are only significant in the vicinity of black holes where GM/Rc^2 is about 1 -- a condition that Brans' argument shows to be true in fact everywhere/when in spacetime (which is the gravitational field) -- invalidating your and Jose's claim that no transient Mach effects of the sort I have predicted should be seen in the experiments we have done (and continue to do)."

Best, Paul March
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: TheTraveller on 05/22/2019 04:22 pm
I've learned over 21 years of dealing with Jim Woodward that he is almost never wrong in his interpretations of General Relativity Theory (GRT) while Dr. Rodal is a newbie to the GRT field.  Thus in that vein, here is a one paragraph rebuttal to Jose' and another reviewer's argument presented in Rodal's recent paper that Jim sent out to a partial Woodward email thread.  A rebuttal that IMO needs wider distribution to those who are interested in this topic.

Best, Paul March

Paul,

Neither EmDrive nor Macd Drive confirm to classical physics as assumed by different frame observers, despite their mathematical insistence they understand all that can be understood.

With EmDrive, when pulsed with short Rf pulses of <= 5xTC length and the post pulse trapped wavelengths are analysed, as the EmDrive accelerates mass, the wavelength increase, ie the photon energy loss, matches the KE gain of the accelerating cavity.

Maybe Woodward can do similar analysis to show CofE and CofM are conserved?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 05/22/2019 05:08 pm
I've learned over 21 years of dealing with Jim Woodward that he is almost never wrong in his interpretations of General Relativity Theory (GRT) while Dr. Rodal is a newbie to the GRT field.
I have not reviewed the arguments you present in detail yet but have doubts about them just from this sentence. Good scientific arguments do not need to be proceeded by praises or personal attacks. When someone feels the need to do so, that is strongly correlated with them presenting a weak or incorrect argument.

I also note that the argument does not include anything of the form "Equation # in the paper is incorrect and should be <equation here> because <e.g. term X in equation # and term Y in equation # do not cancel out exactly.>"

Also, as to your praise of Woodward, you say that he is "almost never wrong" yet GR is a theory that is by design local, since it was designed to eliminate the paradox of instantaneous gravitational effects under special relativity, yet Woodward bases his claims on non-local gravitational interactions. That means at first glance, the results of Dr. Rodal who went through the math and showed consistency with locality seem a lot more credible as actually consistent with GR.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 05/22/2019 05:18 pm
Neither EmDrive nor Macd Drive confirm to classical physics as assumed by different frame observers, despite their mathematical insistence they understand all that can be understood.
You still promote and defend the work of Shawyer who claims the exact opposite of what you just said: that no new physics is necessary.

With EmDrive, when pulsed with short Rf pulses of <= 5xTC length and the post pulse trapped wavelengths are analysed, as the EmDrive accelerates mass, the wavelength increase, ie the photon energy loss, matches the KE gain of the accelerating cavity.
You have been repeatedly shown the math that proves that your statement here can never be true. The energy will never add up. Take 2 battery powered emDrives identical, but one moving at some initial velocity. Both operate in the same way for some time, and therefore have the same increase in velocity, same battery drain, and same amount of energy converted to heat. The one difference is that they have different change in kinetic energy.

Maybe Woodward can do similar analysis to show CofE and CofM are conserved?
Not so simple in GR, but the basic claim is that the conservation happens by non-local interactions with distant masses (see my previous post for why this is problematic, and Rodal's paper for math to back it up.) The argument I presented for the emDrive is based on the fact that nothing external that it interacts with has been claimed.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 05/23/2019 08:44 pm
To follow up on the details of the "criticism" of Rodal's paper:
"Evidently, you both do not understand that Carl Brans' "spectator matter" argument and the Equivalence Principle DEMAND that the Newtonian potential that appears in the "prefactor" of the transient terms obtained in the calculation of the field equation be the locally measured invariant value that is dominated by the contributions of distant matter.  ...

They are citing Brans, who actually wrote papers cited in Rodal's paper. For example:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/243467819_Absence_of_Inertial_Induction_in_General_Relativity

The abstract is short and to the point:
Quote
I review arguments indicating that there is no real, physically detectable, local inertial-induction effect in general relativity, contrary to recent comments by Tittle.
Brans clearly and explicitly found that the Mach effect producing local forces is simply not a real effect present in GR.

The quote that was provided above arguing against Rodal's paper is either taken too far out of context to have any meaning, or it seems that it would be misrepresenting Brans' work. Considering the use of bold, all caps, and the word "demand" this in no way amounts to a reasoned argument. A reasoned argument would need to involve more math and less assertions.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: flux_capacitor on 05/25/2019 11:38 am
This fundamental question : "does the Machian interaction occur with local matter only, hence tiny potential (Rodal); or with cosmic matter hence potential everywhere/when (Woodward)" was actually already tackled in Woodward's 2013 book "Making Starships and Stargates", Chapter 2 "Mach’s principle", section "Mach's principle revival", pages 37-39 and 41-42. Excerpts in purple:
 

Sciama’s calculation is not optional. It is a prediction of GRT providing that ϕ/c² = 1. Is ϕ/c² = 1 true?
Yes.

[…]

You may be wondering, if we know that space at the cosmic scale is flat, why isn’t it common knowledge that inertial reaction forces are caused by the gravitational interaction of local accelerating objects with chiefly cosmic matter? Well, two issues figure into the answer to this question. One is the consequence of an analysis done by Carl Brans in the early 1960s. (Excerpts from Brans’ paper are to be found at the end of this chapter.) And the other, related to Brans’ argument, is the business about there being no “real” gravitational forces. Brans showed that if the presence of “spectator” matter (concentrations of matter nearby to a laboratory that shields the stuff in it from all external influences except gravity, which cannot be shielded) were to change the gravitational potential energies of objects in the shielded laboratory, you could always tell whether you were in a gravity field or an accelerating lab in deep space by performing only local experiments.

In particular, the gravitationally induced changes in the masses of elementary particles in the lab would change their charge to mass ratios, and this would be locally detectable. No such changes in charge to mass ratios would occur in an accelerated reference frame in deep space. As a result, a gravity field could always be discriminated from an acceleration with local experiments. Since this would be a violation of the Equivalence Principle, Brans asserted that gravitational potential energy cannot be “localized.” That is, the scalar gravitational potential must have exactly the same value, whatever it might be, everywhere in the laboratory, no matter where the lab is located or how it is accelerating. As Brans noted, this condition on gravitational potential energy reveals Einstein’s first prediction quoted above as wrong. Evidently, it appears that the distribution of matter outside of the lab cannot have any identifiable effect on the contents of the lab. Mach’s principle, however, would seem to suggest the opposite should be the case. And it was easy to infer that Mach’s principle was not contained in pristine GRT.

The inference that Mach’s principle is not contained in GRT, however, is mistaken. If you take account of the role of the vector potential in Sciama’s gravelectric field equation,5 it is clear that should spectator matter outside the lab be accelerated, it will have an effect on the contents of the lab, changing what are perceived to be the local inertial frames of reference. This is the action of Mach’s principle. But as the accelerating spectator matter will act on all of the contents of the lab equally, for inertial forces are “fictitious,” they produce the same acceleration irrespective of the mass of the objects acted upon. So, using local measurements in the lab it will not be discernible either as a force of gravity or a change in the acceleration of the lab. And it will not change the gravitational potential energies of the contents of the lab.

Brans’ argument about the localizability of gravitational potential energy has an even more radical consequence – one found in the excerpt from Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler on energy localization in the gravitational field found in the previous chapter. If you can eliminate the action of the gravitational field point by point throughout the laboratory by a careful choice of geometry that, for us external observers, has the effect of setting inertial frames of reference into accelerated motion with respect to the walls, floor and ceiling of the lab, it seems reasonable to say that there is no gravitational field, in the usual sense of the word, present in the lab. This is what is meant when people say that GRT “geometrizes” the gravitational field. In this view there are no gravitational forces. Gravity merely distorts spacetime, and objects in inertial motion follow the geodesics of the distorted spacetime. The only real forces in this view are non-gravitational. Inertia, of course, is a real force. But if you believe that there aren’t any real gravitational forces, then the origin of inertia remains “obscure” – as Abraham Pais remarked in the quote at the outset of this chapter – for it isn’t a result of the electromagnetic, weak, or strong interactions (and can’t be because they are not universal), and that leaves only gravity. But we’ve excluded gravity because we know that there aren’t any gravitational forces. And the origin of inertia remains a mystery.


5 Or Einstein’s vector approximation equation for the force exerted by spectator matter that is accelerating on other local objects.

[…]

You might think that having established the equivalence of frame dragging by the universe and the action of inertial forces, we’d be done with the issue of inertia. Alas, such optimism is premature. A few issues remain to be dealt with. Chief among them is that if ϕ = GM/R, since at least R is changing (because of the expansion of the universe), it would seem that ϕ = must just be an accident of our present epoch. However, if the laws of physics are to be true everywhere and during every time period, and inertial reaction forces are gravitational, then it must be the case that ϕ/c² = 1 everywhere and at all times if Newton’s third law of mechanics is to be universally valid.

Well, we know that the principle of relativity requires that c, when it is locally measured, has this property – it is a “locally measured invariant.” So, perhaps it is not much of a stretch to accept that ϕ is a locally measured invariant, too. After all, GM/R has dimensions of velocity squared. No fudging is needed to get that to work out right. But there is an even more fundamental and important reason to accept the locally measured invariance of ϕ: it is the central feature of the “Einstein Equivalence Principle” (EEP) that is required to construct GRT. As is universally known, the EEP prohibits the “localization” of gravitational potential energy. That is, it requires that whenever you make a local determination of the total scalar gravitational potential, you get the same number, whatever it may happen to be (but we know in fact to be equal to ). Note that this does not mean that the gravitational potential must everywhere have the same value, for distant observers may measure different values at different places – just as they do for the speed of light when it is present in the gravity fields of local objects. Indeed, this is not an accident, because ϕ and c are related, one being the square of the other.

Should you be inclined to blow all of this off as some sort of sophistry, keep in mind that there is a compelling argument for the EEP and the locally measured invariance of ϕ – the one constructed by Carl Brans in 1962 that we’ve already invoked. If you view the gravitational field as an entity that is present in a (presumably flat) background spacetime – as opposed to the chief property of spacetime itself (as it is in GRT) – it is easy to believe that gravitational potential energies should be “localizable” – that is, gravitational potentials should have effects that can be detected by local measurements. Brans pointed out that were this true, it would be a violation of the principle of relativity as contained in the Equivalence Principle. Why? Because, as mentioned above, you would always, with some appropriate local experiment, be able to distinguish a gravitational field from accelerated frames of reference.

[…]

Brans’ argument makes clear that the EEP must be correct if the principle of relativity is correct – and that Einstein was wrong in 1921 when he assumed that the piling up of spectator matter would change the masses of local objects. Notwithstanding that the non-localizability of gravitational potential energies, however, the fact that inertial reaction forces are independent of time and place requires that the masses of things be equal to their total gravitational potential energies. That is, E = mc²  and Egrav = mϕ, so if E = Egrav and ϕ = c² as Mach’s principle demands, we have a simple identity.


I didn't cite all excerpts related to the debate over the fundamental nature of the gravitational force, which is also addressed in the same chapter with an analysis of frame-dragging effects. But I didn't report this, because the TL;DR stage is quickly reached on a forum. So if you're really interested, just read the MSAS book. The fact is, I don't understand how people can comment on Woodward's theory about Mach effects without having read the book, or at least without cherry-picking into appropriate chapters to address this kind of questions. Relying on Woodward's short quotes from his semi-private mailing list only, or Brans' partial quotes made out of context is irrelevant. Especially as it is obvious there are qualified people on this forum. For example, when Carl Brans states that "there is no local gravitational induction in GR" does he say there is no gravitational induction AT ALL, or that such induction is not LOCAL? Partial quotes can be interpreted very differently without providing the meaningful context.

Carl H. Brans made his 1962 paper "Mach's Principle and the Locally Measured Gravitational Constant in General Relativity" available on ResearchGate, here it is attached below.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 05/25/2019 02:08 pm
This fundamental question : "does the Machian interaction occur with local matter only, hence tiny potential (Rodal); or with cosmic matter hence potential c² everywhere/when (Woodward)" was actually already tackled in Woodward's 2013 book...

...followed by a lengthy quote from Woodward.  You go on:

Quote from: Flux_Capacitor
... I didn't cite all excerpts related to the debate over the fundamental nature of the gravitational force, which is also addressed in the same chapter with an analysis of frame-dragging effects. But I didn't report this, because the TL;DR stage is quickly reached on a forum. So if you're really interested, just read the MSAS book. The fact is, I don't understand how people can comment on Woodward's theory about Mach effects without having read the book, or at least without cherry-picking into appropriate chapters to address this kind of questions...

You used a lot of words without telling us two important pieces of information: whether Woodward and Brans are correct, or whether Woodward and Brans are incorrect.  And you also left out why.  I think you just proved that even if one reads Woodward's book and Brans' paper, which I have, that one can comment about these things without the support of a mathematical basis for those comments.  Merely reading the work does not qualify one for commenting, nor does that reading support an argument for or against the ideas proposed by Woodward and Brans.

Even tho Sciama's fundamental questions about the origins of inertia still remain unanswered, it does appear that Woodward's claims are not supported by either experiment or theory.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 05/25/2019 03:20 pm
This fundamental question : "does the Machian interaction occur with local matter only, hence tiny potential (Rodal); or with cosmic matter hence potential c² everywhere/when (Woodward)" was actually already tackled in Woodward's 2013 book...

...followed by a lengthy quote from Woodward.  You go on:

Quote from: Flux_Capacitor
... I didn't cite all excerpts related to the debate over the fundamental nature of the gravitational force, which is also addressed in the same chapter with an analysis of frame-dragging effects. But I didn't report this, because the TL;DR stage is quickly reached on a forum. So if you're really interested, just read the MSAS book. The fact is, I don't understand how people can comment on Woodward's theory about Mach effects without having read the book, or at least without cherry-picking into appropriate chapters to address this kind of questions...

You used a lot of words without telling us two important pieces of information: whether Woodward and Brans are correct, or whether Woodward and Brans are incorrect.  And you also left out why.  I think you just proved that even if one reads Woodward's book and Brans' paper, which I have, that one can comment about these things without the support of a mathematical basis for those comments.  Merely reading the work does not qualify one for commenting, nor does that reading support an argument for or against the ideas proposed by Woodward and Brans.

Even tho Sciama's fundamental questions about the origins of inertia still remain unanswered, it does appear that Woodward's claims are not supported by either experiment or theory.

So what about these experimental results.  Are they some how nullified? 
(https://www.nextbigfuture.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/eb458e53d8299b32ad43993523bfeaf9.png)
Mach Effect Propellantless drive gets NIAC phase 2... (https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/04/mach-effect-propellantless-drive-gets-niac-phase-2-and-progress-to-great-interstellar-propulsion.html)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 05/25/2019 03:48 pm
So what about these experimental results.  Are they some how nullified? 

It means those results are from an experimental artifact, not any kind of mach effect. Vibrating devices on torsional pendulums have been shown to produce false-positives that look exactly like Woodward's results. 

These false-positive signals are what Woodward and others are mistaking for real thrust. 

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 05/25/2019 03:50 pm
[..] even if one reads Woodward's book and Brans' paper, which I have, [..] one can comment about these things without the support of a mathematical basis for those comments.  Merely reading the work does not qualify one for commenting, nor does that reading support an argument for or against the ideas proposed by Woodward and Brans.

I'm not sure what you mean with this comment.
Sure, one can comment on anything without going into mathematical details  (though adding appropriate sources for your claims is always welcomed).

However, using partial quotes and/or misunderstanding and/or not examining the relevant material is not conducive to an informed discussion, but rather to a neverending series of pointless arguments.


For example, in the previous post meberbs wrote down:
Quote
Brans clearly and explicitly found that the Mach effect producing local forces is simply not a real effect present in GR.

There is a misunderstanding here.

First, there is no reference to "Mach effect effect producing local forces" in Brans' papers (both the one referenced by Woodward and attached by flux_capacitor an the one quoted by meberbs)
Secondly, what Brans actually found out is that, if the strong equivalence principle is valid, then piling up or changing the matter distribution outside a laboratory has no effect on the physics done inside the said laboratory; in particular it does not change the inertial/gravitational mass ratio,  in contrast to an old statement by Einstein, who wrongly arrived to this result, and he included it as a "machian" effect found in GR.

This is what he means by "local inertial-induction effect", and, importantly, Woodward agrees fully with him. So, to answer your question, Brans is correct and Woodward agrees with him.

What Woodward (and Sciama) means with "inertial-induction" is that the inertial forces that appear in a non-inertial frames are fully generated by the "distant masses" of the universe, and that, to first approximation, this happens when ϕ/c² = 1.
They are not even the only one noticing this. This approximate result was also obtained, for example, by Brill and Cohen. They found out that the frame dragging inside a spherical shell becomes perfect when its mass and radius approach the same order, corresponding, roughly speaking, to a black hole (where 2ϕ/c² = 1)

The fact is, I don't understand how people can comment on Woodward's theory about Mach effects without having read the book, or at least without cherry-picking into appropriate chapters to address this kind of questions. Relying on Woodward's short quotes from his semi-private mailing list only, or Brans' partial quotes made out of context is irrelevant.
I agree with you, though I would add that one should not stop to Woodward material, but also try to examine the related works on Mach's Principle to understand better the subtleties of the subject.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 05/25/2019 04:01 pm
So what about these experimental results.  Are they some how nullified? 

It means those results are from an experimental artifact, not any kind of mach effect. Vibrating devices on torsional pendulums have been shown to produce false-positives that look exactly like Woodward's results. 

These false-positive signals are what Woodward and others are confusing for real thrust. 



Personally, I have quite some reservations with this interpretation.

You have not yet provided a quantitative prediction regarding the magnitude of these spurious effect, and without it I don't see how anyone can make any statement that the effect has been falsified.

You also have not provided any explanation for the voltage scaling, while they did.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 05/25/2019 05:01 pm
Personally, I have quite some reservations with this interpretation.

The problems with torsional pendulums and vibrating devices is sufficient to cast serious doubt on Woodward's experimental results. One cannot point to those results as proof of anything. You are going to have a hard time convincing many that stars billions of light years away are causing the effect when it is much simpler to understand in terms of vibrating parts and a fundamentally flawed experiment. 

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 05/25/2019 05:12 pm
Personally, I have quite some reservations with this interpretation.

You have not yet provided a quantitative prediction regarding the magnitude of these spurious effect, and without it I don't see how anyone can make any statement that the effect has been falsified.

You also have not provided any explanation for the voltage scaling, while they did.
As has previously been stated by Monomorphic:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1881803#msg1881803
Creating a simulation detailed enough to accurately predict the results is not trivial. It is preferable for the experimenter to modify the experiment to demonstrate the existence (or non-existence) of the artifact. Woodward's reaction to the existence of this error source was not the one you would expect from someone concerned about the scientific validity of their experiments, as he does not seem interested in running an experiment that could prove him wrong.

Edit: I forgot to mention that more input power should yield larger amplitude for Monomorphic's results as well, plus based on Rodal's results, it now should be clear that Woodward does not have a predictions based on a valid theory. (Even before this, McCulloch has actually pointed out that Woodward needs an arbitrary scale factor added in to make the data fit.)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 05/25/2019 05:35 pm
Personally, I have quite some reservations with this interpretation.

The problems with torsional pendulums and vibrating devices is sufficient to cast serious doubt on Woodward's experimental results. One cannot point to those results as proof of anything.



I do agree that torsional pendulum tests cannot represent the ultimate proof of the effect.

You are going to have a hard time convincing many that stars billions of light years away are causing the effect when it is much simpler to understand in terms of vibrating parts and a fundamentally flawed experiment.

"Arguments from personal incredulity" are not sound. The points I made regarding experimentation stand.
One must expect the same level of rigour from both sides of the debate.

I do not believe that Woodward has mantained the same standard everywhere throughout his work (I actually questioned him by mail some months ago on a number of points that he has yet to address), but he at least proposed a model and made some quantitative (not qualitative) predictions
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 05/25/2019 05:46 pm
I do not believe that Woodward has mantained the same standard everywhere throughout his work (I actually questioned him by mail some months ago on a number of points that he has yet to address), but he at least proposed a model and made some quantitative (not qualitative) predictions
My edit got crossed with you posting this, but your final statement isn't really accurate, because of the arbitrary scale factor added in, the prediction no longer is fully quantitative. It only predicts the general shape (4th power) and I have yet to see a good analysis showing whether a (pure) 4th power term really fits the data any better than a pure quadratic term. Not that this would matter at this point given the theoretical issues, and lack of attempt so far to address a known error source.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 05/25/2019 07:25 pm
Personally, I have quite some reservations with this interpretation.

You have not yet provided a quantitative prediction regarding the magnitude of these spurious effect, and without it I don't see how anyone can make any statement that the effect has been falsified.

You also have not provided any explanation for the voltage scaling, while they did.
As has previously been stated by Monomorphic:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1881803#msg1881803 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1881803#msg1881803)
Creating a simulation detailed enough to accurately predict the results is not trivial. It is preferable for the experimenter to modify the experiment to demonstrate the existence (or non-existence) of the artifact. Woodward's reaction to the existence of this error source was not the one you would expect from someone concerned about the scientific validity of their experiments, as he does not seem interested in running an experiment that could prove him wrong.

Edit: I forgot to mention that more input power should yield larger amplitude for Monomorphic's results as well, plus based on Rodal's results, it now should be clear that Woodward does not have a predictions based on a valid theory. (Even before this, McCulloch has actually pointed out that Woodward needs an arbitrary scale factor added in to make the data fit.)

Quote
1. Lance Williams and Jose Rodal presented strong arguments that Woodward's theory is based on incorrect assumptions of general relativity that is not found in any textbook or research paper.

Lance Williams arguments rely on the same paper by Brans we have been discussing here. I don't know if Woodward addressed him after the conference (though judging by the writings on the blackboard visible in the video, it seems he did). They depend crucially on what is the meaning given to the term "inertial-induction".
Regardless from what is his current opinion on the experiments, it seems he doesn't think the theoretical idea underlying Woodward's one is wrong. (http://konfluence.org/media/bpp/MIT-II-GR-2.pdf)

As for Rodal, I think it is too soon to make any informed statement, but the disagreement over ϕ (which is where Mach's principle in the sense of Sciama/Woodward enters) is clear, and without addressing that the paper can be mathematically perfect but still miss the key conceptual point.

Quote
2. TU Dresden exhaustively tested a device without any success.

Tajmar recently obtained positive results, of the same order of Buldrini's. There are still issues, but this second point is no longer valid.

Quote
3. Numerical solutions and real-world experiments were presented that could explain Woodward's results with Newtonian mechanics. 

As I said, I have some doubts on it which unfortunately I cannot confirm by creating my own simulation due to my current lack of time. Notice however how soms42 attempt at simulating the system did not return the same (qualitative) result.

In any case, the qualitative nature of the results is a serious drawback. It would be interesting to at least check if Monomorphic' results scale in a similar fashion to Woodward's ones (assuming an actuator component that depends on voltage levels like a pzt stack).


Regarding Woodward's reaction, he is surely convinced to be right and that the simulation is doing something wrong. I think, in real life, you will hardly ever find a scientist actually glad to organize an experiment to prove himself/herself wrong. I think this might change if the simulation is shown to be absolutely correct and predictive, which, as far as I know, has not yet been established.

Assuming that this error source is significative, I think it is worth asking how Woodward would compensate it without having to basically avoid using torsional balances entirely. Maybe it is simply not possible for him to change the setup, for one reason or another. However, he surely doesn't try stopping anyone else from testing these other setups.

I do not believe that Woodward has mantained the same standard everywhere throughout his work (I actually questioned him by mail some months ago on a number of points that he has yet to address), but he at least proposed a model and made some quantitative (not qualitative) predictions
My edit got crossed with you posting this, but your final statement isn't really accurate, because of the arbitrary scale factor added in, the prediction no longer is fully quantitative. It only predicts the general shape (4th power) and I have yet to see a good analysis showing whether a (pure) 4th power term really fits the data any better than a pure quadratic term.


Fair enough, though if I remember correctly there was a model, developed by Tajmar, that could explain the coupling factor. It was shot down by Rodal, but not for a very good reason in my opinion. Maybe it should receive a second look.

Edit: here's Tajmar paper (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319974638_Mach-Effect_thruster_model) I was talking about.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 05/25/2019 09:36 pm
This fundamental question : "does the Machian interaction occur with local matter only, hence tiny potential (Rodal); or with cosmic matter hence potential c² everywhere/when (Woodward)" was actually already tackled in Woodward's 2013 book...

...followed by a lengthy quote from Woodward.  You go on:

Quote from: Flux_Capacitor
... I didn't cite all excerpts ... because the TL;DR stage is quickly reached on a forum. So if you're really interested, just read the MSAS book. The fact is, I don't understand how people can comment on Woodward's theory about Mach effects without having read the book, or at least without cherry-picking into appropriate chapters to address this kind of questions...

You used a lot of words without telling us two important pieces of information: whether Woodward and Brans are correct, or whether Woodward and Brans are incorrect.  And you also left out why.  I think you just proved that even if one reads Woodward's book and Brans' paper, which I have, that one can comment about these things without the support of a mathematical basis for those comments.  Merely reading the work does not qualify one for commenting, nor does that reading support an argument for or against the ideas proposed by Woodward and Brans.

Even tho Sciama's fundamental questions about the origins of inertia still remain unanswered, it does appear that Woodward's claims are not supported by either experiment or theory.

So what about these experimental results.  Are they some how nullified? ... Link to some URL somewhere on the internot...

Were you making a point about "those" experimental results which are different results from the on-topic comments above?

'Cause nobody other than you has used the word "Nullified" to support your opinion, right?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 05/25/2019 09:46 pm

I'm not sure what you mean with this comment.

I said that I read both papers, and that qualifies me to speak on this topic.  Are you saying I should keep my opinions to myself and that reading the papers is no qualification whatsoever?

Quote from: Povel
However, using partial quotes ...

Oh. Flux Capacitor did not quote the entirety of Woodward and Brans.  So he gets to use "partial quotes" and I don't?

Quote from: Povel
Sure, one can comment on anything without going into mathematical details  (though adding appropriate sources for your claims is always welcomed).

Which I did, but no nevermind.

Quote from: Povel
For example, in the previous post meberbs wrote down... a buncha stuff that meberbs wrote down...

Meberbs is a big boy, and can speak for himself.

Quote from: Povel
...though I would add that one should not stop to Woodward material[...

Are we "stopping", as spelled, or "stooping" as an allowable, if acknowledged, typo?  If we're "stooping", are we "stooping" to Woodward's material?  Or what? This sentence, or clause, or assortment of words, doesn't mean much as it stands.  Is there a better rewording of this sentence available from the author?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 05/25/2019 09:50 pm
One cannot point to [Woodward's] results as proof of anything. You are going to have a hard time convincing many that stars billions of light years away are causing the effect when it is much simpler to understand in terms of vibrating parts and a fundamentally flawed experiment.

And yet, until the concept of inertia is better explained, the raw idea, that distant matter has an immediate affect on local conditions must be allowed in falsifiable priniple.  Not that I know how to do that, mind you.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 05/25/2019 11:31 pm
For example, in the previous post meberbs wrote down:
Quote
Brans clearly and explicitly found that the Mach effect producing local forces is simply not a real effect present in GR.

There is a misunderstanding here.

First, there is no reference to "Mach effect effect producing local forces" in Brans' papers (both the one referenced by Woodward and attached by flux_capacitor an the one quoted by meberbs)
The only misunderstanding here seems to be on your end. I just paraphrased the results in a way that I thought would be clearer to the readers on this site. The presentation by Lance Williams that you cite in a later post explicitly references that paper and clarifies that the term "inertial induction" refers to the Mach effect that underlies the claims that Woodward has made.

Quote
1. Lance Williams and Jose Rodal presented strong arguments that Woodward's theory is based on incorrect assumptions of general relativity that is not found in any textbook or research paper.

Lance Williams arguments rely on the same paper by Brans we have been discussing here. I don't know if Woodward addressed him after the conference (though judging by the writings on the blackboard visible in the video, it seems he did). They depend crucially on what is the meaning given to the term "inertial-induction".
Regardless from what is his current opinion on the experiments, it seems he doesn't think the theoretical idea underlying Woodward's one is wrong. (http://konfluence.org/media/bpp/MIT-II-GR-2.pdf)
You decided to quote all of the parts of Monomorphic's post except the first couple sentences which were the reason I linked to the post. Your comments are therefore a sidetrack from the original point, and I won't go into them in detail other than to say that I don't think that you are accurately representing Williams' views.

Regarding Woodward's reaction, he is surely convinced to be right and that the simulation is doing something wrong. I think, in real life, you will hardly ever find a scientist actually glad to organize an experiment to prove himself/herself wrong.
You appear to be misusing the word scientist here. The behavior you are assigning to "scientists" is anti-scientific. It may be common behavior among certain groups (such as crackpots), but no one behaving in such a way is acting as a scientist.

If you have reached the point in a discussion where your points amount to general insults, you probably should stop.

Assuming that this error source is significative, I think it is worth asking how Woodward would compensate it without having to basically avoid using torsional balances entirely. Maybe it is simply not possible for him to change the setup, for one reason or another. However, he surely doesn't try stopping anyone else from testing these other setups.
Monomorphic has provided suggestions on this previously, and at this point unless testing is done with a device provided by Woodward, under careful instructions from Woodward, I am not sure that it would be accepted as a replication. As far as I can tell, it feels like Woodward is a gatekeeper to what testing gets done, though he has been willing to send devices out for others to test.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 05/25/2019 11:46 pm
This fundamental question : "does the Machian interaction occur with local matter only, hence tiny potential (Rodal); or with cosmic matter hence potential everywhere/when (Woodward)" was actually already tackled in Woodward's 2013 book "Making Starships and Stargates", Chapter 2 "Mach’s principle", section "Mach's principle revival", pages 37-39 and 41-42. Excerpts in purple:
 

Sciama’s calculation is not optional. It is a prediction of GRT providing that ϕ/c² = 1. Is ϕ/c² = 1 true?
Yes.
This is addressed in Rodal's paper, and the answer for the relevant definition of the variables is no.


As Brans noted, this condition on gravitational potential energy reveals Einstein’s first prediction quoted above as wrong. Evidently, it appears that the distribution of matter outside of the lab cannot have any identifiable effect on the contents of the lab. Mach’s principle, however, would seem to suggest the opposite should be the case. And it was easy to infer that Mach’s principle was not contained in pristine GRT.

The inference that Mach’s principle is not contained in GRT, however, is mistaken. If you take account of the role of the vector potential in Sciama’s gravelectric field equation,5 it is clear that should spectator matter outside the lab be accelerated, it will have an effect on the contents of the lab, changing what are perceived to be the local inertial frames of reference.
Calling it an "inference" is underplaying the strength of what Brans noted. When something is shown to directly contradict a principle that is a central principle that the theory is derived from, then it simply cannot be part of that theory.

The counterargument dies as soon as it mentions "Sciama’s gravelectric field equation" because that is now talking about a completely separate theory.

I don't find it worth responding to any of the rest of what you quoted, since it simply does not contain any math that addresses the contents of Rodal's paper, and again, the statements about phi/c^2 are addressed in Rodal's paper.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 05/26/2019 11:12 am
The only misunderstanding here seems to be on your end. I just paraphrased the results in a way that I thought would be clearer to the readers on this site.


Sorry, you did not "paraphrase" the results, you misrepresented them. Brans is not talking about the same thing Sciama and Woodward are talking about. This is a fact. His results are actually used by Woodward to support his point. How would this be possible if these corresponded to what you claim?


The presentation by Lance Williams that you cite in a later post explicitly references that paper and clarifies that the term "inertial induction" refers to the Mach effect that underlies the claims that Woodward has made.

The point is that the "inertial-induction" referenced by Brans and Williams is not underlying Woodward's claims in the way you or Williams are thinking. This can be noticed by confronting Brans paper with Woodward texts, for example the excerpt from the book quoted by flux_capacitor.
It's not clear to me how Williams misunderstood this point, but regardless, from his more recent presentation I attached he seems to be mostly aligned with Woodward's idea of "inertial-induction", especially looking at slide 8, even though he might think there is enough experimental evidence to consider Woodward disproved.


You decided to quote all of the parts of Monomorphic's post except the first couple sentences which were the reason I linked to the post.

Sorry, I did not realize that. I welcome this other replication efforts, but I don't think one needs to create an ultra-accurate simulation to just get an estimate on the magnitude of these supposed spurios effects on the thrust balance given the known parameters.

Your comments are therefore a sidetrack from the original point, and I won't go into them in detail other than to say that I don't think that you are accurately representing Williams' views.

You are entitled to your own opinions, of course, but the view I'm describing can be obtained from going through the recent material from Williams and from a patient read of Woodward, whether you accept it or not.

You appear to be misusing the word scientist here. The behavior you are assigning to "scientists" is anti-scientific. It may be common behavior among certain groups (such as crackpots), but no one behaving in such a way is acting as a scientist.

It is surely anti-scientific, but it is how real people that happen to be scientists tend to behave, some more than others, especially after a certain age. They will change their attitude only if pressed by peer pressure or by extremely compelling evidence (which is partially a subjective matter).


If you have reached the point in a discussion where your points amount to general insults, you probably should stop.

I've genuinely no idea what you are saying here. I don't see any sort of "general insult" anywhere in my comments, unless you somehow took my previous observation that scientists are human as an insult. I apologize if that so.


Monomorphic has provided suggestions on this previously, and at this point unless testing is done with a device provided by Woodward, under careful instructions from Woodward, I am not sure that it would be accepted as a replication. As far as I can tell, it feels like Woodward is a gatekeeper to what testing gets done, though he has been willing to send devices out for others to test

You have to consider he was returned a broken device from Tajmar, so being a bit wary and giving detailed instructions seems understandable. I know that Tajmar created his own device, but I don't know if he obtained his results from this device or from one provided by Woodward.



This is addressed in Rodal's paper, and the answer for the relevant definition of the variables is no.

This is one of the point of contention. I see no objective reason to favour Rodal's answer over Woodward's one, especially in light of the paper I cited here (https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9605011) (in particular equation 4.2 at page 5 and the definition of  ϕ) and also the content of the latest presentation of Williams. Rodal's approach is surely the standard one used in the small perturbation approximation, but at no point it makes any contact with the "machian assumption" used by Woodward, so it is not particularly surprising he does not get the same results.

Calling it an "inference" is underplaying the strength of what Brans noted. When something is shown to directly contradict a principle that is a central principle that the theory is derived from, then it simply cannot be part of that theory.

The point is that what Brans found does not "directly contradict the central principle the theory is derived from" at all. It underlies it. Maybe you are not aware that there are several statements that can be considered "machians". Brans uses one and Woodward uses another.

The counterargument dies as soon as it mentions "Sciama’s gravelectric field equation" because that is now talking about a completely separate theory.

Sciama's gravelectric field equation is contained in GR, since it corresponds to frame-dragging. As an example, a paper written by Nordtvedt in 1988 ("Existence of the Gravitomagnetic Interaction" (http://ayuba.fr/pdf/nordtvedt_gravitomagnetic.pdf), look in particular at the very last equation ) shows that terms that are local equivalent to Sciama's terms are necessarily present in gravitomagnetism (and have been experimentally confirmed).

I don't find it worth responding to any of the rest of what you quoted, since it simply does not contain any math that addresses the contents of Rodal's paper, and again, the statements about phi/c^2 are addressed in Rodal's paper.

The point of disagreement here is not the math used by Rodal, but the central definitions and concepts, the starting points. It's like doing geometry with or without the fifth postulate, the results are different, and the discussion on which postulate to use cannot be decided by geometrical arguments, since postulates are the starting point.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 05/26/2019 01:05 pm
Sorry, I did not realize that. I welcome this other replication efforts, but I don't think one needs to create an ultra-accurate simulation to just get an estimate on the magnitude of these supposed spurios effects on the thrust balance given the known parameters.

The problem with accurately estimating the magnitude of the false-positive effects using the simulations is two fold. First, there are very few known parameters. Even the exact dimensions and mass of the device and balance are sketchy. And other parameters, such as the spring constant of the flexible parts and just as importantly, the force from the PZT stack are anyone's guess without analyzing the device in a lab.  However, with the simulations I have published, and the correct parameters, a magnitude of the effect could be estimated.

The second issue are the unknowns regarding the laser displacement sensor Woodward uses. Specs are available, but Woodward built his own amplifier instead of using the one from Philtec!  Nobody has ever been able to answer my questions about Woodward's laser displacement sensor:  What is the displacement constant?  Without that information, it is not possible to compare Woodward's results to a known displacement.

To say i have never provided a quantitative estimate of the magnitude of the effect is not accurate. I know I have made some estimates here in the past, when Woodward was using the Vibrometer for example.

My best estimate with what I do know is that with the current device and balance, the magnitude of the false-positive effect is  <100 nano-meters. But this number can move higher if Woodward is using the Philtec sensor in a custom higher resolution mode or the stroke distance of the PZT stack is larger than what I am guessing.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 05/26/2019 09:35 pm
...


Fair enough, though if I remember correctly there was a model, developed by Tajmar, that could explain the coupling factor. It was shot down by Rodal, but not for a very good reason in my opinion. Maybe it should receive a second look.

Edit: here's Tajmar paper (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319974638_Mach-Effect_thruster_model) I was talking about.

Equation 10 page 11 seems to indicate an expansion term for the PZT that adjusts with the square of the voltage.  That doesn't quite match the the thrust with the voltage to the 4th power. 

(https://www.nextbigfuture.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/eb458e53d8299b32ad43993523bfeaf9.png)

The behaviors are quite different. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 05/27/2019 08:33 am
The only misunderstanding here seems to be on your end. I just paraphrased the results in a way that I thought would be clearer to the readers on this site.
Sorry, you did not "paraphrase" the results, you misrepresented them. Brans is not talking about the same thing Sciama and Woodward are talking about. This is a fact. His results are actually used by Woodward to support his point. How would this be possible if these corresponded to what you claim?
I in fact did paraphrase the results, to quote from the presentation that you linked to:
Quote
“inertial induction” is the historical generic term referring to mechanical coupling with the distant universe
My paraphrase specifically narrowed it down to the one consequence that is relevant in this context, force generation due to such coupling.

The sentence that you underlined is contradictory to the sentence that you write immediately afterwards. The reality of the situation is that Brans's result shows that the effect Woodward is looking for is not in GR. Woodward does not use Brans' result, he throws the result out and brings in a different theory to twist the logic that Brans used to come to the opposite of the correct conclusion.

The point is that the "inertial-induction" referenced by Brans and Williams is not underlying Woodward's claims in the way you or Williams are thinking. This can be noticed by confronting Brans paper with Woodward texts, for example the excerpt from the book quoted by flux_capacitor.
It's not clear to me how Williams misunderstood this point, but regardless, from his more recent presentation I attached he seems to be mostly aligned with Woodward's idea of "inertial-induction", especially looking at slide 8, even though he might think there is enough experimental evidence to consider Woodward disproved.
I haven't seen any evidence of confusion on Williams' part, plenty on your part though.

You decided to quote all of the parts of Monomorphic's post except the first couple sentences which were the reason I linked to the post.
Sorry, I did not realize that.
Apology accepted, I know at least one person was confused by where those quotes came from. I stated right next to the link the reason I was linking to the post, so in the future I suggest reading more carefully to try to avoid confusion. (And next time I will quote just the relevant part of what I am linking to for clarity.)

You are entitled to your own opinions, of course, but the view I'm describing can be obtained from going through the recent material from Williams and from a patient read of Woodward, whether you accept it or not.
I disagree, what you are describing is not supported by the link you provided.

You appear to be misusing the word scientist here. The behavior you are assigning to "scientists" is anti-scientific. It may be common behavior among certain groups (such as crackpots), but no one behaving in such a way is acting as a scientist.
It is surely anti-scientific, but it is how real people that happen to be scientists tend to behave, some more than others, especially after a certain age. They will change their attitude only if pressed by peer pressure or by extremely compelling evidence (which is partially a subjective matter).

If you have reached the point in a discussion where your points amount to general insults, you probably should stop.
I've genuinely no idea what you are saying here. I don't see any sort of "general insult" anywhere in my comments, unless you somehow took my previous observation that scientists are human as an insult. I apologize if that so.
You accused every scientist on the planet of always behaving in a manner inappropriate for their field. Humans can make mistakes, but you were applying this to all scientists all of the time. You state that it would be unusual for a scientist to meet the basic standards of behavior that would be expected of scientists. In your new post you have narrowed it down to just old scientists. There is a word for what you just did: ageism. Since you do not appear to recognize what you did wrong, this is not a valid apology.

You have to consider he was returned a broken device from Tajmar, so being a bit wary and giving detailed instructions seems understandable. I know that Tajmar created his own device, but I don't know if he obtained his results from this device or from one provided by Woodward.

This is addressed in Rodal's paper, and the answer for the relevant definition of the variables is no.

This is one of the point of contention. I see no objective reason to favour Rodal's answer over Woodward's one, especially in light of the paper I cited here (https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9605011) (in particular equation 4.2 at page 5 and the definition of  ϕ) and also the content of the latest presentation of Williams. Rodal's approach is surely the standard one used in the small perturbation approximation, but at no point it makes any contact with the "machian assumption" used by Woodward, so it is not particularly surprising he does not get the same results.
Please stop inventing whatever "facts" you find convenient. (I am running out of charitable assumptions, you have made significant misrepresentations of others work in nearly every recent post, on top of the insults you are handing out.) Rodal explicitly used Hoyle-Narlikar theory, which Woodward has used himself. This theory is inherently Machian:
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2014-3821
Rodal pointed out specific mistakes of Woodward's that you refuse to even directly address.

The point is that what Brans found does not "directly contradict the central principle the theory is derived from" at all. It underlies it. Maybe you are not aware that there are several statements that can be considered "machians". Brans uses one and Woodward uses another.
I am aware of that, but you apparently have no clue what you are talking about. What Brans addresses is explicitly the form of Mach's principle needed for Woodward's device to do anything.

Sciama's gravelectric field equation is contained in GR, since it corresponds to frame-dragging. As an example, a paper written by Nordtvedt in 1988 ("Existence of the Gravitomagnetic Interaction" (http://ayuba.fr/pdf/nordtvedt_gravitomagnetic.pdf), look in particular at the very last equation ) shows that terms that are local equivalent to Sciama's terms are necessarily present in gravitomagnetism (and have been experimentally confirmed).
The logic you just used: Theory A predicts X, and theory B also predicts X therefore theory B is contained within theory A. This completely fails, since this at most shows that in some limited set of circumstances, both can predict the same answer. Outside of the limited region, they can be completely different, and one of them can be totally wrong and inconsistent.

Again, read the sources that you have previously provided. The presentation from Lance Williams that you previously provided makes it quite clear that Sciama's equations and anything like them can never accurately represent GR. All arguments showing that some effect should exist that rely on it are essentially worthless.

Such theories have their uses, but when actual rigorous calculations are available in the real theory, which is true thanks to Rodal's paper, it makes no sense to continue discussing what Williams calls a toy theory.

To quote his quote of Ciufolini & Wheeler:
Quote
What can we conclude from this analysis? First, nothing provable. Without using a sound theory of gravity, we cannot expect a soundly founded theory of gravitational radiative reaction [inertia]

The point of disagreement here is not the math used by Rodal, but the central definitions and concepts, the starting points. It's like doing geometry with or without the fifth postulate, the results are different, and the discussion on which postulate to use cannot be decided by geometrical arguments, since postulates are the starting point.
No it is the difference between doing the work in a fully general theory, or a theory whose region of applicability does not match with the region of interest. Sciama's work is not a valid starting point, and says nothing about the actual results being discussed. You keep ignoring those, and they show that when worked out in full, the theory that Woodward has been using (Hoyle-Narlikar) does not actually support Woodward's claims.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: JohnFornaro on 05/27/2019 02:02 pm
Even the exact dimensions and mass of the device and balance are sketchy.

A number of years ago, I scaled one of the copper frustrums from a JPEG, by using scale estimates from certain of the objects in the JPEG which had known dimensions. I dunno if the CAD files that I posted were helpful to some of the experimenters here or not, but it was still the case that without knowing the physical parameters of the experimental setup, one had little hope of replicating the results.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 05/27/2019 05:29 pm
@meberbs

I already see that, for how it is now, this conversation won't go anywhere and might also end up alerting the moderators.

So let's make a step back.


I'd like to make you two requests.

First, I'd like to essentially rephrase your point of view and have your confirmation that it is your actual one.

Brans clearly and explicitly found that the Mach effect producing local forces is simply not a real effect present in GR. He found that there is no real, physically detectable, local inertial-induction effect in general relativity capable of generating forces due to mechanical coupling with the distant universe. This non existent inertial-induction effect underlies the claims that Woodward has made. What Brans addresses is explicitly the form of Mach's principle needed for Woodward's device to do anything.

Please tell me if this is correct and there is nothing missing.


The second request consist in answering a couple of questions.

-What do you find confusing in my posts?
-Where do you see I have made "significant misrepresentations of others work"?


After these are cleared up I'll reply to them and to your last post. Hopefully the conversation won't become unmanageable in this way.


@Monomorphic

This is the actually first time I see this estimate appear, so thank you for providing it.

Regardless from other more complicated unknown factors, what stops you from using the upper value of your interval to determine a pretty good approximation to the deflection angle?
With that, and given the known values of the balance arm length and of the torsion spring rate, it should be possible to obtain an order of magnitude estimation for the false-positive thrust magnitude, correct?


@dustinthewind

You are looking at the wrong equation, Eq. 10 represents "the time-varying change in length of an unclamped PZT ", the equations for thrust in the models considered are Eq. 17, 19-21 and 26
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 05/27/2019 06:53 pm
First, I'd like to essentially resume your point of view and have your confirmation that it is your actual one.
You mean rephrase my point of view? This might be an insignificant typo, but it reminds me of a question I should ask, is English your native language?

Brans clearly and explicitly found that the Mach effect producing local forces is simply not a real effect present in GR. He found that there is no real, physically detectable, local inertial-induction effect in general relativity capable of generating forces due to mechanical coupling with the distant universe. This non existent inertial-induction effect underlies the claims that Woodward has made. What Brans addresses is explicitly the form of Mach's principle needed for Woodward's device to do anything.

Please tell me if this is correct and there is nothing missing.
This is accurate as far as it goes (statements about standard GR), but it leaves out anything about Hoyle-Narlikar, which is a full theory of GR modified to include Machian effects. It is not standard GR and is addressed in detail in Rodal's paper.

-What do you find confusing in my posts?
It was confusing when you brought up irrelevant parts of an old post of Monomorphic.

For the most part it is not that your posts are confusing, as that it appears that you yourself are confused.

-Where do you see I have made "significant misrepresentations of others work"?
-You claimed that Rodal didn't address a theory that incorporated Mach's principle
-You claimed Monomorphic had not addressed specific predictions, and experimental steps needed to deal with the error source
-You claimed that Brans was not talking about the version of Mach's principle needed for Woodward's claims
-You pointed to a presentation from Williams as evidence that he does not think that Woodward is wrong. The presentation explicitly says that proof cannot come from the toy model used by Woodward. Unproven does not equal wrong, but it also doesn't equal right. Rodal's paper fits right in to the "next steps" at the end of the paper. So unless you have seen a response to Rodal's paper by Williams, you should be careful what you claim.

The first 3 of those are just completely wrong, and the last is at best grossly misleading.

After these are cleared up I'll reply to them and to your last post. Hopefully the conversation won't become unmanageable in this way.
If you decide to respond to my previous post now that I answered your questions, I'd like you to start by addressing the part where you first accused essentially all scientists of acting in bad faith, and then narrowed it down to just old ones. If you are assuming bad faith of large groups of people, it is difficult extend to you an assumption of arguing in good faith.

Also, reviewing some of your points, it seems like your position is that Woodward cannot possibly be wrong, and therefore anything that contradicts him is wrong, or just misinterpreted and in agreement with him. Hopefully I am misjudging that, because if that is the case any discussion with you is pointless.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 05/28/2019 12:55 am
I wanted to give everyone an update on my recent progress.  I am now the owner of a "Fullerton style" torsional pendulum!    ;D
 
I have to admit, this has been a fun side project over the last couple of weeks. My old hanging-wire torsional pendulum was enormous and occupied up a significant portion of my basement. In preparation for moving to our new home in a few months, I disassembled the old torsional pendulum. At that time, I also began designing a "Fullerton style" torsional pendulum that wouldn't take up nearly as much space and I can keep on a shelf.

I use the same brand C-Flex bearings Fullerton uses, as well as a magnetic damping system, and liquid metal contacts. I even replicated the vibration damping bracket Woodward uses to mount the MET with all the neoprene washers. All parts are 3D printed except the extruded aluminum square tube, flexure bearings, nuts and screws, and magnets.

I have now been able to confirm that moving a weight, such as a washer, up and down along the beam does cause a horizontal deflection!   ???

Next steps are to get the laser displacement sensor working and build the new draft enclosure...
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 05/28/2019 02:53 am
...


@dustinthewind

You are looking at the wrong equation, Eq. 10 represents "the time-varying change in length of an unclamped PZT ", the equations for thrust in the models considered are Eq. 17, 19-21 and 26

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1950525#msg1950525
I was addressing Monomorphic's idea that the physical displacement of the pendulum arm by displacement of the accelerated mass leads to a false Force term for a torsion pendulum.  I see I wasn't clear enough what I was getting at.  If the displacement of the pendulum arm were to be classically displaced by the accelerated mass it would be displaced with the voltage squared it appears.  If the accelerated mass was much more massive than the pendulum arm then the arm would be completely displaced but it is less massive, so of smaller magnitude but probably displaced some. 

I'm guessing the calculated force goes as a spring constant dF=-k*dx such that it's a linear relation.  Meaning that idea may not be able to completely dismiss the force measured.  Force measured going with voltage to the 4th power but physical displacement of peldulum arm by displacement of the accelerated mass at most with voltage squared. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star-Drive on 05/28/2019 01:09 pm
I wanted to give everyone an update on my recent progress.  I am now the owner of a "Fullerton style" torsional pendulum!    ;D
 
I have to admit, this has been a fun side project over the last couple of weeks. My old hanging-wire torsional pendulum was enormous and occupied up a significant portion of my basement. In preparation for moving to our new home in a few months, I disassembled the old torsional pendulum. At that time, I also began designing a "Fullerton style" torsional pendulum that wouldn't take up nearly as much space and I can keep on a shelf.

I use the same brand C-Flex bearings Fullerton uses, as well as a magnetic damping system, and liquid metal contacts. I even replicated the vibration damping bracket Woodward uses to mount the MET with all the neoprene washers. All parts are 3D printed except the extruded aluminum square tube, flexure bearings, nuts and screws, and magnets.

I have now been able to confirm that moving a weight, such as a washer, up and down along the beam does cause a horizontal deflection!   ???

Next steps are to get the laser displacement sensor working and build the new draft enclosure...

Jaime:

Nice work as always.  While you are about developing your Tajmar/Woodward style torque pendulum displacement sensor, you need to find a way to measure all three (3) x, y & z-axes of the active end of the torque pendulum so as to have the needed data to validate or refute the various ideas for the sources of error in this experiment.  The cost is no object solution to implement this requirement is just buy three (3) Philtech D63 displacement sensors and three (3) ~500 Hz data logging channels to monitor their outputs.  However since the Philtech D63 fiber-optic displacement sensors go for ~$4.0k US each, plus the computer data logging channels needed to monitor them, you may want to find a lower cost but equally capable solution to this 3-axis measurement problem.

Added: How long is your new torque pendulum?  I think Woodward's pendulum is ~18.0" long, but the real objective here is to minimize the moment of inertia of the as-built torque pendulum system, so the as-loaded critically damped response time of the torque pendulum is a few seconds or less, with the goal of 1.0 second being preferred.

Best,  Paul March
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 05/28/2019 01:37 pm
Jaime:

Nice work as always.  While you are about developing your Tajmar/Woodward style torque pendulum displacement sensor, you need to find a way to measure all three (3) x, y & z-axes of the active end of the torque pendulum so as to have the needed data to validate or refute the various ideas for the sources of error in this experiment.  The cost is no object solution to implement this requirement is just buy three (3) Philtech D63 displacement sensors and three (3) ~500 Hz data logging channels to monitor their outputs.  However since the Philtech D63 fiber-optic displacement sensors go for ~$4.0k US each, plus the computer data logging channels needed to monitor them, you may want to find a lower cost but equally capable solution to this 3-axis measurement problem.

Best,  Paul March

Thanks Paul. I have two optical sensors already, so the plan is to monitor the two main axis; horizontal and vertical.

A couple of things to note about this design is that even though the pendulum arm is longer than Fullerton's I estimate that the mass of my new balance is significantly less Since I do not have a solid aluminum milled center mount and all the 3D printed pieces are 80% hollow.  The weight savings allowed me to use the C-Flex D10 bearings instead of the E-10, which means my torsional spring rate is half that of Fullerton's. These optimizations are enough that I can use a cheaper Omron LDS, which has a little lower resolution. By cheaper, I mean ~$2000 new, but you can pick up used ones for ~$400 on ebay if you wait long enough.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: soms42 on 05/28/2019 02:01 pm
These optimizations are enough that I can use a cheaper Omron LDS, which has a little lower resolution. By cheaper, I mean ~$2000 new, but you can pick up used ones for ~$400 on ebay if you wait long enough.

I plan on using capacitive displacement sensors: way cheaper and very precise (nanometers). I am going to use them paired for measuring a differential signal: a decrease of 1 is an increase in the other.
If you are handy with electronics then this will cost almost nothing.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star-Drive on 05/28/2019 04:50 pm
These optimizations are enough that I can use a cheaper Omron LDS, which has a little lower resolution. By cheaper, I mean ~$2000 new, but you can pick up used ones for ~$400 on ebay if you wait long enough.

I plan on using capacitive displacement sensors: way cheaper and very precise (nanometers). I am going to use them paired for measuring a differential signal: a decrease of 1 is an increase in the other.
If you are handy with electronics then this will cost almost nothing.

Soms42:

Capacitive sensors are notorious for their sensitivity to electromagnetic interference (EMI), especially from high power RF sources that are used in these Mach-Effect tests.  Be very careful in your capacitive sensor system design and build, especially in its dc power system design, connective signal cabling and EMI low-pass feed-through filtering for ALL wires that penetrate the electronics box.  And make sure you use high-quality twisted / shielded cabling for the sensor wire runs to and from the electronic box, making sure you adhere to a single-point grounding system for ALL power and signal cables using a separate ground system for the dc power ground and ac signal ground that are only connected at a single point back at the ac mains ground in your facility.  I'd use #8 AWG insulated ground wire for any green-wire safety ground runs back to the ac mains.

BTW, some municipalities require that you have to use heavier grounding wires like #6 or even #4 AWG copper wires for your safety grounds that are also wired into your building's lighting strike mitigation system.  A grounding system that includes integrated ground-rods on the building's roof, combined with multiple 8-feet or longer ground rods buried 8 feet deep in the ground placed around the building all wired together into a series of lighting surge protectors and fuses feeding the ground line to the ac supply wires to your dc power supply.   And the sad part of all these safety grounding wires needed to keep your building from burning up when struck by lighting, is that they also act as an RF antenna depending on the frequency of interest.  Tracking down and eliminating EMI problems in any facility or vehicle can be quite the adventure... :o

Best, Paul M.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: soms42 on 05/28/2019 06:16 pm
These optimizations are enough that I can use a cheaper Omron LDS, which has a little lower resolution. By cheaper, I mean ~$2000 new, but you can pick up used ones for ~$400 on ebay if you wait long enough.

I plan on using capacitive displacement sensors: way cheaper and very precise (nanometers). I am going to use them paired for measuring a differential signal: a decrease of 1 is an increase in the other.
If you are handy with electronics then this will cost almost nothing.

Soms42:

Capacitive sensors are notorious for their sensitivity to electromagnetic interference (EMI), especially from high power RF sources that are used in these Mach-Effect tests.  Be very careful in your capacitive sensor system design and build, especially in its dc power system design, connective signal cabling and EMI low-pass feed-through filtering for ALL wires that penetrate the electronics box.  And make sure you use high-quality twisted / shielded cabling for the sensor wire runs to and from the electronic box, making sure you adhere to a single-point grounding system for ALL power and signal cables using a separate ground system for the dc power ground and ac signal ground that are only connected at a single point back at the ac mains ground in your facility.  I'd use #8 AWG insulated ground wire for any green-wire safety ground runs back to the ac mains.

BTW, some municipalities require that you have to use heavier grounding wires like #6 or even #4 AWG copper wires for your safety grounds that are also wired into your building's lighting strike mitigation system.  A grounding system that includes integrated ground-rods on the building's roof, combined with multiple 8-feet or longer ground rods buried 8 feet deep in the ground placed around the building all wired together into a series of lighting surge protectors and fuses feeding the ground line to the ac supply wires to your dc power supply.   And the sad part of all these safety grounding wires needed to keep your building from burning up when struck by lighting, is that they also act as an RF antenna depending on the frequency of interest.  Tracking down and eliminating EMI problems in any facility or vehicle can be quite the adventure... :o

Best, Paul M.

Thanks for the warning. I am aware of this though.
I think i do have countermeasures, for instance using the differential signal so a deviation from an external source will be compensated.
We will see if it works.

Anyway, i have to find time to build this. Currently i am still stuck in making a proper simulation.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 05/29/2019 01:53 pm
...


@dustinthewind

You are looking at the wrong equation, Eq. 10 represents "the time-varying change in length of an unclamped PZT ", the equations for thrust in the models considered are Eq. 17, 19-21 and 26

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1950525#msg1950525
I was addressing Monomorphic's idea that the physical displacement of the pendulum arm by displacement of the accelerated mass leads to a false Force term for a torsion pendulum.  I see I wasn't clear enough what I was getting at.  If the displacement of the pendulum arm were to be classically displaced by the accelerated mass it would be displaced with the voltage squared it appears.  If the accelerated mass was much more massive than the pendulum arm then the arm would be completely displaced but it is less massive, so of smaller magnitude but probably displaced some. 

I'm guessing the calculated force goes as a spring constant dF=-k*dx such that it's a linear relation.  Meaning that idea may not be able to completely dismiss the force measured.  Force measured going with voltage to the 4th power but physical displacement of peldulum arm by displacement of the accelerated mass at most with voltage squared.

It occurred to me this morning that the False force signal can be discriminated by changing the radial length on the torsion pendulum.  The false force just represents a physical displacement.  The perimeter of the circle is 2*%pi*r=perimeter.  If we increase the length, a displacement along the perimeter represents a smaller fraction of the circle, or a smaller change in angle. 

If you increase the radial length on the pendulum and your force decreases by the known factor then its would be a false force term. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 05/29/2019 02:21 pm
It occurred to me this morning that the False force signal can be discriminated by changing the radial length on the torsion pendulum.  The false force just represents a physical displacement.  The perimeter of the circle is 2*%pi*r=perimeter.  If we increase the length, a displacement along the perimeter represents a smaller fraction of the circle, or a smaller change in angle. 

If you increase the radial length on the pendulum and your force decreases by the known factor then its would be a false force term.

I discussed this very thing at the Estes Park meeting and included the animation below. Another option mentioned by Potomacneuron is to add more mass to the pendulum. This changes the moment of inertia of the pendulum, which should have a large influence on the magnitude of the signal.  But if it was real thrust, the magnitude of the signal should only be constrained by the torsional spring (it just should take more time).

These tests and others have been recommended to Woodward, but so far he has resisted considering any tests designed by others.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbSiILBIQLw
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 05/29/2019 03:40 pm
It occurred to me this morning that the False force signal can be discriminated by changing the radial length on the torsion pendulum.  The false force just represents a physical displacement.  The perimeter of the circle is 2*%pi*r=perimeter.  If we increase the length, a displacement along the perimeter represents a smaller fraction of the circle, or a smaller change in angle. 

If you increase the radial length on the pendulum and your force decreases by the known factor then its would be a false force term.

I discussed this very thing at the Estes Park meeting and included the animation below. Another option mentioned by Potomacneuron is to add more mass to the pendulum. This changes the moment of inertia of the pendulum, which should have a large influence on the magnitude of the signal.  But if it was real thrust, the magnitude of the signal should only be constrained by the torsional spring (it just should take more time).

These tests and others have been recommended to Woodward, but so far he has resisted considering any tests designed by others.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbSiILBIQLw

Ok I would also be concerned about the V^4 behavior and how to account for that if the material only expands as V^2.  Could it be a factor of the anti viberation system?  I have some issues with the idea of viberating the anchor to make it anti viberation because that would modify the viberation of the accelerated mass possibly giving it the wrong waveform for displacement. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 05/29/2019 04:11 pm
Ok I would also be concerned about the V^4 behavior and how to account for that if the material only expands as V^2.  Could it be a factor of the anti viberation system?  I have some issues with the idea of viberating the anchor to make it anti viberation because that would modify the viberation of the accelerated mass possibly giving it the wrong waveform for displacement.

The V4 dependence shown by Woodward was based on chirp (transient) data instead of force measurements at fixed frequency, and as it has been said many times, there was no statistical study to justify the V4 model as compared to a V2 given the large statistical spread in the data.

Woodward never presented any data that the "material expands as V2." All he presented was a toy theory based on electrostriction.  The material properties he used for electrostriction were not based on actual tested material properties.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 05/29/2019 05:51 pm
Ok I would also be concerned about the V^4 behavior and how to account for that if the material only expands as V^2.  Could it be a factor of the anti viberation system?  I have some issues with the idea of viberating the anchor to make it anti viberation because that would modify the viberation of the accelerated mass possibly giving it the wrong waveform for displacement.

The V4 dependence shown by Woodward was based on chirp (transient) data instead of force measurements at fixed frequency, and as it has been said many times, there was no statistical study to justify the V4 model as compared to a V2 given the large statistical spread in the data.

Woodward never presented any data that the "material expands as V2." All he presented was a toy theory based on electrostriction.  The material properties he used for electrostriction were not based on actual tested material properties.

Ok thanks.  Another thought occurred to me was that resona ce might have an effect on physical displacement of the accelerated mass.  The stored energy in the system.  That might give it a V^4 dependence. 

It was the paper I was referring to that was indicating displacement with respect to the voltage squared

...


Fair enough, though if I remember correctly there was a model, developed by Tajmar, that could explain the coupling factor. It was shot down by Rodal, but not for a very good reason in my opinion. Maybe it should receive a second look.

Edit: here's Tajmar paper (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319974638_Mach-Effect_thruster_model) I was talking about.

Equation 10 page 11 seems to indicate an expansion term for the PZT that adjusts with the square of the voltage.  That doesn't quite match the the thrust with the voltage to the 4th power. 

(https://www.nextbigfuture.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/eb458e53d8299b32ad43993523bfeaf9.png)

The behaviors are quite different.
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31037.0;attach=1562343;image)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 05/29/2019 07:01 pm
Also, reviewing some of your points, it seems like your position is that Woodward cannot possibly be wrong, and therefore anything that contradicts him is wrong, or just misinterpreted and in agreement with him. Hopefully I am misjudging that, because if that is the case any discussion with you is pointless.

Yes, you are misjudging that. I'm in no way saying that Woodward can't be wrong. I actually criticized Woodward directly by mail specifically on his infamous "overunity" paper, on his understanding of Coriolis force, on his confusing use of the term "inertial reaction forces", on the choice of questionable publishers for his and Fearn's recent papers, as well as his interpretation of what his equation is saying.

That does not mean that I think that all criticisms on his work are equally valid or sound.

Since you asked this, let me ask you the reverse of this question. Is your position that Woodward cannot possibly be right, and therefore anything that contradicts him is surely right, and that anything that supports him is misinterpreted and actually in disagreement with him?
If that so, I agree with your conclusion that any discussion with you is pointless.

I hope the answer to the previous question is negative, but your clear predisposition for accusing instead of listening doesn't strike me in a positive way.

You mean rephrase my point of view? This might be an insignificant typo, but it reminds me of a question I should ask, is English your native language?

Thank you. I corrected it. No, English is not my native language.

This is accurate as far as it goes (statements about standard GR), but it leaves out anything about Hoyle-Narlikar, which is a full theory of GR modified to include Machian effects. It is not standard GR and is addressed in detail in Rodal's paper.

Good. To answer you about Hoyle-Narlikar, my attention was focused on the GR section of Rodal's paper, in part because the quote that started this exchange was not about H-N, in part because I'm not knowledgeable enough to speak confidently about it and to evaluate the correctness of Rodal treatment.

However, after comparing Rodal's work with Fearn's, I've still found some point that are at the very least debatable. I'll list these in in the next post.

For now, out of curiosity, let me ask you a question. Do you understand Rodal's material enough to be absolutely certain that there is no error or inconsistency whatsoever and that he has perfectly understood what he's criticizing? 
I remember that you stated you were not interested in delving in Woodward's material, and yet you seem confident in Rodal's treatment of it.

Now, regarding my "misrepresentations"

-You claimed that Rodal didn't address a theory that incorporated Mach's principle

My statement was specifically referred to the first part of the paper concerning GR and small perturbations, and I stand correct that in this section he did not make any contact with the interpretation of Mach's principle used by Woodward.

Hoyle-Narlikar can incorporate Mach's principle in a way that can either respect or violate the strong equivalence principle, by having G treated as a constant or as a variable. In his treatment Rodal decides in favor of the latter option, having G be a variable, while Fearn (rightfully or wrongly, I don't see how you can choose between the two, lacking a reply paper and possibly not even having read and understood her previous ones on the subject) keeps the strong equivalence principle valid.

It is clear that the two treatments are actually addressing different theories, and that Mach's principle is not incorporated in the same way by both.

-You claimed Monomorphic had not addressed specific predictions, and experimental steps needed to deal with the error source

Monomorphic has just provided the prediction, at least in terms of order of magnitudes, that I was asking for, but this is the first time I see this number appear. It is nowhere to be found on his presentation. In the same presentation there is also no indication of "experimental steps needed to deal with the error source", but rather predictions of what should be experimentally found if the effect is entirely spurious, which is not the same sort of prediction I was asking for.

Even though I misinterpreted what you were pointing at in the post you linked, it still does not contain the prediction Monomorphic just gave me and that I was asking for; it only says that doing such prediction with precision is difficult, which I was not questioning. Presumably, the equations proposed by Woodward and Tajmar were also not extremely simple to obtain.


Before addressing your third entry, let me deal with the last one

-You pointed to a presentation from Williams as evidence that he does not think that Woodward is wrong. The presentation explicitly says that proof cannot come from the toy model used by Woodward. Unproven does not equal wrong, but it also doesn't equal right. Rodal's paper fits right in to the "next steps" at the end of the paper. So unless you have seen a response to Rodal's paper by Williams, you should be careful what you claim

If you take a look at the sequence of passages Woodward goes through for deriving his equation, you'll see that at no point he uses Sciama's "toy model", so this argument is completely worthless.
What he gets from it and uses, however, is the relation ϕ/c2 = 1, which is a statement found not only by Sciama in his original 1953 paper, but for example also in Brans (which accepts it as an experimental fact of our universe but does not elaborate on it, see the first part of his 1962 paper), by Brill and Cohen, Wheeler and a later work by Sciama that uses the full tensor formalism of GR (which  Williams didn't even know the existence of, as shown in the last Estes Park conference videos). More on that in the next post.

The "next steps" Williams is referring to are understood as having to be taken in the context of GR, as it is clear, between other things, from his intention to respect the strong equivalence principle. Rodal's paper drops it, so in no way it represents the "next step" as meant by Williams.



Now, returning to the third entry

-You claimed that Brans was not talking about the version of Mach's principle needed for Woodward's claims

I confirm my statement. Brans was not talking about the version of Mach's principle needed to support Woodward claims.

In light of my rephrasing of your position, you are under the wrong impression, maybe because you only read the abstract, that Brans paper conclusively shows there cannot be any form of mechanical coupling resulting in force generation with the rest of the universe. This is not the case. Quoting from the very last part of Brans 1962 paper (attached by flux_capacitor):

Quote
There are, however, other statements which might possibly be called "Mach's principles" which are valid in general relativity. For example, inertial and gravitational forces have a common formal origin in general relativity. Specifically, for a test particle of mass m and velocity wβ,

Fμ = -mΓαβμwαwβ          (5.14)

might be identified with the gravitational force acting on m. On the other hand, this quantity transforms just as an inertial force should, i.e., in going to a relatively accelerated system, the acceleration enters
Fμ linearly. For example, in a coordinate system rotating relatively to a Lorentz system in a flat space, Fμ as defined in (5.14) contains the centrifugal and Coriolis forces experienced by particles in this rotating system.
Thus, Fμ might also be identified with "inertial force" acting on m. Inertial coordinate systems would then be those in which Fμ vanishes or equivalently, those in which "free" uncharged test particles are unaccelerated. This coincides with the definition of locally almost Minkowskian coordinate systems above. Another way of saying this is that the locally almost Minkowskian or inertial coordinate systems are those in which the total gravitational force vanishes. If suitable boundary conditions could then be exhibited for a general type of universe, the Einstein equation would predict the over-all state of motion of inerital frames relative to the total mass distribution in the universe. This statement alone has been mentioned as a "Mach's principle. "However, once it is required that fundamental, standard experiments be done within such frames, the rest of the universe cannot, in general relativity, infuence their results.


This is exactly the version of Mach's principle/inertial-induction (in this case, the terms are synonims) used by Sciama and which constitutes the basis of Woodward's work. It has been shown by Sciama, Raine and more recently by Khoury (https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1058&context=physics_papers), Schmid (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238967496_Mach's_principle_Exact_frame-dragging_via_gravitomagnetism_in_perturbed_Friedmann-Robertson-Walker_universes_with_K10) and others that not only this version is fully compatible with GR, it might actualy be a direct consequence of it and valid in general universes, not only ours.
There are a number of subtleties in these treatments that are not suitable to be discussed in one (or even several) posts, so I'll leave to your or everyone else curios to explore them.


I'll develop this point a bit further in the next post, since it is connected to your previous post and I'd prefer to avoid too many repetitions.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 05/29/2019 07:02 pm
Let's first address the point that you asked me. Since this is starting going off topic, I'll cut it here and not raise it again.

I did not "accuse" anyone, what I said was, and I quote


Quote
I think, in real life, you will hardly ever find a scientist actually glad to organize an experiment to prove himself/herself wrong.


Usually researchers or research groups working on a subject for long periods of time (and as such, usually older, but not necessarily) are quite glad to actively search ways to show the others wrong. Thinking they are equally zealous when it comes to their own work is frankly quite naive. If that was the case there would be no need for strongly enforcing and valuing peer review. Scientists, like everyone, develop languages and habits, and don't constantly think about ways to overtun them. Science as a collective effort moves on despite, not due to, the flaws and merits of its practitioners.
If you don't believe me feel free to find 10 examples of scientists working an entire career on a subject actively and gladly destroying their own work (by experiment or by publishing papers) or pursuing its destruction without any input from their peers, out of pure, disinterested integrity, or even just publishing strongly critical papers on their previous works.

Mind you, I'm not saying there is any bad faith or cospiratory behaviour in this, it is simply self-preservation instinct, which only disappears when you consider the entire community. I'm sorry you found anything offensive in this.


Now, returning in topic, and connecting to the last part of my previous comment


My paraphrase specifically narrowed it down to the one consequence that is relevant in this context, force generation due to such coupling

Let me focus your attention on the specific wording of this sentence:

Quote
“inertial induction” is the historical generic term referring to mechanical coupling with the distant universe


The fact that this term is considered generic should already suggest that there are multiple meanings associated to it, similarly to what happens with the term "Mach's principle" (something you said you are aware of), which is strongly related to it. In particular:

1) Brans finds out that if by "inertial-induction"  one refers to the local mass change associated with a change in the mass distribution outside the local region of spacetime under study, then such effect is not possible in General Relativity, because it violates the strong principle of equivalence. Said differently, any change in the locally measured gravitational potential due to matter outside and around the laboratory (both far and close to it) has no effect on the value of the masses in the lab. Said in yet another way, the relation GM/R = ϕ = c2, even if it applies in our universe, does not imply that G is a variable (more on this later in the post).

This is surely a possible way of interpreting "mechanical coupling with the distant universe" (albeit in a fairly wide sense), even though Brans certainly doesn't refer to this "inertial-induction" effect in these terms.

However, it is not relevant for Woodward, since he relies on the idea that the total effective gravitational potential is a local invariant, and so there is no way to change its measured local value, even in principle. This is also used in his derivation.

2) "Inertial-induction" can also refer to the idea that inertial forces that appear in a non-inertial reference frame are not "fictitious", but real, momentum conservation abiding gravitational forces due to the distant masses. Brans himself, as I quoted him previously, notice that such formulation is compatible with General Relativity, since it satisfies the equivalence principle. Williams, in his recent presentation, remarks the same thing. It is a "mechanical coupling with the distant universe" able to create a locally detectable force while still respecting GR.  It is the basis of Sciama's work and also part one of the postulates underlying Woodward's derivation. It is also the idea discussed by Williams in his last presentation.


The sentence that you underlined is contradictory to the sentence that you write immediately afterwards.

Quote
Brans is not talking about the same thing Sciama and Woodward are talking about. This is a fact. His results are actually used by Woodward to support his point

Brans is talking about "inertial-induction (1)", Sciama/Woodward are talking about "inertial-induction (2)". Woodward is including Brans observations on the relation GM/R = c2 (or, as Brans writes it normalizing c, 1/G = M/R) to further his point that the total gravitational potential is a local invariant. Keep in mind that this is not even a point Woodward came up with. Since you quoted William's quote of Wheeler&Ciufolini, let me quote what Wheeler wrote in MTW  (published a decade after Brans paper, freely available on the internet archive (https://archive.org/details/Gravitation_201803), page 548-549):

Quote
[Referring to the precession of Foucault pendulum] when there is no nearby shell of matter, or when it has negligible effects, the plane of vibration of the pendulum, if experience is any guide, cannot turn with respect to the frame defined by the far-away “stars.” In this event  ωFoucault must be identical with ωstars; or the “sum for inertia,”

Sum over "far away stars" of Mstar/rstar ~ Muniverse/runiverse       (21.60)

must be of the order of unity. Just such a relation of approximate identity between the mass content of the universe and its radius at the phase of maximum expansion is a characteristic feature of the Friedman model and other simple models of a closed universe. At phases of the dynamics of the universe other than the stage of maximum expansion, runiverse can become arbitrarily small compared to Muniverse. Then the ratio (21.160) can depart by powers of ten from unity. Regardless of this circumstance, one has no option but to understand that the effective value of the “sum for inertia” is still unity after all corrections have been made for the dynamics of contraction or expansion, for retardation, etc. Only so can ωFoucault retain its inescapable identity with ωfar away stars.



The "sum for inertia" is precisely the total gravitational potential with G = c = 1. This is exactly the same claim of Woodward. Wheeler makes it clear this must "effectively" alway be true. What he means is that, even though this is not the most general way of treating the problem, and as such you cannot make any rigorous conclusion, at this level of approximation this relation must be assumed to hold exactly.
You cannot justify rigorously why this should be so only by working with approximations, but it must be considered true nonetheless.


Woodward does not use Brans' result, he throws the result out and brings in a different theory to twist the logic that Brans used to come to the opposite of the correct conclusion.

See above. I disagree, what you are describing does not correspond to what can be found in the material we are discussing.



The logic you just used: Theory A predicts X, and theory B also predicts X therefore theory B is contained within theory A. This completely fails, since this at most shows that in some limited set of circumstances, both can predict the same answer. Outside of the limited region, they can be completely different, and one of them can be totally wrong and inconsistent

Again, read the sources that you have previously provided. The presentation from Lance Williams that you previously provided makes it quite clear that Sciama's equations and anything like them can never accurately represent GR. All arguments showing that some effect should exist that rely on it are essentially worthless.

Such theories have their uses, but when actual rigorous calculations are available in the real theory, which is true thanks to Rodal's paper, it makes no sense to continue discussing what Williams calls a toy theory

-Fluid Mechanics predicts the waterline of a floating body, and Archimedes' Hydrostatic (which is less general) also predict the waterline of a floating body. Therefore Archimedes' Hydrostatic is contained within Fluid Mechanics.

-General Relativity predicts the motion of satellites around the Earth, and Newtonian theory of gravity (which is less general) also predicts the motion of satellites around the Earth. Therefore Newtonian gravity is contained within General Relativity.

-Quantum Electrodynamics predicts the interactions between currents and electric charges, and Classic Electrodynamics (which is less general) also predicts the interactions between charges and currents. Therefore Classic Electrodynamics is contained within Quantum Electrodynamics.

Evidently this logic does not "completely fail", like you said.
Of course the more general theory can treat situations that the particular theory cannot treat, and so it has a wider range of applicability. If one tries to apply the less general theory in a context where it is not appropriate there's no way to tell if the results are accurate or not.

Sciama's "toy model" is contained, nonetheless, in General Relativity, in its linearized form (the electric/magnetic components William extracted are just that) and in the post-newtonian corrections to newtonian gravity, but Sciama added the idea that this could also hold globally, while acknowledging the need for a more complete theory.
He eventually realized that this more complete theory could be no other than General Relativity, so in 1964 he reformulated it in tensor formalism (http://ayuba.fr/mach_effect/sciama1964.pdf), showed it corresponded to GR and found out the same terms that were already present in his earlier work.  It is by no mean a complete work; the discussion over the boundary conditions was extended by Gilman and Raine later on. Even though they found some restriction to it, they concluded Sciama idea seems to apply in our universes, and more recent works, such as those by Khoury and Schmid, support this view for an even wider classes of situations and cosmologies.

Wheeler and Ciufolini criticized Sciama on the particular way he decided to implement the principle (working in close analogy with Maxwell theory), not on the formulation of it he used.


Sciama's work is not a valid starting point, and says nothing about the actual results being discussed. You keep ignoring those, and they show that when worked out in full, the theory that Woodward has been using (Hoyle-Narlikar) does not actually support Woodward's claims.

As I said before, Sciama's work, his 1953 paper which you are referring to here, does not represent the mathematical starting point of Woodward's derivation, which is based, however, on the same core ideas (inertial-induction (2) and ϕ = c2) found also in more developed works . Have a look at it yourself, it's available on his website.


Addressing the Hoyle-Narlikar section of Rodal's paper now.

I already stated tha Rodal is in effect using another version of Mach's principle, one that violates the strong equivalence principle, while Fearn is not.
The reason he's doing so, from what I can see, is found in equation 14, where the relation between G and the scalar field m0 is established. The reasoning is that, since G is a constant, m0 must be the same, so he switches back to a Brans-Dicke-like version of the theory with variable G.

I don't know what will eventually be Fearn's answer to this issue, but it appears that the field m is related to the total gravitational potential ϕ through c2, so maybe it is not impossible it needs to be treated as a local invariant too to reach the same result as Fearn.
This is just a possible way to take care of the first criticism of section 3.4, but I'm not pointing to it as "the correct way".

The following two points mentioned in the same section seem to fundamentally boil down to a matter of generality, and are not really criticisms. Fearn restricts to flat spacetime, Rodal does not. Rodal considers the cosmological constant for satisfying Fearn's argument, Fearn does not.
None of these imply that Fearn's calculations are wrong.

The last point is somewhat different. Rodal claims his results are invariants, indipendent of basis, while Fearn's are basis dependent, and these last ones are "of little physical interest".
I disagree on the statement that only invariant quantities are of physical interest. With this reasoning, the magnetic field is of no physical interest, as well as the pseudo-tensors used to represent gravitational stress-energy (they work fine, when used in their domain of validity, for real life calculations, like tidal energy and gravitational waves).


Overall, I don't think it is possible to take any clear conclusion from this section, but I'm curious to see the reply from Fearn.



Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 05/29/2019 07:06 pm
@dustinthewind
Sorry, you are right, I misinterpreted what you were saying.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 05/30/2019 12:26 am
Insulated draft enclosure complete.  I recycled the materials from the old larger draft enclosure so that all I had to buy were 6 new brass hinges.   :D    I know I can fit this pendulum into a small vacuum chamber with a few modifications and I am making those preparations as I plan on moving into my new home/lab later this winter. Until then, in-air tests in the draft enclosure will have to suffice.

I also have the laser displacement sensor (LDS) working.  Next I need to carefully weigh all the components and print the parts for the voice coil calibrator.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 05/30/2019 12:52 am
Yes, you are misjudging that. I'm in no way saying that Woodward can't be wrong.
Good, this is the kind of thing I like to be wrong about.

Since you asked this, let me ask you the reverse of this question. Is your position that Woodward cannot possibly be right, and therefore anything that contradicts him is surely right, and that anything that supports him is misinterpreted and actually in disagreement with him?
If that so, I agree with your conclusion that any discussion with you is pointless.
No, however so far there is a published paper that points out mistakes he has made, and no specific errors in the paper have been pointed out. Defenses of Woodward's claims have been poorly supported, or outright contradicted by the actual evidence provided. Coupled with Woodward ignoring error sources pointed out to him, this does not bode well for his theory.

No, English is not my native language.
I asked because this could explain some of your repeated misinterpretations. Your grasp of English is clearly much better than my ability in any foreign language though.

Good. To answer you about Hoyle-Narlikar, my attention was focused on the GR section of Rodal's paper, in part because the quote that started this exchange was not about H-N, in part because I'm not knowledgeable enough to speak confidently about it and to evaluate the correctness of Rodal treatment.
...
-You claimed that Rodal didn't address a theory that incorporated Mach's principle

My statement was specifically referred to the first part of the paper concerning GR and small perturbations, and I stand correct that in this section he did not make any contact with the interpretation of Mach's principle used by Woodward.

This is what you originally said:
This is one of the point of contention. I see no objective reason to favour Rodal's answer over Woodward's one, especially in light of the paper I cited here (https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9605011) (in particular equation 4.2 at page 5 and the definition of  ϕ) and also the content of the latest presentation of Williams. Rodal's approach is surely the standard one used in the small perturbation approximation, but at no point it makes any contact with the "machian assumption" used by Woodward, so it is not particularly surprising he does not get the same results.
Nothing in that restricts your statement to just section 2 of Rodal's paper, and even applying that restriction retroactively, you are still wrong. Rodal shows in that section that the conclusion that Woodward came to is not consistent with standard GR. Rodal cites Brans who showed the inconsistency with Mach's principle, at which point he moves on to a theory that actually is intended to fit the needed version of Mach's principle in it.

For now, out of curiosity, let me ask you a question. Do you understand Rodal's material enough to be absolutely certain that there is no error or inconsistency whatsoever and that he has perfectly understood what he's criticizing? 
I remember that you stated you were not interested in delving in Woodward's material, and yet you seem confident in Rodal's treatment of it.
Rodal is significantly more experienced than me at GR. I specifically did not make certain criticisms of Woodward's claims because I was not able to point out specific errors. Rodal has now done the work that I did not. Unless someone can point to specific errors he has made, his results stand, someone has to do the work if there is an error in what he said, just like someone had to do the work to show errors in Woodward's work.

Hoyle-Narlikar can incorporate Mach's principle in a way that can either respect or violate the strong equivalence principle, by having G treated as a constant or as a variable. In his treatment Rodal decides in favor of the latter option, having G be a variable, while Fearn (rightfully or wrongly, I don't see how you can choose between the two, lacking a reply paper and possibly not even having read and understood her previous ones on the subject) keeps the strong equivalence principle valid.

It is clear that the two treatments are actually addressing different theories, and that Mach's principle is not incorporated in the same way by both.
Try reading section 3.4 of Rodal's paper again. It points out a specfic way that Fearn inconsistently treated the m term, treating it as a variable in general but in one case replacing it with a constant. Rodal pointed out a specific error in Fearn. What you are talking about appears to be referencing Rodal's correction of this error. The rest of the differences between the analysis of Rodal and Fearn basically amount to Rodal's being more general, and the form of the theory that might actually be consistent with the universe we live in.

Monomorphic has just provided the prediction, at least in terms of order of magnitudes, that I was asking for, but this is the first time I see this number appear. It is nowhere to be found on his presentation. In the same presentation there is also no indication of "experimental steps needed to deal with the error source", but rather predictions of what should be experimentally found if the effect is entirely spurious, which is not the same sort of prediction I was asking for.
The way you deal with error sources is either to characterize them or show that they don't exist. Monomorphic has provided all of the necessary information for this. The exact prediction you had been asking for is not possible because of limited information that Woodward has not provided.

If you take a look at the sequence of passages Woodward goes through for deriving his equation, you'll see that at no point he uses Sciama's "toy model", so this argument is completely worthless.
What he gets from it and uses, however, is the relation ϕ/c2 = 1, which is a statement found not only by Sciama in his original 1953 paper, but for example also in Brans (which accepts it as an experimental fact of our universe but does not elaborate on it, see the first part of his 1962 paper), by Brill and Cohen, Wheeler and a later work by Sciama that uses the full tensor formalism of GR (which  Williams didn't even know the existence of, as shown in the last Estes Park conference videos). More on that in the next post.
I don't need to respond to any of this, because Rodal addresses this thoroughly in section 3.6 of his paper. When you write something that actually implies you have read that then maybe it would mean something. As it is you seem to just be propagating the overlapping variable name confusion that Rodal clarified.

The "next steps" Williams is referring to are understood as having to be taken in the context of GR, as it is clear, between other things, from his intention to respect the strong equivalence principle. Rodal's paper drops it, so in no way it represents the "next step" as meant by Williams.
Rodal started off by working in standard GR, before moving on to Hoyle-Narlikar. Again, unless you have read a response from Williams to Rodals paper, I suggest not speculating on how he would react to it.

-You claimed that Brans was not talking about the version of Mach's principle needed for Woodward's claims
I confirm my statement. Brans was not talking about the version of Mach's principle needed to support Woodward claims.
Then you are simply wrong.

In light of my rephrasing of your position, you are under the wrong impression, maybe because you only read the abstract, that Brans paper conclusively shows there cannot be any form of mechanical coupling resulting in force generation with the rest of the universe. This is not the case. Quoting from the very last part of Brans 1962 paper (attached by flux_capacitor):
I read the whole Brans 1977 paper, it wasn't long, and you are the one who seems to have not understood it. Your attempt to use his own work from 15 years previous to that paper to contradict his conclusion is again not worth considering in detail. It is safe to assume that he was aware of his own previous work.

There are a number of subtleties in these treatments that are not suitable to be discussed in one (or even several) posts, so I'll leave to your or everyone else curios to explore them.
So far you have yet to address a single one of the subtleties that Rodal has pointed out with the mistakes made in taking variables out of the appropriate contexts.

I did not "accuse" anyone, what I said was, and I quote
Quote
I think, in real life, you will hardly ever find a scientist actually glad to organize an experiment to prove himself/herself wrong.
Your statement here is an accusation leveled at nearly all scientists, because the behavior you are assigning to them is clearly contrary to basic scientific principles.

If you don't believe me feel free to find 10 examples of scientists working an entire career on a subject actively and gladly destroying their own work (by experiment or by publishing papers) or pursuing its destruction without any input from their peers, out of pure, disinterested integrity, or even just publishing strongly critical papers on their previous works.
There are 2 answers to this:
1. You just moved the goalposts by changing it to "without any input from their peers." In the context of the original post, input from peers has been provided to Woodward.
2. Every single experiment run by any scientist ever has the potential to prove whatever said scientist is working on wrong, or they would not be running the experiment. Hiding negative results is the kind of behavior that gets you permanently ostracized. Retracting papers is a thing that happens as well. If a scientist's work is wrong they are better off changing course than banging their head into a dead end, and most scientists should be smart enough to realize that. (note how I assume positive things about people in general rather than negative things. This is not naivety, just basic manners.)

Mind you, I'm not saying there is any bad faith or cospiratory behaviour in this, it is simply self-preservation instinct, which only disappears when you consider the entire community. I'm sorry you found anything offensive in this.
You can't justify it as "self-preservation," what you described is 100% bad behavior, well beyond understandable levels of confirmation bias. (The difference is between actively avoiding certain experiments because you are concerned they might prove you wrong, and an honest mistake or misinterpretation because you are excited about what you think you found.) Peer review, standards of statistical analysis, etc. are to address the 2nd one. They may help with the first as well, but the default assumption is good behavior not bad behavior.

Note the bolded and underlined word "you" in the apology. That makes it sound like you are apologizing for something I did, and it is clear that you still don't understand what you did. There are a number of guides out there on how to apologize properly, and this apology breaks just about every rule. I can let you off for the bad apology, after all it is just me that you are offending there, rather than making an offensive statement about scientists in general, but I clearly do not accept it as it is a backhanded apology. We aren't going to have a productive conversation if you refuse to consider problems happening on your end of it.

Considering this, and the general lack of pointing out errors in Rodal's paper, most of what you say is not relevant anyway. I'll just respond to a couple quick things.

Evidently this logic does not "completely fail", like you said.
You added an extra statement to each example about generality. You also did not acknowledge that your original use of the word "contains" implied "all aspects of" rather than just the "in applicable regions" as implied here. There is a locked thread in this section from someone who refused to understand that hydrostatics does not work with moving fluids.

The logic fails completely as I said when you try to then make the less general theory globally applicable as you continue to do in this post.

The last point is somewhat different. Rodal claims his results are invariants, indipendent of basis, while Fearn's are basis dependent, and these last ones are "of little physical interest".
I disagree on the statement that only invariant quantities are of physical interest. With this reasoning, the magnetic field is of no physical interest, as well as the pseudo-tensors used to represent gravitational stress-energy (they work fine, when used in their domain of validity, for real life calculations, like tidal energy and gravitational waves).
Again, you started from misreading Rodal's paper. The first difference Rodal listed between his and Fearn's analysis is an error in Fearn's. The other differences in Rodal's analysis are just improvements.

The magnetic field on its own is just part of the electromagnetic field tensor. If you want a generally valid result, you need to be considering the fully tensor. Magnetic fields can come and go depending on the frame, so in many perspectives they are of significantly less interest than invariant quantities that describe the behavior of charges in a given field. The statement Rodal uses is stronger because when dealing with any form of GR, if you are not careful you can see effects that don't have any physical meaning. Rodal uses invariants to avoid this.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/01/2019 03:24 am
Here is the data for the first calibration coil test. I am using a small voice coil, similar to what TU Dresden now uses for their calibrations. It only takes ~1mA at ~0.2V to get displacements on the order of micro-newtons. In this test I have the magnetic damping as high as it will go, which is why the damping ratio is so over-damped. I will be dialing that back in the next tests.

I also finished the first of the anharmonic oscillator devices I wish to test for false-positive signals. It is a custom designed voice coil actuator with two magnets of different masses that move in opposite directions when the coil is energized. The voice coil is exactly 4 ohm and it fried my small 20W amplifier... so I brought out my 200W amplifier and it is driving the coil just fine with plenty of amplification to spare.  I will be replacing the ferrite ring magnets with neodymium, which should increase efficiency many times over.

These dual flexure bearing torsional pendulums are much more stable than a hanging wire pendulum.   ;D  It will be interesting to see if I need to cover the aluminum pendulum with insulation as i reduce the damping ratio.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 06/02/2019 02:59 pm
No, however so far there is a published paper that points out mistakes he has made, and no specific errors in the paper have been pointed out.

One shortcoming of the treatment in the context of GR in Rodal's paper (first sections, I specify here so that you don't accuse me or retroactivity) is that, when he linearizes the field equations for small perturbations he loses the possibility of having the field act back on the sources. This is a property of all linear fields, they need an additional set of equations for this purpose.

It is especially important because in his original derivation Woodward considers specifically this sort of back-interaction between the field and the sources.
I think this could be at least partially fixed by combining the linearized field equations with the geodesic equation, but as it stands this is actually a mistake: Rodal is trying to find an action of the field over the sources by using an equation that doesn't allow such thing by design.


The use of small perturbations approximation, while not wrong by itself, is also meaningless in this context. In such treatment, the part of interest is the perturbation, not the background, assumed to be fixed and immutable and as such dropped, but it is exactly this Minkowskian background that contains the link between the "machian assumption" Woodward (and Sciama, and Wheeler) makes and GR.

Rodal's "clarification" about ϕ and Φ is not a clarification at all. It makes it look like there is one, mysterious "global potential" and a small, variable local potential, but this is not the case

There is only one Φ, which can be expanded in series at every point: the zeroth order term is equal to c2, the first order term is equal to the usual gravitational potential φ, and so on. This is the only definition of the Newtonian potential that is actually compatible with the relativistic postulate that all forms of energy gravitate (see the paper I attached here (https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9605011.pdf)).

When small perturbations are studied, only first order and higher order terms are considered, because the zeroth corresponds with no curvature, and only local curvature is the focus of this approximation, not the "homegeneous cosmological gravitational field" (see here (https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath622/kmath622.htm), starting from the sentence "This and many other similar statements show that, unlike many modern scholars, Einstein did not regard “flat” Minkowski spacetime as being free of a gravitational field."); the latter, however, is exactly what Woodward is focusing on.



I asked because this could explain some of your repeated misinterpretations. Your grasp of English is clearly much better than my ability in any foreign language though.

Thank you, it is always a useful excercise to write here, but I must educatedly disagree there's been any significant misinterpretation from my side.


Nothing in that restricts your statement to just section 2 of Rodal's paper, and even applying that restriction retroactively, you are still wrong. Rodal shows in that section that the conclusion that Woodward came to is not consistent with standard GR.[..]

"Rodal's approach is surely the standard one used in the small perturbation approximation [..]"

This restricts my statement, but I guess I wasn't clear.

Rodal is using the small perturbation approximation, employed to study local weak fields, to verify a conclusion that is explicitly reached by considering a non-local (in the sense of extended throughout space-time, not istantaneous) strong field.


Rodal is significantly more experienced than me at GR. I specifically did not make certain criticisms of Woodward's claims because I was not able to point out specific errors. Rodal has now done the work that I did not. [..]

Ok thank you, even though you did not address my question directly. I'll take it as a "No".
It surely could explain why you are avoiding addressing the substance of my comments and shielding behind Rodal's paper.


Try reading section 3.4 of Rodal's paper again. It points out a specfic way that Fearn inconsistently treated the m term, treating it as a variable in general but in one case replacing it with a constant. Rodal pointed out a specific error in Fearn. What you are talking about appears to be referencing Rodal's correction of this error.

I did address that section, and as I said I can't tell, for example, if Fearn is really considering the m term as a constant and then as a variable or if it is possible that the m term is actually a local invariant. The first case would surely be wrong, but I don't know enough to discriminate between the two.


The way you deal with error sources is either to characterize them or show that they don't exist. Monomorphic has provided all of the necessary information for this. The exact prediction you had been asking for is not possible because of limited information that Woodward has not provided.

I admit that for "experimental steps needed to deal with the error sources" I intended "specific countermeasures to reduce this error source", and I did not find them.


I don't need to respond to any of this, because Rodal addresses this thoroughly in section 3.6 of his paper.

Actually, Rodal does not address at all any of these, there is no reference to Sciama's 1964 paper, or to Wheeler's work, nor to every other I cited.


Rodal started off by working in standard GR, before moving on to Hoyle-Narlikar. Again, unless you have read a response from Williams to Rodals paper, I suggest not speculating on how he would react to it.

Rodal uses only the small perturbations approximation of general relativity, hardly any better than linearized GR Williams warned about.
I'm not "speculating on how he would react", I'm confronting the list of objectives at the end of Williams' presentation with Rodal's work, and the two are clearly separate, alternative approaches, because Rodal drops the strong equivalence principle.


Then you are simply wrong.

You are welcomed to prove it then. Take the material I attached and show me exactly how I'm wrong, if you can.


I read the whole Brans 1977 paper, it wasn't long, and you are the one who seems to have not understood it. Your attempt to use his own work from 15 years previous to that paper to contradict his conclusion is again not worth considering in detail. It is safe to assume that he was aware of his own previous work.

His conclusion in 1977 paper is the same of his 1962 paper. I'm not making any attempt at anything. In particular he writes:

Quote
For completeness I should also mention another statement of Mach's principle supported most prominently by Wheeler and his associates. This version points out that the geometry of space is determined, up to eonformal transformations, by the distribution of mass in the universe, assuming that the spacelike sections are compact. While this is true, it does not seem to contradict the above comments that local, internal physics done in inertial reference frames is unaffected by global cosmological distributions of mass in the universe. Certainly, the notion of the inertial mass of a particle would have to fall in this category.

Which is the same thing I quoted previously. No, modifying the cosmic masses distribution does not change the local measured value of particles inertial masses in General Relativity, and as I wrote, Woodward never assumed so; he has never assumed that an observer in equilibrium inside a massive shell would observe the inertial mass to change if the shell mass was suddenly doubled or halved (though this was exactly the form of Mach's principle that Brans and Dicke sought to include in their theory).

Yes, in the last paragraph Brans also deals with the falsification of "compactness" that was one of Wheeler's assumptions, but by now this has already been shown to not be a problem in the more recent papers I mentioned. It's you who are misunderstanding here.


Considering this, and the general lack of pointing out errors in Rodal's paper, most of what you say is not relevant anyway.


Generally speaking, to decide what is relevant and what is not one should carefully check the material provided, something that you are refusing to do. As such, your assessment has no value.



You added an extra statement to each example about generality. You also did not acknowledge that your original use of the word "contains" implied "all aspects of" rather than just the "in applicable regions" as implied here.


The extra statement was implicit in my quote you referenced. You can extract Sciama's equation from General Relativity, all of his terms infact, but since Sciama assumes global Maxwell-like gravitation the form of these GR terms  correspond exactly to Sciama's ones only locally. In other situation their form change in GR, but the substance remains the same (again, see 1964 Sciama's paper). 
Sciama never considered his 1953 work as general as GR, but he (and before him Davidson, which is cited by Rodal) still arrived at the conclusion that it was part of (and as such "contained" in) GR.


The logic fails completely as I said when you try to then make the less general theory globally applicable as you continue to do in this post

I'm not doing that at all, it's you who are ignoring and deeming irrelevant all the material I'm providing to you for unclear reasons.


Quote
The magnetic field on its own is just part of the electromagnetic field tensor. If you want a generally valid result, you need to be considering the fully tensor. Magnetic fields can come and go depending on the frame, so in many perspectives they are of significantly less interest than invariant quantities that describe the behavior of charges in a given field. The statement Rodal uses is stronger because when dealing with any form of GR, if you are not careful you can see effects that don't have any physical meaning. Rodal uses invariants to avoid this.


This is all correct, but the problem when dealing with "inertial-induction (2)" is that the quantities  of interest in this case are inherently frame dependent, but still physical.
While it is true that enforcing general covariance is desiderable, doing so produces equations that are not immediately applicable to a real life situation. One needs to choose a base for doing that.

By the way, if you want to keep discussing about scientists' attitude is better to do it in private, here it is off topic.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 06/02/2019 07:59 pm
No, however so far there is a published paper that points out mistakes he has made, and no specific errors in the paper have been pointed out.
One shortcoming of the treatment in the context of GR in Rodal's paper (first sections, I specify here so that you don't accuse me or retroactivity) is that, when he linearizes the field equations for small perturbations he loses the possibility of having the field act back on the sources. This is a property of all linear fields, they need an additional set of equations for this purpose.
I am just asking for you to communicate clearly. If you start talking about a paper without specifying a section of it, the only thing I can assume is that you were talking about the whole thing. I am not psychic. If you are going to respond like this to someone pointing out where you did not communicate clearly, it is not really worth having a discussion with you. As a result, I won't bother responding to much of this post. (The expected response in this situation is something like "oops I should have clarified" whereas you seem annoyed that I was not able to read your mind.)

Your statements don't make sense, since Rodal does find a term related to Woodward's. The problem is that the magnitude is too small. Higher order terms would be smaller.

Rodal's "clarification" about ϕ and Φ is not a clarification at all. It makes it look like there is one, mysterious "global potential" and a small, variable local potential, but this is not the case
I assume that by this point you have switched backed to talking about Hoyle-Nalikar, since that is what Rodal is discussing when he brings that up. The breaking up of the potential into 2 terms is something done by Sciama, not something Rodal came up with on his own. It is also a completely valid technique to split a term into 2 different terms for various reasons. This is different than performing a truncated series expansion, no information is lost.

Rodal is using the small perturbation approximation, employed to study local weak fields, to verify a conclusion that is explicitly reached by considering a non-local (in the sense of extended throughout space-time, not istantaneous) strong field.
Rodal is looking for a term related to the second time derivative of the local mass-energy fluctuation. In standard GR, there are no relevant non-local fluctuations. The strong field you are mentioning has a time derivative of 0. Rodal goes up through equation 3 before making any approximations.

Ok thank you, even though you did not address my question directly. I'll take it as a "No".
It surely could explain why you are avoiding addressing the substance of my comments and shielding behind Rodal's paper.
You seem to be confused about the burden of proof in this situation. You are the one claiming that Rodal's paper is wrong, so it is on you to point out specific mistakes, and you have generally not been doing so.

There has not been any substance to address in your posts because you have simply been ignoring Rodal's paper. You at least started to give some direct criticisms of it this time, though for the most part they just indicate a lack of understanding of the paper on your part.

Try reading section 3.4 of Rodal's paper again. It points out a specfic way that Fearn inconsistently treated the m term, treating it as a variable in general but in one case replacing it with a constant. Rodal pointed out a specific error in Fearn. What you are talking about appears to be referencing Rodal's correction of this error.
I did address that section, and as I said I can't tell, for example, if Fearn is really considering the m term as a constant and then as a variable or if it is possible that the m term is actually a local invariant. The first case would surely be wrong, but I don't know enough to discriminate between the two.
You addressed it, but you misrepresented what it says. You claimed that Rodal and Fearn used different versions of Mach's principle, when the reality is that Fearn was inconsistent in his treatment of a variable.

The rest of your post is well summarized by this:
I'm not doing that at all, it's you who are ignoring and deeming irrelevant all the material I'm providing to you for unclear reasons.
You have yet to provide any material that contradicts Rodal's paper. Rodal points out multiple specific errors made by Woodward and Fearn. Nothing you have cited actually addresses these errors, and to the extent any of what you are saying is relevant to Rodal's paper, it is clear that you haven't understood what Rodal wrote, or don't understand what the source you are citing actually says.

By the way, if you want to keep discussing about scientists' attitude is better to do it in private, here it is off topic.
You made inappropriate statements in public. The appropriate place to address them is in public. All you need is one actual apology in public to show that you understand the problem with what you said and take it back. If you have trouble doing this because you don't understand the problem yet, you can ask in PM. (Just one apology since I let you off for your previous poorly worded apology.)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/02/2019 11:18 pm
I am very close to running the first powered tests.   :)  I had to remove the plexiglass doors as opening them changed the level of the table, which messed everything up. This made it so I couldn't work on the balance while the doors were open. Now I just use foam held in place with velcro. Simple and effective.

I overestimated the amount of magnetic damping I would need by 100%...   ::)   So I was able to remove one of the two magnetic arrays and aluminum parts. This further reduced the mass of the pendulum.  The entire pendulum, with all components,  is now only ~1.2kg.

I also have the damping ratio much reduced and very close to that of Fullerton. Even with the reduced damping, the balance was stable, but I went ahead and added insulation to cover the aluminum to help prevent natural convection. It was super easy to do with 3/4 inch self-sealing pipe insulation, so why not do it?

All I need to do now is fine tune the damping ratio, add some liquid metal to the liquid metal contacts, and it should be good to go.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/06/2019 07:01 pm
Latest calibration test with a damping ratio closer to Fullerton's. I'm very pleased with the results of the voice coil calibration coil, but I am going to have to add a resistor to get pulses below 3 uN.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/07/2019 02:39 pm
Finally solved the problem with the charts displaying UTC time along the bottom rather than relative time (seconds). First I have to use the INT function in excel as relative time is in decimal seconds. Then I have to use the sample rate of the laser displacement sensor to set the interval unit in excel.   This should make it easier for everyone to read the charts.  ;D

I know there is a way I can add a formula to the vertical axis to have it display in micro-newtons rather than milli-amps so I do not have to do the calculation manually.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/08/2019 01:12 am
I was not very happy with the 18.2 second period of the longer pendulum. I designed this balance so that pendulum arms of different lengths could be switched out with minimal effort. I exchanged the 1 meter pendulum arm for one that is 0.5 meters and very close to the length of the Fullerton balance.   This modification, along with losing a few hundred grams of mass has brought the period to ~8.5 seconds.   

In order to maintain the same accuracy with the laser displacement sensor, I printed a 27cm lightweight rigid extension arm that comprises ~5% of the total mass of the pendulum. This ensures that the moment of inertia is not much affected by the extension arm.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/10/2019 12:15 am
The first DUT did function, but the sorbothane was too absorbent and the design needed work.  This second DUT has more promise as the 3D printed springs can be switched out with a spring of a different stiffness. Judging by how stiff these first springs are, I expect I will need to reprint with less stiffness 

I have also included two (instead of one) ~4 ohm voice coils so each mass/magnet can be controlled individually (creating a 3 degree-of-freedom system). I'm waiting on some nylon screws so I can further reduce the mass of the yoke (the structure the DUT is mounted to).
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob Woods on 06/11/2019 04:26 am
Once again, science in full view. Open for comment, critique, and enhancement. Not behind closed doors.


Bravo.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/12/2019 11:14 pm
I have all the equipment hooked up and working.  ;D   This includes two laboratory power supplies (one for the laser displacement sensor and one for the calibration coil), a function generator, an oscilloscope, an 8 channel 16-bit ADC, a 2 channel 200 W amplifier, and the new 1000 ohm calibration circuit.

With further reductions thanks to the nylon screws, total mass of the pendulum is now ~950 grams. This means the oscillation period has been even further reduced.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/13/2019 04:51 pm
Latest calibration coil test. The period is now at 7.8 seconds, which is a huge improvement and close to Fullerton. I could reduce that even further if i did not have to use the Fullerton Yoke. The yoke weighs just as much as the DUT. And when mass is removed from one side of the pendulum, then the counterweight must also be reduced. That means removing the yoke would reduce the mass of the pendulum from 950 grams to 582 grams!

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/14/2019 12:28 am
The firsts powered tests of the device show a false positive. Either that or I have created a space engine!   ;)

I suspected that the greatest displacement would be at the mechanical resonances of the device.  So I ran a sweep from 10 - 250 Hz and found a very distinct mechanical resonance at 175Hz. When I ran the device at those frequencies, the balance reacted very similarly to what one would expect from real thrust. 

What is really happening is the device is changing shape at these mechanical resonances. When the device changes shape, this also changes the center of mass of the system - which causes the arm to shift over a little. The zero position of the balance is changing dynamically because of the vibrating device.

EDIT: Raw data attached in Excel format
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 06/15/2019 12:15 pm
I am just asking for you to communicate clearly. If you start talking about a paper without specifying a section of it, the only thing I can assume is that you were talking about the whole thing. I am not psychic. If you are going to respond like this to someone pointing out where you did not communicate clearly, it is not really worth having a discussion with you. As a result, I won't bother responding to much of this post.


If you find what I wrote unclear you should ask me to specify. I'm not a psychic either. What you did instead was accusing me, so this time I specified precisely what I was referring to.


Your statements don't make sense, since Rodal does find a term related to Woodward's. The problem is that the magnitude is too small. Higher order terms would be smaller.

As I already wrote, the term has a similar form, but it is not the same, because the logic behind Rodal's and Woodward's derivation is different. In particular, the definition of the potential is different, as well as the lack of back-interaction between the field and sources due to the linearization adopted by Rodal.


I assume that by this point you have switched backed to talking about Hoyle-Nalikar, since that is what Rodal is discussing when he brings that up. The breaking up of the potential into 2 terms is something done by Sciama, not something Rodal came up with on his own. It is also a completely valid technique to split a term into 2 different terms for various reasons. This is different than performing a truncated series expansion, no information is lost.


No, I'm talking only about his definition of ϕ and Φ.

It's true that Sciama did break the potential in that way, but this was due to the fact that he distinguished between "a universe that has no irregularities" and one where there is also a body of a certain non-negligible gravitational mass superposed over it. He did this so that he could combine Newton's laws of motion and of gravitation with the machian interpretation of inertial frames.

However, in a treatment of the potential that respects the relativistic postulate that all form of energies gravitates, the definition that naturally emerges automatically considers both ϕ (and higher order terms) and Φ as part of it. It is actually an exponential one. It's all in the paper I cited.


By using the small perturbations approach, Rodal is forced to use a more restrictive definition of the potential.


Rodal is looking for a term related to the second time derivative of the local mass-energy fluctuation. In standard GR, there are no relevant non-local fluctuations. The strong field you are mentioning has a time derivative of 0. Rodal goes up through equation 3 before making any approximations.

The moment he makes the approximation he chooses the definition of the potential, and since he's using the small local perturbations approach this ends up corresponding inevitably with the small local newtonian potential.

Global non-local fluctuations are not of interest for Woodward' derivation, since he only uses the global part as a coupling constant, and never derives it. The d'Alambertian in his derivation is actually referred to the local part of the total potential. (something that Rodal notices by the way)



You seem to be confused about the burden of proof in this situation. You are the one claiming that Rodal's paper is wrong, so it is on you to point out specific mistakes, and you have generally not been doing so.


You accused me previously of moving the goalposts, but you are doing it here.

Just to remind you and everyone, this conversation started because you stated that:

Quote
Brans clearly and explicitly found that the Mach effect producing local forces is simply not a real effect present in GR.

Which you later expanded more. Here's the core of your statements paraphrased by me (and that you approved)

Quote
Brans clearly and explicitly found that the Mach effect producing local forces is simply not a real effect present in GR. He found that there is no real, physically detectable, local inertial-induction effect in general relativity capable of generating forces due to mechanical coupling with the distant universe. This non existent inertial-induction effect underlies the claims that Woodward has made. What Brans addresses is explicitly the form of Mach's principle needed for Woodward's device to do anything.


Consequently, I explained you in my own words, with as many details as possible, why all of this was a misinterpretation. I also backed it up with actual sources and quotes from the relevant papers and material.

Your reply consisted in entirely gratuitous statements such as:

"Then you are simply wrong"
"I don't need to respond to any of this, because Rodal addresses this [..]"(completely false, as I explained)
"[..] most of what you say is not relevant anyway"
"There has not been any substance to address in your posts"

At the same time, you started shifting the conversation more and more from the the original statement we were discussing toward addressing Rodal's paper.

It is completely false that I have been ignoring Rodal's paper. In my first post at page 91 and in my latest one (as well as in a number of others) I raised a number of criticism of this paper that concern the method, the underlying logic and also the definitions used.
I also expressed skepticism over the supposed mistake made by Fearn, because, for example, it is not clear at all that the value of m is not a local invariant, but anyway I admitted that this issue requires more work from Fearn.
I will not repeat them again.
 
You seem to be of the idea that the only possible errors are mathematical, and concern the equations. I hope you realize this is not the case.


You at least started to give some direct criticisms of it this time, though for the most part they just indicate a lack of understanding of the paper on your part

Show me how then, but if that necessarily results in more gratuitous and empty statements, then don't.


You addressed it, but you misrepresented what it says. You claimed that Rodal and Fearn used different versions of Mach's principle, when the reality is that Fearn was inconsistent in his treatment of a variable.

Rodal did absolutely use a different version of Mach's principle, he is using "inertial-induction (1)".
He's allowing G to be a variable. This violates the strong equivalence principle. By doing so, a change in the "global" part of the potential is possible, and it results in a local change of inertial mass.
Woodward and Fearn use "inertial-induction (2)". Whether Fearn was inconsistent or not it has yet to be proved.


[..] Rodal points out multiple specific errors made by Woodward and Fearn. Nothing you have cited actually addresses these errors, and to the extent any of what you are saying is relevant to Rodal's paper [..]

Rodal points out exactly 1 actual error that Fearn supposedly made, and to fix this error he follows a different route and uses a different version of Mach's principle.


[..] it is clear that you haven't understood what Rodal wrote, or don't understand what the source you are citing actually says

It is not clear at all to me.
Please enlighten me on how I did not understand what the sources I'm citing actually say.
Since you alredy admitted you do not understand Rodal's material well enough, I see no point in asking you about it too.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 06/15/2019 12:16 pm
The firsts powered tests of the device show a false positive. Either that or I have created a space engine!   ;)

I suspected that the greatest displacement would be at the mechanical resonances of the device.  So I ran a sweep from 10 - 250 Hz and found a very distinct mechanical resonance at 175Hz. When I ran the device at those frequencies, the balance reacted very similarly to what one would expect from real thrust. 

What is really happening is the device is changing shape at these mechanical resonances. When the device changes shape, this also changes the center of mass of the system - which causes the arm to shift over a little. The zero position of the balance is changing dynamically because of the vibrating device.

EDIT: Raw data attached in Excel format


I don't understand why you say that your system has 3 degrees of freedom. I count only two, the two magnets that can be moved separately from each other.

I'd also have a couple of questions:

What signal did you feed to the two voice coil? A regular sine wave at resonance frequency?

How do the magnets move inside the coil? I suppose that the movement must be asymmetric to shift the center of mass.

Did you determine what is the resonance frequency of the balance? I'm asking this because it seems like the mass of the balance and that of the device are of the same order.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/15/2019 05:02 pm
I don't understand why you say that your system has 3 degrees of freedom. I count only two, the two magnets that can be moved separately from each other.

I'd also have a couple of questions:

What signal did you feed to the two voice coil? A regular sine wave at resonance frequency?

How do the magnets move inside the coil? I suppose that the movement must be asymmetric to shift the center of mass.

Did you determine what is the resonance frequency of the balance? I'm asking this because it seems like the mass of the balance and that of the device are of the same order.

The third mass is what the magnets are attached to, the voice coils and outer housing of the device, plus screws.

Yes, I use a simple harmonic sine wave. The asymmetry in the device comes from how the voice coils were wound.  Since I wound them by hand, the first one was very well done, but the second one not so much. 

I have determined the oscillation period of the balance. I am not sure what you mean by 'resonance frequency' as I would need to vibrate the entire balance to determine those frequencies. I do not think anyone researching this has done that.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 06/16/2019 05:57 am
I am just asking for you to communicate clearly. If you start talking about a paper without specifying a section of it, the only thing I can assume is that you were talking about the whole thing. I am not psychic. If you are going to respond like this to someone pointing out where you did not communicate clearly, it is not really worth having a discussion with you. As a result, I won't bother responding to much of this post.
If you find what I wrote unclear you should ask me to specify. I'm not a psychic either. What you did instead was accusing me, so this time I specified precisely what I was referring to.
I would have had to be psychic to know that there was anything to ask. Your original statements make no mention of being restricted to a specific section of Rodal's paper, and contain no hints that you would be referring to that, so why would I ask anything about that? Your previous response was not  just you specifying precisely for clarity. You were snarky and rude about it. And now you are still acting like it is my fault that you did not communicate clearly.

As I already wrote, the term has a similar form, but it is not the same, because the logic behind Rodal's and Woodward's derivation is different. In particular, the definition of the potential is different, as well as the lack of back-interaction between the field and sources due to the linearization adopted by Rodal.
It is not the same because Woodward's result is not consistent with standard GR which is the whole point. Your linearization argument doesn't make sense. Rodal keeps all of the terms around until he removes some terms that are significantly smaller in magnitude than what he keeps. Adding them back in would not create a term magnitudes larger to match Woodward's claim. If you think otherwise, show it with math.

I assume that by this point you have switched backed to talking about Hoyle-Nalikar, since that is what Rodal is discussing when he brings that up. ...
No, I'm talking only about his definition of ϕ and Φ. ...
The confusion about different definitions of phi are discussed by Rodal in the context of Hoyle-Narlikar. If you aren't talking about Hoyle-Narlikar, then you aren't discussing the definitions that he was discussing. The rest of what you say on this topic is irrelevant, since you apparently don't understand this basic fact.

You seem to be confused about the burden of proof in this situation. You are the one claiming that Rodal's paper is wrong, so it is on you to point out specific mistakes, and you have generally not been doing so.


You accused me previously of moving the goalposts, but you are doing it here.

Just to remind you and everyone, this conversation started because you stated that:

Quote
Brans clearly and explicitly found that the Mach effect producing local forces is simply not a real effect present in GR.
Since you went back to find that quote you should have noted that I was responding to an invalid criticism of Rodal's paper.

Which you later expanded more. Here's the core of your statements paraphrased by me (and that you approved)
...
I did not simply "approve" your statement. I provided the caveat that you left out important things.

Consequently, I explained you in my own words, with as many details as possible, why all of this was a misinterpretation. I also backed it up with actual sources and quotes from the relevant papers and material.
You did no such thing. You have repeatedly misrepresented results and twisted things to suit your own wants.

Your reply consisted in entirely gratuitous statements such as:
Those statements were not "gratuitous." They were plain statements of fact. An example of something gratuitous is making blanket statements about scientists engaging in unscientific behavior.

At the same time, you started shifting the conversation more and more from the the original statement we were discussing toward addressing Rodal's paper.
This conversation has only ever been about Rodal's paper. Specifically, invalid criticisms of his paper that fail to actually point to a single error in the paper and that try to use sources cited by Rodal to draw the exact opposite of the conclusion stated in those citations.

It is completely false that I have been ignoring Rodal's paper. In my first post at page 91 and in my latest one (as well as in a number of others) I raised a number of criticism of this paper that concern the method, the underlying logic and also the definitions used.
No, you have spewed a bunch of incoherent gibberish that does not address what Rodal actually says in the paper. You have yet to point to a single specific error. Your complaints about definitions consist of nothing but you repeating Woodward's mistakes without demonstrating any understanding of what Rodal wrote. Your complaints about the logic and methods seem to jump back and forth between different parts of the paper, twisting what Rodal actually does.

I also expressed skepticism over the supposed mistake made by Fearn, because, for example, it is not clear at all that the value of m is not a local invariant, but anyway I admitted that this issue requires more work from Fearn.
I will not repeat them again.
No up until now, you haven't even fully admitted that Rodal points out a mistake. Even now you misrepresent the nature of the mistake. Fearn treats "m" differently in different places; this is simply a contradiction.

You seem to be of the idea that the only possible errors are mathematical, and concern the equations. I hope you realize this is not the case.
The results are math. The starting equations are well known. Mistakes can happen in things like the definition of variables, and that is in fact the nature of some of the mistakes Rodal points out. Rodal demonstrates how your can in those cases still point to clear specific mistakes. That is not what you are doing. You are just handwaving.

You at least started to give some direct criticisms of it this time, though for the most part they just indicate a lack of understanding of the paper on your part
Show me how then, but if that necessarily results in more gratuitous and empty statements, then don't.
Again, Rodal demonstrates what scientific criticism looks like in his paper. What you have done is nothing like that.

Rodal did absolutely use a different version of Mach's principle, he is using "inertial-induction (1)".
He's allowing G to be a variable. This violates the strong equivalence principle. By doing so, a change in the "global" part of the potential is possible, and it results in a local change of inertial mass.
Woodward and Fearn use "inertial-induction (2)". Whether Fearn was inconsistent or not it has yet to be proved.
No, you keep asserting this with no supporting evidence. Rodal specifically lists the differences in his derivation and that is not one of them. And again, Rodal clearly points out the inconsistency in Fearn's work. There is nothing left to prove. You still don't seem to even understand what the error was.

It is not clear at all to me.
Please enlighten me on how I did not understand what the sources I'm citing actually say.
I am not better at explaining this than Rodal is. For the most part what is stated in his paper is already the clearest statement of it that I can think of, yet you still keep misrepresenting simple things that he says. You apparently can't even keep track of which parts of his paper are discussing Hoyle-Narlikar, even though it is clearly marked.

Since you alredy admitted you do not understand Rodal's material well enough, I see no point in asking you about it too.
I said no such thing. I have stated that Rodal understands this topic better than me.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 06/16/2019 12:54 pm
I would have had to be psychic to know that there was anything to ask. Your original statements make no mention of being restricted to a specific section of Rodal's paper, and contain no hints that you would be referring to that, so why would I ask anything about that? Your previous response was not  just you specifying precisely for clarity. You were snarky and rude about it. And now you are still acting like it is my fault that you did not communicate clearly.


There are hints that I was referring to that. I already pointed them out to you, but evidently I wasn't clear enough when I originally wrote the comment.
It's not your fault that I did not communicate clearly, but it's your fault to continuously accuse me, since you are not forced to do so.



It is not the same because Woodward's result is not consistent with standard GR which is the whole point. Your linearization argument doesn't make sense. Rodal keeps all of the terms around until he removes some terms that are significantly smaller in magnitude than what he keeps. Adding them back in would not create a term magnitudes larger to match Woodward's claim. If you think otherwise, show it with math.


The fact that you do not understand the argument doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.

Linearization does more than simply removing higher order terms.
It stops the field from being able to act back on the sources. Woodward derivation is based on that property. In step 1 of his derivation he assumes that the body of interest is under the action of a gravitational field due to the relative acceleration of the "distant masses" of the universe. This sort of action is not possible if one only considers a set of linearized equations, because sources are unaffected by the field due to other sources.

The term that Rodal points out to be similar to Woodward's ones is (pg 5 and pg 17)

(c2/4)h002h00/∂t2

This is, as Rodal points out, the time-time perturbation mixed component.
This term concerns only the small perturbation part of the metric g = η + h. It is not surprising that it is miniscule.
Since it is only a local perturbation, Rodal then substitutes h00 = 2ϕ and h00 = 2ϕ/c4, with ϕ being the a "very weak spherically symmetric gravitational field", obtaining

(ϕ/c2)∂2ϕ/∂t2

Which is again, infinitesimally small.
Since the calculation is done under the assumption of small perturbation, there is nothing wrong with it.

However the problem with small perturbation treatment is that it drops the η part of the metric. As pointed out by the paper I cited, and also by Woodward, albeit in a more convoluted way, it is η that contains the contribution due to the "distant masses".
In other words, the total potential Φ+ϕ (using Rodal's notation) is really a piece of the entire metric g.

At the end of section 3.6 Rodal writes down

((Φ+ϕ)/c4)∂2(Φ+ϕ)/∂t2 ≈ (Φ/c4)∂2ϕ/∂t2 (*)

Which is (not quite) the term in Woodward's equation, and adds that in General Relativty one does not obtain such thing because the time-time *perturbation* mixed component is "solely due to the potential of an isolated local source"

This is true, but only if one considers the h part of the metric. If one does not throw away the minkowskian part, equation (*) follows.

I wrote that the term obtained is not quite the same because there's an additional step to take, which consists in putting back the back-interaction between the field and the sources.
I'd imagine this could be done by using the geodesic equation. In 2016 Estes Park Williams proposed a derivation (http://ssi.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ssi_estes_park_proceedings_201609.pdf) of Woodward equation that made use of the geodesic equation (pg 161-62). It is easy to verify that if one substitutes the expression he uses (eq. 7) in equations (*) Woodward full equation is obtained.

I do not claim this to be surely exact, but anyway it is not correct to state that terms of the same magnitude as those obtained by Woodward cannot be found in GR.
This conclusion is reached only when a small perturbation part of the metric is considered.



The confusion about different definitions of phi are discussed by Rodal in the context of Hoyle-Narlikar. If you aren't talking about Hoyle-Narlikar, then you aren't discussing the definitions that he was discussing. The rest of what you say on this topic is irrelevant, since you apparently don't understand this basic fact.

What in the world are you talking about?

Rodal mentions Φ in the introduction, in section 2, in section 3.5 and in section 3.6 . In none of these cases he discusses it  in the context of Hoyle-Narlikar.
Section 3.5 discusses of the form of the Ricci curvature in terms of the small perturbation. He then plugs the expression in the equation he found in the Hoye-Narlikar chapter, but the potential and its definition is not discussed in the context of the theory, it is rather mutuated from small perturbation GR.


Φ is not even an object that belongs to Hoyle-Narlikar theory. There is no mention of it in any of their papers or books. It is related to the field m, but it is not the same thing.

And you accused me of inventing things, the irony.


Since you went back to find that quote you should have noted that I was responding to an invalid criticism of Rodal's paper.

I noticed it, but the criticism was perfectly valid, and you misinterpreted Brans' paper and made a point against Woodward that not even Rodal (who references Brans' paper) makes.

Let me quote you entirely:

To follow up on the details of the "criticism" of Rodal's paper:
"Evidently, you both do not understand that Carl Brans' "spectator matter" argument and the Equivalence Principle DEMAND that the Newtonian potential that appears in the "prefactor" of the transient terms obtained in the calculation of the field equation be the locally measured invariant value that is dominated by the contributions of distant matter.  ...

They are citing Brans, who actually wrote papers cited in Rodal's paper. For example:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/243467819_Absence_of_Inertial_Induction_in_General_Relativity (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/243467819_Absence_of_Inertial_Induction_in_General_Relativity)

The abstract is short and to the point:
Quote
I review arguments indicating that there is no real, physically detectable, local inertial-induction effect in general relativity, contrary to recent comments by Tittle.
Brans clearly and explicitly found that the Mach effect producing local forces is simply not a real effect present in GR.

The quote that was provided above arguing against Rodal's paper is either taken too far out of context to have any meaning, or it seems that it would be misrepresenting Brans' work. Considering the use of bold, all caps, and the word "demand" this in no way amounts to a reasoned argument. A reasoned argument would need to involve more math and less assertions.

You are taking a quote from Woodward, then taking a paper from Brans (referenced by Rodal) and using it to question Woodward's claim.

The paper you are referencing is mentioned by Rodal in the following context:

Quote
Brans [20] relates how Dicke and he were led to consider an additional mass coupling through a scalar field, whose physical effects could not be transformed away (by an arbitrary coordinate choice as in Einstein’s theory). The result was the Brans–Dicke[21] scalar–tensor theory of gravity, in which the scalar field turned out to be related to the reciprocal of the locally measured gravitational “constant” G, which becomes a function of the mass distribution of the universe.

Brans paper is not cited by Rodal as a mean to show that Woodward claim is wrong, this was your own conclusion and the one we were discussing before you started moving the goalposts and ignoring evidence of the contrary.


I did not simply "approve" your statement. I provided the caveat that you left out important things.

And I explained why I left them out, since they don't have anything to do with Brans' quote.


You did no such thing. You have repeatedly misrepresented results and twisted things to suit your own wants.


Your baseless accusations are starting to get tiresome, and your refusal and/or inability to address anything of what I said speaks for itself.


No, you have spewed a bunch of incoherent gibberish that does not address what Rodal actually says in the paper. You have yet to point to a single specific error. Your complaints about definitions consist of nothing but you repeating Woodward's mistakes without demonstrating any understanding of what Rodal wrote. Your complaints about the logic and methods seem to jump back and forth between different parts of the paper, twisting what Rodal actually does.

Other gratuitous and empty accusations.

My complaints are perfectly legit, whether you understand them or not (and given many elements in your posts I'm under the impression you really don't. Normally I would be sorry for not being able to convey these, but in this case it is clearly not only my fault).


No up until now, you haven't even fully admitted that Rodal points out a mistake. Even now you misrepresent the nature of the mistake. Fearn treats "m" differently in different places; this is simply a contradiction.


That depends on what m actually is. A local invariant is locally constant, but can change when seen elsewhere. The matter is not so simple as you like to paint it, but I've tried explaining this point enough times already.


No, you keep asserting this with no supporting evidence. Rodal specifically lists the differences in his derivation and that is not one of them. And again, Rodal clearly points out the inconsistency in Fearn's work. There is nothing left to prove. You still don't seem to even understand what the error was.


The evidence is right in the paper, section 3.2 . Apparently you haven't really read it.

In this section Rodal splits m in a time dependent and independent part. Quoting from page 10

"Similarly, as in Brans–Dicke’s scalar–tensor field theory, allow G to be a dynamic field through spacetime,composed of a constant term Go, therefore ⬜Go= 0, plus a much smaller term Gs that depends on time and space location: G = Go+ Gs, such that |Gs/Go|≪1,and therefore G = Go(1 + Gs/Go) ≈ Go and ⬜G = ⬜(Go+ Gs) = ⬜Gs. Since we know from observations and from Einstein’s field equations that the relationship between a constant m field and Newton’s gravitational constant is mo= c√3/(4π Go)it is reasonable to assume that for spacetime-dependent fields m and G the relation shipshould be m = c√3/(4πG). Replacing m = mo+ msand G = Go+ Gs into this equation it follows that mo+ ms= c√3/(4π(Go+Gs))."

He is assuming that G in made of a variable part and a constant part.
This is a violation of the strong equivalence principle. Brans-Dicke theory violates the strong equivalence principle.
Do you understand this point now?

There is absolutely alot left to prove.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 06/16/2019 01:03 pm
I don't understand why you say that your system has 3 degrees of freedom. I count only two, the two magnets that can be moved separately from each other.

I'd also have a couple of questions:

What signal did you feed to the two voice coil? A regular sine wave at resonance frequency?

How do the magnets move inside the coil? I suppose that the movement must be asymmetric to shift the center of mass.

Did you determine what is the resonance frequency of the balance? I'm asking this because it seems like the mass of the balance and that of the device are of the same order.

The third mass is what the magnets are attached to, the voice coils and outer housing of the device, plus screws.

Yes, I use a simple harmonic sine wave. The asymmetry in the device comes from how the voice coils were wound.  Since I wound them by hand, the first one was very well done, but the second one not so much. 

I have determined the oscillation period of the balance. I am not sure what you mean by 'resonance frequency' as I would need to vibrate the entire balance to determine those frequencies. I do not think anyone researching this has done that.

You are right, I was not thinking about the voice coils / structure of the device.

I think it would be interesting to quantify a bit this asimmetry. For example you could run only one coil at a time and compare the signal obtained on the balance.

It's true that no one has done a resonance test on the balance, but I think it would be worth to investigate such thing to understand if it has any role in the creation of the signal.

You could also try experimenting with frequencies that do not correspond with the resonance of the device and see whether it has noteworthy effect.

It could also be interesting to determine what is the actual displacement of the center of mass relative to the device and compare it with the constraints of Woodward's device.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 06/16/2019 02:52 pm
There are hints that I was referring to that. I already pointed them out to you, but evidently I wasn't clear enough.
What conversation are you reading?

Quote from: Povel
This is one of the point of contention. I see no objective reason to favour Rodal's answer over Woodward's one, especially in light of the paper I cited here (in particular equation 4.2 at page 5 and the definition of  ϕ) and also the content of the latest presentation of Williams. Rodal's approach is surely the standard one used in the small perturbation approximation, but at no point it makes any contact with the "machian assumption" used by Woodward, so it is not particularly surprising he does not get the same results.
This is what you originally said. In a later post you try to claim that you were only talking about section 2 of Rodal's paper because you mention the approximation made in it. This makes no sense for multiple reasons:
-You mention ϕ which comes up later in the paper, not in that section.
-The subject of your sentence is "Rodal's approach" and you use the phrase "no point" both of these imply the whole paper.
-It makes no sense to complain that section 2 makes "no contact" with Woodward's assumption because the whole point is to show that Woodward's result is incompatible with standard GR. You are basically saying that Rodal should have assumed the result that you wanted.

I don't believe any English speaker could reasonably read your original statements and conclude they were only referring to section 2. So please stop wasting time by trying to rewrite history and claiming otherwise, it really isn't relevant.

It's not your fault that I did not communicate clearly, but it's your fault to continuously accuse me, since you are not forced to do so.
Thank you for admitting that you did not communicate clearly. It appears that you don't understand what the word "accuse" means though. You keep saying that I am "accusing you" without ever saying what I am accusing you of. For this part of the conversation I have simply been stating what the sentences you have used meant when read by someone who isn't you. This could be seen as accusing you of not communicating clearly, but you just admitted that you didn't communicate clearly, and we could have skipped a lot of pointless back and forth if you simply stated that sooner, and didn't get snarky about it.

It is not the same because Woodward's result is not consistent with standard GR which is the whole point. Your linearization argument doesn't make sense. Rodal keeps all of the terms around until he removes some terms that are significantly smaller in magnitude than what he keeps. Adding them back in would not create a term magnitudes larger to match Woodward's claim. If you think otherwise, show it with math.


The fact that you do not understand the argument doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.

Linearization does more than simply removing higher order terms.
It stops the field from being able to act back on the sources.
You are the one who doesn't understand and that is why your argument makes no sense. Rodal makes no approximations until he has things written in a form where he can show that the terms he drops are smaller than the terms he keeps. If that stops some sort of back reaction from being accounted for (you have only asserted this, not shown it), it doesn't matter, because said back reaction would be significantly smaller than what was kept. What Rodal does in not just a simple linearization. He put things in a specific form first, and doing so is an important part of what he did.

Woodward derivation is based on that proprerty. In step 1 of his derivation he assumes that the body of interest ...
Assumptions that aren't compatible with GR are simply not compatible with GR. What Rodal does confirms that you can't get Woodward's result with standard GR. In order to make use of the necessary assumption without creating a built in contradiction, Rodal moves on to a theory built to include that assumption.
The confusion about different definitions of phi are discussed by Rodal in the context of Hoyle-Narlikar. If you aren't talking about Hoyle-Narlikar, then you aren't discussing the definitions that he was discussing. The rest of what you say on this topic is irrelevant, since you apparently don't understand this basic fact.
What in the world are you talking about?

Rodal mentions Φ in the introduction, in section 2 and in section 3.6 . In none of these cases he discusses it  in the context of Hoyle-Narlikar.
I was going to comment on some of your other in between stuff, but this part makes a major source of your confusion clear. Section 3 in general is all in the context of Hoyle-Narlikar. The section title is explicitly includes"conformal gravitational theory" and Hoyle-Narlikar is the specific conformal gravitational theory discussed. That includes section 3.6. You keep mixing things together, and therefore you arguments are incoherent.

Since you went back to find that quote you should have noted that I was responding to an invalid criticism of Rodal's paper.
I noticed it, but the criticism was perfectly valid, and you misinterpreted Brans' paper to make a point against Woodward that not even Rodal (who references Brans' paper) makes.
If you noticed it, that means you were aware that the original topic of the conversation was Rodal's paper, and not just Brans' result. That means when you presented the original subject as being Brans and claiming that me bringing up Rodal's paper was moving the goalposts, you knew that that statement was false. Knowingly making a false statement is called lying.

Let me quote you entirely:
...
You are taking a quote from Woodward, then taking a paper from Brans (referenced by Rodal) and using it to question Woodward's claim.
Your summary is inaccurate. Woodward is trying to cite Brans to counter Rodal's paper. A plain reading of the abstract of a paper from Brans shows that Woodward is the one misrepresenting what Brans says, not Rodal. Woodward's statement that was quoted simply does not make any sense as a criticism of Rodal's paper.

You did no such thing. You have repeatedly misrepresented results and twisted things to suit your own wants.
Your baseless accusations are starting to get tiresome, and your refusal and/or inability to address anything of what I said speaks for itself.
More direct falsehoods from you.

I have listed things that you have misrepresented in this conversation. Your response has been to simply repeat your misrepresentations, and then go off on tangents based on false assumptions. After I point out that your assumptions are false, there is no point in responding to the rest. Just as a simple example, in this post you falsely claim that a section of Rodal's paper that is explicitly in the context of Hoyle-Narlikar is not.

My complaints are perfectly legit, whether you understand them or not (and given many elements in your posts I'm under the impression you really don't. Normally I would be sorry for not being able to convey these, but in this case it is clearly not only my fault).
You have demonstrated that you don't understand parts of Rodal's paper that have been explained to you repeatedly. If you aren't interested in learning you are on the wrong site.

No up until now, you haven't even fully admitted that Rodal points out a mistake. Even now you misrepresent the nature of the mistake. Fearn treats "m" differently in different places; this is simply a contradiction.
That depends on what m actually is. A local invariant is locally constant, but can change when seen elsewhere. The matter is not so simple as you like to paint it, but I've tried explaining this point enough times already.
No, it really is simple, and you are just plugging your ears and saying "la la la" rather than reading the clear and concise statements in Rodal's paper. If you think there is a different thing that should be done than what Rodal does in his analysis, you should specify exactly what that is, why it is preferable, and then you should redo the analysis from that point. What you have done so far is basically just saying "maybe Rodal's answer is wrong" without doing the work to back it up.

No, you keep asserting this with no supporting evidence. Rodal specifically lists the differences in his derivation and that is not one of them. And again, Rodal clearly points out the inconsistency in Fearn's work. There is nothing left to prove. You still don't seem to even understand what the error was.
The evidence is right in the paper, section 3.2 . Apparently you haven't really read it.
No, you are just being confused at this point. What you go on to say is not relevant to what I just said.

In this section Rodal splits m in a time dependent and independent part. Quoting from page 10
...
He is assuming that G in made of a variable part and a constant part.
This is a violation of the strong equivalence principle. Brans-Dicke theory violates the strong equivalence principle.
Do you you understand this point now?
No, you don't understand. Rodal draws a parallel with Brans-Dicke theory, but the paragraph starts before your quote with "In HN theory." The whole paragraph is based in HN theory, and Brans-Dicke is just used as a reference for somewhere else the same technique Rodal uses is applied. Stating that "Brans-Dicke theory violates the strong equivalence principle" does nothing to help your points. It is not directly relevant. It has already been shown that Woodward's claims aren't compatible with standard GR, which is why Rodal is using theories that Woodward's claims are at least potentially compatible with. Rodal was using these theories so he could give Woodward's claims a fair chance, and still got the result that there would be no significant effect. If you don't like some of the consequences of these theories, then you may see why they are not used much in mainstream science.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: RERT on 06/17/2019 10:18 am
Monomorphic -

If I'm following your work correctly, you have now demonstrated that under certain circumstances, a balance such as used at Fullerton can exhibit false positive thrust results broadly of the same magnitude as the results they have obtained.

The next question is whether this possibility actually occurred or not, i.e. were their positives false or real?

Here's 2 cents on the general topic. Your commentary suggests a strong dependence of your false positive effect on driving frequency. Perhaps you could change that frequency and remove that effect at a given frequency by manipulating the moment of inertia of the balance (aka strap some weights on each side)? I would assume that such a change would not impact a real force. The driving frequency in the Fullerton experiments is a side effect of the operation of the device, might therefore be largely fixed, so false positives could be amenable to elimination by this means.

Operationally, an interesting immediate test in your setup would be to weight the balance, and show what happens to the apparent thrust at the same driving frequency of 175Hz.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Hauke Hein on 06/18/2019 12:54 pm
Hi Monomorphic,
My Name is Hauke,
one question:could you feed
 your device with 1. and 2. harmonic like 80 and 160 hertz with a phase difference of 45 or 90 degree and see what happens?
My best
Hauke
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 06/18/2019 04:26 pm
Hi Monomorphic,
My Name is Hauke,
one question:could you feed
 your device with 1. and 2. harmonic like 80 and 160 hertz with a phase difference of 45 or 90 degree and see what happens?
My best
Hauke

That reminds of this conversation I had here.  https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1769759#msg1769759
I think however you want to observe the false displacement signal first.  Then subtract that out and see if there's a thrust signal. 

I personally would like to see modulation of electrons in a superconductive cavity under massive acceleration and large velocities.  I think the larger the acceleration the larger the coupling to the vacuum and so you can manipulate the vacuum with less mass.

The premise is quite simple.  If curved space-time can accelerate matter.  Then asymmetrically accelerating matter in a cavity might a lead to the bending of space-time.  Of course if you're using less matter this may require larger accelerations to generate the effect. 

I suspect you just have to describe an oscillating system.  Put in your desired displacement frequency series and then solve for the input forces needed to induce that displacement.  I have some frequency series for displacement that maximize acceleration in one direction and minimize acceleration in the other direction and repeate at whatever desired frequency you want.

They are based on the 2f frequency response of the pzt materials electrostrive response which only vaguely approximates the desired displacement.  I was trying to maximize it.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/18/2019 11:47 pm
Mike McCulloch:  "Tajmar says he is fairly sure the emdrive does not work. He says he is definitely sure the Woodward drive does not work."

https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1141069459274252291

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 06/19/2019 02:30 pm
Mike McCulloch:  "Tajmar says he is fairly sure the emdrive does not work. He says he is definitely sure the Woodward drive does not work."

https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1141069459274252291
Black holes with enough acceleration and velocity brake against space time.  Obviously some effect is possible. 

What is required of us to make the effect usable and to what magnitude may depend on how we implement the effect.

Maybe woodward isn't predicting the same effect but I think it has some strange similarities. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 06/19/2019 02:35 pm
Mike McCulloch:  "Tajmar says he is fairly sure the emdrive does not work. He says he is definitely sure the Woodward drive does not work."

https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1141069459274252291

Well obviously black holes with enough acceleration and velocity brake against space time.  Some effect is possible.
Again, that is an effect related to the emission of gravitational waves based on standard GR with no relation to Woodward's claims.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 06/22/2019 10:07 am
What conversation are you reading?

The one we are having.


Since you quoted what I said, let me highlight (again) the relevant part of what I wrote and expand it a little with what I was referring to.

Quote from: Povel
This is one of the point of contention. I see no objective reason to favour Rodal's answer over Woodward's one, especially in light of the paper I cited here (in particular equation 4.2 at page 5 and the definition of  ?) and also the content of the latest presentation of Williams. Rodal's approach is surely the standard one used in the small perturbation approximation, but at no point it makes any contact with the "machian assumption" used by Woodward, so it is not particularly surprising he does not get the same results.


The point of contention is whether the potential is equal to c2 everywhere. You claimed Rodal "demonstrated" it is not in GR, I claimed that small perturbation approach is the wrong framework in trying to answer this question, because it excludes this possibility by default.
In addition to the paper I cited, which is the clearest explanation why such thing is true, I also brought additional material supporting this point in my previous posts. None of this material is dealing with the small perturbation approach.

I was talking of section 2 all along, it is in that section that Rodal introduces and uses the small perturbation approximation. I wasn't clear and you didn't understood, point taken, no need to keep beating it and accusing me (yes, accusing is the right term) of misconduct and retroactivity.

- The potential is already introduced in section 2 (both local and global)

- No, as I explained up here and before. Read the entire sentence please.

- It makes sense, because if you are trying to see what GR has to say about it you cannot use a tool created to study local and small field that drops the non perturbative part if that is the point of contact between Woodward and GR. I'm saying that Rodal should not have dropped the non-perturbative part (and also included back-reaction). He's simply looking in the wrong place.


It appears that you don't understand what the word "accuse" means though. You keep saying that I am "accusing you" without ever saying what I am accusing you of.

I know very well what's the meaning of the term "accusation". I didn't think I had to spell this, since it is plain obvious, but anyway..

You accused me, between other things, of:

- twisting concepts to suit my needs
- spewing gibberish
- inventing facts
- lying (in this last post)


Saying that I don't communicate clearly is not an accusation, but what you wrote is not limited to that.



You are the one who doesn't understand and that is why your argument makes no sense. Rodal makes no approximations until he has things written in a form where he can show that the terms he drops are smaller than the terms he keeps. If that stops some sort of back reaction from being accounted for (you have only asserted this, not shown it), it doesn't matter, because said back reaction would be significantly smaller than what was kept. What Rodal does in not just a simple linearization. He put things in a specific form first, and doing so is an important part of what he did.


That linear field equations are not able to display back interaction between field and source is a very well known fact. For example Maxwell equations need to be supplemented with the Lorentz' force equation to do just that.
Backreaction from local sources accounted by h is small and negligible, but backreaction from the rest of the universe, accounted by terms in η, is not small. It corresponds to the inertial forces experienced in an accelerated reference frame. I've already provided plenty of material supporting this view.



Assumptions that aren't compatible with GR are simply not compatible with GR.

The specific assumption used in step 1 by Woodward is compatible with GR. I provided plenty of material supporting this, that you just ignored.


Section 3 in general is all in the context of Hoyle-Narlikar. The section title is explicitly includes"conformal gravitational theory" and Hoyle-Narlikar is the specific conformal gravitational theory discussed. That includes section 3.6. You keep mixing things together, and therefore you arguments are incoherent.

It is useful to look at what the subsections say instead of relying on the title of the section.
Section 3.5 and 3.6 don't directly discuss the potential in the context of HN. Section 3.5 relies on the discussion of chapter 2 and Section 3.6 is a review of the entire concept, the results obtained with HN occupy less than a third of it and are disconnected by the very last paragraph that deals with the potential.


If you noticed it, that means you were aware that the original topic of the conversation was Rodal's paper, and not just Brans' result. That means when you presented the original subject as being Brans and claiming that me bringing up Rodal's paper was moving the goalposts, you knew that that statement was false. Knowingly making a false statement is called lying.

It is irrelevant what the original topic of the conversation was, because in that post you used conclusions you reached by yourself to argue against Woodward' statement. You didn't use any part of the content of Rodal's paper. You didn't quote anything Rodal wrote, so you were not talking about Rodal paper.

Arguing "in the context of" is not the same of arguing "about".

I started discussing with you a claim that you made and related to Brans work (that Rodal did not made, as I have shown).
When presented with evidence that your claim was severely misrepresenting the content of Brans' paper, you ignored it (and keep ignoring it, "la la la") while at the same time you brought up Rodal's paper as somehow disproving the evidence against your claim, even though Rodal never discusses Brans' paper in a way conducive to your argument.


Your summary is inaccurate. Woodward is trying to cite Brans to counter Rodal's paper. A plain reading of the abstract of a paper from Brans shows that Woodward is the one misrepresenting what Brans says, not Rodal. Woodward's statement that was quoted simply does not make any sense as a criticism of Rodal's paper

I already pointed you out why Woodward is not misrepresenting Brans. You are simply refusing to address the material I brought to the discussion.
I've wrote enough about this, so I'm done trying to explain it to you. You simply don't want to listen, you didn't bring anything substantial and just accused me to twist other words. Believe what you want.

I just hope that other readers will be able to understand.



I have listed things that you have misrepresented in this conversation. Your response has been to simply repeat your misrepresentations, and then go off on tangents based on false assumptions.

You have listed them, and I explained to you why I'm not misrepresenting anything. 
I wrote two pretty long post, they didn't consist in simple repetitions, but I imagine that picturing them like that makes it easier for you to claim they can be safely ignored.


You have demonstrated that you don't understand parts of Rodal's paper that have been explained to you repeatedly. If you aren't interested in learning you are on the wrong site.

I could repeat the exact same words and direct them back to you, but it wouldn't be very useful. I already noticed that you prefer to throw accusations instead of listening and asking questions, and there's no point in following your attitude.


No, you are just being confused at this point. What you go on to say is not relevant to what I just said.

No, you don't understand. Rodal draws a parallel with Brans-Dicke theory, but the paragraph starts before your quote with "In HN theory." The whole paragraph is based in HN theory, and Brans-Dicke is just used as a reference for somewhere else the same technique Rodal uses is applied. Stating that "Brans-Dicke theory violates the strong equivalence principle" does nothing to help your points. It is not directly relevant. It has already been shown that Woodward's claims aren't compatible with standard GR, which is why Rodal is using theories that Woodward's claims are at least potentially compatible with. Rodal was using these theories so he could give Woodward's claims a fair chance, and still got the result that there would be no significant effect. If you don't like some of the consequences of these theories, then you may see why they are not used much in mainstream science.


You claimed there was no evidence that Rodal uses a different version of Mach's principle, presumably because he doesn't list it in section 3.4

I never said Rodal is talking about Brans-Dicke instead of HN, you are misunderstanding me again.

What I meant is that he's using a version of HN that violates the strong equivalence principle, just like BD does by default.

This has not necessarily to be so, one can make HN compatible with the SEP.
Fearn does so, regardless from any supposed mistake she has made (which for you are certain; interestingly, not even Rodal points it out openly as a mistake, but rather as an unexplained assumption), Rodal doesn't.

HN-SEP and HN without SEP are different theories, that reach different conclusions and implement Mach's principle in a different way. This is an inevitable consequence. Rodal is using a different version of Mach's principle.
It could be called "Brans-Dicke-like Mach's principle", becaue, differently from what can be found in GR and HN-SEP, it allows for matter configurations outside a laboratory to influence the inertial mass of the lab's content, and, consequently, assumes that G is variable in space and time.


So, no, I didn't assert this with no supporting evidence. What I said is completely relevant to what you said.


 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 06/28/2019 07:34 am
I know very well what's the meaning of the term "accusation". I didn't think I had to spell this, since it is plain obvious, but anyway..

You accused me, between other things, of:

- twisting concepts to suit my needs
- spewing gibberish
- inventing facts
- lying (in this last post)
And what is your point? You have done the above things. I have provided specific examples for some of them, though some such as the gibberish comment simply point out that significant parts of some of your posts were not worth responding to, because they made no sense. You have stated that I accused you of these things, but you make no argument that they are wrong.

Saying that I don't communicate clearly is not an accusation, but what you wrote is not limited to that.
I still don't think you know what the word accusation means, because that most certainly is an accusation, and like the others it is true. (though there are less hostile sounding synonyms for accusation you could use like statement or claim)

To give a specific example,  I pointed out a specific false statement you previously made:
At the same time, you started shifting the conversation more and more from the the original statement we were discussing toward addressing Rodal's paper.
I pointed to the evidence that your statement about what the original topic is false, and I pointed to evidence that you were aware that this statement was false. You have denied none of this and provided no contrary evidence.

Instead you try to move the goalposts again saying:
It is irrelevant what the original topic of the conversation was, because in that post you used conclusions you reached by yourself to argue against Woodward' statement. You didn't use any part of the content of Rodal's paper. You didn't quote anything Rodal wrote, so you were not talking about Rodal paper.
When you falsely claim that I am changing the subject when I am not, it is most certainly relevant what the original topic was. Your claim that a statement that a criticism of Rodal's paper is wrong (and why it is wrong) is somehow NOT a statement about Rodal's paper is simply incomprehensible.

If you are just going to keep misrepresenting things like this it will be impossible to have a reasonable conversation with you. It also doesn't help when you repeatedly post irrelevant things such as:

That linear field equations are not able to display back interaction between field and source is a very well known fact. For example Maxwell equations need to be supplemented with the Lorentz' force equation to do just that.
The first statement may be true, but is irrelevant, because Rodal is not just starting off with linear field equations. It is also irrelevant because even if you showed that back interaction is not possible after the approximation that is made, it does not matter, because any back interaction would necessarily be smaller than the already small result that Rodal showed.
The second statement is just complete nonsense, you don't "supplement" Maxwell's equations with the Lorentz force equation, and you can calculate the force on a collection of charges in a volume using conservation of momentum applied to the fields, with no direct reference to the Lorentz force equation, because it is simply inherent to Maxwell's equations. This force includes self reaction force, despite Maxwell's equations being linear in the fields.

It would take an excessively long time to go through all of the various problems with the claims in your post, and most of them are just as nonsensical as what I just responded to.

Skipping past most of your post, you make some points towards the end which at least resemble a reasonable response to my post despite being completely wrong, so I'll respond to them:
You claimed there was no evidence that Rodal uses a different version of Mach's principle, presumably because he doesn't list it in section 3.4

I never said Rodal is talking about Brans-Dicke instead of HN, you are misunderstanding me again.

What I meant is that he's using a version of HN that violates the strong equivalence principle, just like BD does by default.
I can at least see where you may have meant that, but it is not a conclusion I would have come to from your original statement, in part because I can now see you were using faulty logic, starting from:
a. Brans-Dicke violates the strong equivalence principle
b. There is a parallel between Brans-Dicke and the technique used by Rodal
you conclude:
c. What Rodal does is in violation of the strong equivalence principle.

A single parallel between 2 theories is not enough to show that a conclusion about the first theory also applies to the second. In this case however, it just so happens that HN does in fact violate the strong equivalence principle.

Contrary to your claims though, this is a general aspect of that theory, not limited to the analysis in Rodal's paper. In fact, it turns out that HN is actually equivalent to a transformed Brans-Dicke, but it takes a bit more work to show that then what you did:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0407078.pdf
(I did not find this fact until I was preparing to write this post, if I knew it in advance, I probably wouldn't have been confused by your conclusion jumping.)

This has not necessarily to be so, one can make HN compatible with the SEP.
...
So, no, I didn't assert this with no supporting evidence. What I said is completely relevant to what you said.
Nothing you have said amounts to anything more than an assertion that there is a theory in existence with the properties that you claim, the part I cut out does not support your point for the following reasons:

Fearn does so, regardless from any supposed mistake she has made (which for you are certain; interestingly, not even Rodal points it out openly as a mistake, but rather as an unexplained assumption), Rodal doesn't.
Just that statement has multiple problems with it. There is in fact a key difference between the versions of HN used by Fearn and Rodal, and that is that Fearn's cannot be made consistent with the universe we leave in as pointed out by Hawking. ALso, Rodal does not point out an "unexplained assumption" but an "unexplained inconsistency." an inconsistency is a mistake.
Therefore none of this supports your claim that there is a (consistent) version of HN that satisfies the strong equivalent principle. In fact you don't actually even show that Fearn's version would satisfy the SEP, you just assert it. I added the word consistent in there, since an inconsistent theory is useless.

HN-SEP and HN without SEP are different theories, that reach different conclusions and implement Mach's principle in a different way. This is an inevitable consequence. Rodal is using a different version of Mach's principle.
It could be called "Brans-Dicke-like Mach's principle", becaue, differently from what can be found in GR and HN-SEP, it allows for matter configurations outside a laboratory to influence the inertial mass of the lab's content, and, consequently, assumes that G is variable in space and time.
All of this basically amounts to assertions that presuppose the existence of a theory that you refer to as HN-SEP. It does not make sense for such a theory to exist, since the variations that supposedly drive the Mach effect seem like they would inherently violate the strong equivalence principle.

If you are going to claim that Fearn or Woodward uses a version of HN different from the one in the paper I linked (which demonstrates equivalence with Brans-Dicke) Then you are going to have to point out what specifically is different. After that, you can work on trying to demonstrate compatibility with the strong equivalence principle.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/11/2019 02:57 pm
Professor Woodward's latest message to his email list is a response to Dr. Rodal's recent peer-reviewed paper "A Machian wave effect in conformal, scalar–tensor gravitational theory" that was published (15 May 2019) in General Relativity and Gravitation:


Gentlefolk,

Several weeks ago I mentioned that Jose' Rodal had published a paper in General Relativity and Gravitation critical of Mach effects that you might be interested in reading.   I'll quote a couple of brief passages from Jose's article to give you the flavor and essence of his argument,

"Section 2 shows that Einstein's theory has a similar (to Woodward's theory) term, but it is much smaller in magnitude (3rd order post Newtonian) because its prefactor [coefficient] is the local gravitational potential phi which (unless a spaceship were to be near a black hole or a neutron star) is infinitesimal.  Therefore it is irrelevant for practical space propulsion (for this application it does not matter whether this force is physical or is the result of a coordinate effect)."

"This term, dependent on the second time derivative of a variable mass, is much smaller in magnitude than the term derived by Woodward, because its prefactor is the local potential phi instead of the universe's potential PHI.  Furthermore, the above harmonic-coordinate-dependent derivation does not settle whether this term is the result of  a coordinate effect and hence whether it has physically detectable consequences."

Yes, I've left all of the math out.  It turns out that the math isn't really the issue.  The physics is the issue, and the reason for Jose's inclusion of that weird language about physical and "coordinate" effects.  That's an oblique reference to some absolutely fundamental work by Carl Brans in the late '50s and early '60s on the origin of inertia.  It's his nod to his assumption that inertia allegedly is NOT a gravitational phenomenon.  All of his math follows from a formalism for general relativity devised by Landau and Lifschitz many years ago recently explicated by Poisson and Will in their recent text Gravity.  The formalism is constructed in Minkowski spacetime -- spacetime with inertia, but without gravity.  So, obviously, inertia is not a gravitational phenomenon.  Brans' work is referred to as justification for this assumption.

No, there is no "Woodward's theory".  There is a calculation in the relativistic Newtonian approximation that is based on the assumption that inertia is a gravitational phenomenon and that the gravitational origin of inertia and inertial forces is built into general relativity.  And the claim that inertia is built into general relativity depends on the same work by Carl Brans.  This is all spelled out in the first three chapters of Making Starships and an article in JBIS published a year ago -- to which Jose' made no reference.  There are two questions: one, who's right? two, if inertia is gravitational, how big is the local potential of the gravitational field?

Before tackling these questions, I point out that there are two distinct aspects of the question of the "origin" of inertia.  One is: does the mere presence of matter in a gravitational field cause its mass (the quantitative measure of inertia)?  The other is: are inertia forces caused by acceleration of matter (by non-gravitational forces) in the gravitational field created by the distribution and motion of chiefly the distant matter in the universe?  Though distinct, the questions are, of course, related.

The first question can be posed as, does the mass of matter come about as a consequence of its potential energy in the local gravitational field created by chiefly distant matter?  Taking the gravitational potential energy to be m X PHI, where m is the quantity on matter in an object, then using E = mass X c2, is

                         mass = (m X PHI)/c2

true?  The obvious answer is that if PHI is equal to c squared, then mass is equal to the "quantity of matter" m of any object in question.  This may sound a bit circular, but it really isn't.  It, by the way, is the version of the origin of inertia question that dominated considerations of the question in the time of Carl Brans' work on the question.

The second question also dates to the '50s.  It's contained in Dennis Sciama's paper on the origin o inertia using a vector theory of gravity published in 1953, and shortly thereafter shown to be a feature of general relativity too.  It turns out that inertial forces in Sciama's and Einstein's versions of gravity arise in the "Faradayan induction" terms in the field equation(s) and equations of motion.  They are the time derivative of the gravitational "vector" potential (analogous to the electromagnetic vector potential, the (0, i) components of the g sub mew, gnu)).  The sources of the vector potential are mass currents, that is, the sum of the action of all of the (mv)s of all of the "matter" in the universe.  Sciama made a clever argument to vastly simplify what otherwise is a tedious and very messy calculation for the action of all those mass currents on an accelerating object.  It turns out that

                           (1/c) X (dA/dt) = (PHI/c2) X a

where A is the vector potential and a is the acceleration of the object.  Again, if PHI equals c2, then the inertial force is gravitational. 

Why haven't you heard about this stuff from conventional sources?  Well, Carl Brans put a monkey wrench into the gravity and inertia business back in 1958.  Tasked by his supervisor Robert Dicke (at Princeton) to look into Sciama's work, he ran across Einstein's comments on Machian inertia in 1921 and detected a problem.  Einstein had done a (weak field) calculation of inertia-like gravitational effects and found that piling up nearby "spectator" matter in the vicinity of a test mass would change its rest mass by changing its gravitational potential energy.  Brans recognized this as a mistake, for were it true, you could always tell where you were gravitationally simply by measuring the charge to mass ratios of elementary particles since they would depend on the value of the gravitational potential at their location.  No need to go look out a window to detect if you were on Earth or in deep space accelerating at one gee.  That's a flagrant violation of the Equivalence Principle.

Looking at the gravitational potential of the universe, PHI, which can be written as GM/R, where M and R are the "effective" mass and radius of the universe,  and knowing that at least R is changing, Brans and Dicke inferred that the only way to avoid violating the Equivalence Principle was to assume that the gravitational potential due to cosmic matter must effectively be zero.  Though he nowhere comes right out and says this, this is what Jose's argument depends on.  He is claiming that since inertia is (allegedly) not gravitational, Mach effect propulsion is impossible.  The rest of the elaborate math is really just window dressing.

Is he right?  Of course not.  Brans' spectator matter argument does not require that the total gravitational potential be zero, as he and Dicke, and now Jose', assumed.  It requires that the total gravitational potential be a "locally measured invariant".  If it is a locally measured invariant, then the gravitational contribution to the rest masses of elementary particles will be the same everywhere/when and the Equivalence will not be violated.  This does not mean that you can choose any old value for the Newtonian potential that you want.  Most values give physical results that violate known physical laws and principles.  But it does mean that it need not be zero to avoid violations of the Equivalence Principle.

Brans and Dicke, after Brans' discovery of the problem with inertia in general relativity in Einstein's argument, inferred that this meant that the gravitational field, and thus its Newtonian potential, due to cosmic matter was essentially zero.  That is, calling phi + PHI = PHITOT, PHITOT = phi, which is minuscule by comparison with PHI.  They then went looking for a scalar field that could be coupled to gravity that might account for inertia In place of gravity itself.  That search failed.  But in the process Dicke's thoughts were focused on cosmology.  Along with leading him to look for the cosmological microwave background radiation -- preempted by Penzias and Wilson -- he formulated two cosmological "problems": the flatness and horizon problems.  The horizon problem is motivated by the observation of the isotropy of the universe -- it looks the same in all directions at sufficiently large scale.  Big bang calculations back then showed that the parts of the universe even in its earliest moments could not have been in contact with its other parts to allow the whole thing to cone into thermal equilibrium.

Dicke's flatness problem stemmed from the observation that at cosmic scale, spacetime looks very flat.  Why is this a problem?  Well, general relativity has a group of cosmological solutions called the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) models, known before '50s, that fall into three groups.  Two of the groups encompass large numbers of particular solutions, the "spherical" and "hyperbolic" solutions, spherical (closed) and hyperbolic (open) referring to the cosmic curvature of spacetime.  The third "group" is a single model with the distinctive property of spatial flatness that separates the spherical and hyperbolic groups.  The spatial flatness model has some very desirable characteristics.  It has so called "critical" cosmic matter density, so the total gravitational energy of the model, M PHI, is exactly equal to minus the total non-gravitational energy, M c2, their sum being zero.  Guess what?  PHI = c2.  What's more, all of this is epoch independent.  Flat universes evolve preserving their flatness -- and PHI = c2.

Sounds pretty good, doesn't it?  So what's Dicke's flatness problem?  Flat universes are inherently unstable.  Even a small perturbation from flatness and the whole shebang either blows up or collapses.  Dicke knew this, but having abandoned the role of inertia in general relativity, he had no recourse to any considerations involving inertia.  Neither did anyone else, for the rejection of the gravitational induction of inertia was almost universal.  [I am chagrinned to admit that I and my mentor, Wolfgang Yourgrau, wrote a little paper in the early '70s explaining why Mach's principle was incompatible with general relativity.  My only defense is that I was young and stupid.]  This state of affairs left room for Alan Guth to come up with the idea of inflation to address both of Dicke's problems.  See Charles Misner's comments attached from Lightman and Brawer, Origins (Harvard, 1990).  That opened a role for Brans and Dicke's scalar field -- to be the field that caused the inflation.

The fact that all of the talk of the flatness problem was not tied back to the issue of the gravitational induction of inertia can be seen in John and Mary Gribbin's biography of Feynman.  I attach a few pages therefrom where they attribute the realization that phi = c2 to Feynman in the early '60s.  But of course there was at least one person in the '60s who understood the connection between inertia induction and flat FRW cosmology.  Dennis Sciama.  See the attached quote.

Until the '90s, the attack on the gravitational induction of inertia was restricted to attacks on the mass = (m X PHI)/c2 aspect of the issue.  The induction of inertial forces was ignored, presumably because if PHI = 0 from the first type of induction, force induction is irrelevant.  In the '90s, nonetheless, several folks claimed to show that the induction term in the field equations and equation of motion is zero in general relativity.  This stuff is in the JBIS article that Jose' didn't cite, so I'm not going to repeat it here.  Suffice it to say that those who have rejected the Faradayan induction term are having a hard time convincingly accounting for translational (as opposed to rotational) inertial forces.

Why am I laying all this stuff on you?  Well, chiefly to convince you that Brans' spectator matter argument does not  mean that PHI = 0 in local measurements.  Rather, there are compelling reasons to take PHITOT = c2, the locally measured value measured everywhere and when, and Mach effect propulsion is a part of general relativity.  But also to point out that Brans' spectator matter argument solves the flat universe stability problem.  Yes, even after inflation there's a stability problem.  Inflation can account for why we observe flatness today, long after the creation of the universe.  But it does not explain why that flatness can be expected to persist indefinitely into the future.  This is why you still hear people suggest that some perturbative event might at any moment explode or collapse the universe.  Brans' argument precludes this.  Why?  Because PHITOT must be a locally measured invariant to avoid violating the Equivalence Principle.  The only value for PHITOT that is consistent with our reality is that of spatially flat FRW cosmology.  Were the universe to explode or collapse, PHITOT would have to become different from the flat model, and that, by Brans' argument, would create a set of circumstances that violate the Equivalence Principle.  Non-flat FRW cosmologies are physically impossible.  So you can go to sleep tonight confident that the universe will still be here when you wake up tomorrow.  😊

Heidi's back from Dresden Monday.

Keep the faith,

Jim


EDIT:  Corrected some typos in equations from copy-paste and rearranged the images to go with the text.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob Woods on 07/12/2019 04:17 am
Thanks for posting this Jamie.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: RotoSequence on 07/12/2019 06:20 am
Keep the faith,

 :o  ??? ::)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: tdperk on 07/12/2019 10:09 am
Keep the faith,

 :o  ??? ::)

He knows something that hasn't been made generally known, yet.  Why wonder other?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: RotoSequence on 07/12/2019 10:19 am
Keep the faith,

 :o  ??? ::)

He knows something that hasn't been made generally known, yet.  Why wonder other?

Science is not, and should never, ever be treated as, an article of faith.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/12/2019 12:20 pm
Science is not, and should never, ever be treated as, an article of faith.

In my opinion, the mach effect crowd behaves in ways that could be considered cult-like. They divide themselves into "believers" and "deniers" and they ostracize skeptics that would dare to question their dear leader.
Title: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star One on 07/12/2019 01:14 pm
Science is not, and should never, ever be treated as, an article of faith.

In my opinion, the mach effect crowd behaves in ways that could be considered cult-like. They divide themselves into "believers" and "deniers" and they ostracize skeptics that would dare to question their dear leader.

Not sure how this is supposed to be anything other than an off topic post. If you want to analyse the psychology of a group of people take it to a psychology forum. Anyway there is nothing worse than armchair psychology anyway in the first place.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/12/2019 01:36 pm
Not sure how this is supposed to be anything other than an off topic post. If you want to analyse the psychology of a group of people take it to a psychology forum. Anyway there is nothing worse than armchair psychology anyway in the first place.

I'm speaking from personal experience. The fact is Woodward gave a speech at Estes Park 2018 where he called Aerospace Corp scientists, TU Dresden scientists, and myself "deniers" and ostracized the skeptics.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star One on 07/12/2019 05:00 pm
Not sure how this is supposed to be anything other than an off topic post. If you want to analyse the psychology of a group of people take it to a psychology forum. Anyway there is nothing worse than armchair psychology anyway in the first place.

I'm speaking from personal experience. The fact is Woodward gave a speech at Estes Park 2018 where he called Aerospace Corp scientists, TU Dresden scientists, and myself "deniers" and ostracized the skeptics.

That’s even more off topic for you to bring some kind of personal dispute into the thread.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/12/2019 05:31 pm
That’s even more off topic for you to bring some kind of personal dispute into the thread.

The only dispute I have with Professor Woodward is that he doesn't appear to be interested in falsifying his own theory/experiment. That is not science, it is make-believe.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 07/12/2019 07:16 pm
So many things can be said about what Woodward wrote. For example the mention of faith (and related behavior that Monomorphic brought up) It is good to point that out, it is not appropriate behavior in this context, but further discussion of it isn't really of value. More relevantly, there are techinical issues with what was said, for now I will just leave it at this:
That is, calling phi + PHI = PHITOT, PHITOT = phi, which is minuscule by comparison with PHI. 
translating that into more clear wording, and changing phi, PHI, and PHITOT to a,b,and c respectively, that says:
a+b=c, |a| << |b|, therefore a=c. There is a pretty clear problem with that and that is obviously not what is said in Rodal's paper. This does not seem to be just a typo, I don't see coherent way to make sense of the rest of Woodward's statements on the subject.

As to the rest of what Woodward wrote, I'll just leave it at pointing out that Woodward does not address most of what is in Rodal's paper, and generally seems to miss the point entirely. It would be nice if Woodward handled this the way most scientists would such as through a letter to the editor or his own paper, since that would facilitate a reply from Rodal. Of course even a letter to the editor is unlikely to get published if it contains clear errors like the one specific one I mention here.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Cinder on 07/13/2019 02:04 am
Not sure how this is supposed to be anything other than an off topic post. If you want to analyse the psychology of a group of people take it to a psychology forum. Anyway there is nothing worse than armchair psychology anyway in the first place.

I'm speaking from personal experience. The fact is Woodward gave a speech at Estes Park 2018 where he called Aerospace Corp scientists, TU Dresden scientists, and myself "deniers" and ostracized the skeptics.

That’s even more off topic for you to bring some kind of personal dispute into the thread.
Woodward was not talking general psychology when he said to keep the faith. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 07/13/2019 01:41 pm
And what is your point? You have done the above things. I have provided specific examples for some of them


The point is that I did none of the things you are accusing me of. I already countered your "examples", as soon as you brought them in fact.
If you believe you can conduct a succesfull argument without addressing what the other part brings to the discussion, you are severly mistaken.


You have stated that I accused you of these things, but you make no argument that they are wrong.


Glad you at least implicitly admitted of having thrown accusations at me, that's some progress considering how you were apparently skeptic about the content of your own posts.
I already explained you why they are wrong, but you don't seem to understand that you saying "You are simply wrong" or similar does not constitute a valid reply if you don't take the material I provided you and show how I'm wrong.
I asked you a number of time to do this, but you consistently avoided it.


I still don't think you know what the word accusation means, because that most certainly is an accusation, and like the others it is true. (though there are less hostile sounding synonyms for accusation you could use like statement or claim

Those quotes from you are pretty hostile, so the word "accusation" seems just perfect to me.
Pointing out that I do not communicate clearly, as you have done, is not hostile, or at least I didn't perceive it like that.


To give a specific example,  I pointed out a specific false statement you previously made:
At the same time, you started shifting the conversation more and more from the the original statement we were discussing toward addressing Rodal's paper.
I pointed to the evidence that your statement about what the original topic is false, and I pointed to evidence that you were aware that this statement was false. You have denied none of this and provided no contrary evidence.

Instead you try to move the goalposts again saying:
It is irrelevant what the original topic of the conversation was, because in that post you used conclusions you reached by yourself to argue against Woodward' statement. You didn't use any part of the content of Rodal's paper. You didn't quote anything Rodal wrote, so you were not talking about Rodal paper.
When you falsely claim that I am changing the subject when I am not, it is most certainly relevant what the original topic was. Your claim that a statement that a criticism of Rodal's paper is wrong (and why it is wrong) is somehow NOT a statement about Rodal's paper is simply incomprehensible.


I don't see how it is incomprehensible:

- You made a statement about a comment criticizing Rodal's paper

- You made it by only using the content of Brans' paper, which is referenced but not used by Rodal to make the point you are making.

- As a consequence, your statement is entirely about Brans' paper, not about Rodal's paper, and what's more, it is entirely your own.


Again, arguing "in the context of" Rodal's paper is not the same thing of arguing "about" Rodal's paper.

You moved the goalpost, because you pretended (and are pretending) you were talking about Rodal's paper even though your post was entirely about Brans and how Woodward is supposedly twisting the content of his paper.

Silly but hopefully effective example: if Woodward critism of Rodal's paper was about lexical register and you claimed it was wrong by citing the Merriam-Webster and I argued against your claim using this and other dictionaries, do you really believe the conversation could be considered to be "about" Rodal's paper instead of grammar?

The first statement may be true, but is irrelevant, because Rodal is not just starting off with linear field equations. It is also irrelevant because even if you showed that back interaction is not possible after the approximation that is made, it does not matter, because any back interaction would necessarily be smaller than the already small result that Rodal showed.


No, not "may be". It is true.

Consider a single charge that moves is some way; it produces a field according to the field equations.

Consider a second isolated charge that moves in some other way; it also produces another field.

Suppose now that the two charges are both present at the same time: since the field equations are linear they will be satisfied only if each charge moves around exactly in the same way it did when it was isolated, and the resulting field is the sum of the two fields taken separately.
This amounts to saying that the two charges do not influence each other in their relative motion. An additional law is needed to establish that the field of one charge exerts a force on the other charge.

It is irrelevant that Rodal starts with full equations, because to reach his conclusion in section 2 he considers the linearized equations.
You already wrote the last section, and I already replied to it. Please let's not act like charges in a linear field..


The second statement is just complete nonsense, you don't "supplement" Maxwell's equations with the Lorentz force equation, and you can calculate the force on a collection of charges in a volume using conservation of momentum applied to the fields, with no direct reference to the Lorentz force equation, because it is simply inherent to Maxwell's equations. This force includes self reaction force, despite Maxwell's equations being linear in the fields.


You absolutely need another law that describes the motion of charges and currents in a given field.

Calculating the force on a collection of charges with Maxwell + conservation of momentum for the field is equivalent to calculating it using Maxwell + Lorentz.
In any case, you need Maxwell + another law.

I'm not sure what you are referring to be "inherent to Maxwell's equations".

If you are referring to conservation of (energy-)momentum (intended as field+matter momentum) you are wrong: conservation of energy-momentum is given by the Poynting's theorem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynting%27s_theorem), which requires Lorentz force law.

Quote from: Wikipedia
While conservation of energy and the Lorentz force law can give the general form of the theorem, Maxwell's equations are additionally required to derive the expression for the Poynting vector and hence complete the statement.

If you are referring to Lorentz force equation, you are also wrong, since it is an indipendent law.

As for the self-force (the force on a charge due to its own field), that's the n°1 example of a problem of the coupled system of Maxwell's equations + equations of motion of charges (aka Lorentz law).
It is a clear case of a nonlinear problem, a very old and still open one. (http://www.math.utk.edu/~fernando/barrett/bwald1.pdf)


It would take an excessively long time to go through all of the various problems with the claims in your post, and most of them are just as nonsensical as what I just responded to.


If most of them are as "nonsensical" as the claim you just responded to then it is quite clear you have no idea what you are talking about.


I can at least see where you may have meant that, but it is not a conclusion I would have come to from your original statement, in part because I can now see you were using faulty logic, starting from:
a. Brans-Dicke violates the strong equivalence principle
b. There is a parallel between Brans-Dicke and the technique used by Rodal
you conclude:
c. What Rodal does is in violation of the strong equivalence principle.

A single parallel between 2 theories is not enough to show that a conclusion about the first theory also applies to the second.


No, I didn't use this logic, it's much more straightforward:

a. Brans-Dicke violates the strong equivalence principle by allowing G to change in space and time.

b. Similar to Brans-Dicke, Rodal assumes variable G in his treatment.

c. What Rodal does is in violation of the strong equivalence principle.


Observable variation of G => SEP violation.

In this case however, it just so happens that HN does in fact violate the strong equivalence principle.

Contrary to your claims though, this is a general aspect of that theory, not limited to the analysis in Rodal's paper. In fact, it turns out that HN is actually equivalent to a transformed Brans-Dicke, but it takes a bit more work to show that then what you did:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0407078.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0407078.pdf)
(I did not find this fact until I was preparing to write this post, if I knew it in advance, I probably wouldn't have been confused by your conclusion jumping.)

Thank you for the paper, but what you are saying is not correct.

The paper shows that it is possible to recover HN field equations from BD if one assumes ω = -3/2 and, importantly, if one assumes also that the trace of stress-energy-momentum tensor vanishes, that is to say, for example, if one only has a system of massless particles.
In these circumastances, the equations of BD become conformally invariant and the "smooth fluid approximation" of HN is recovered.
So HN is not "equivalent" to BD; BD is not, in general, conformally invariant, and that's a big difference.

There's also the important difference that BD considers field equations, while HN is a direct-particle interaction theory.

HN-SEP is actually the very first version of the theory that Hoyle and Narlikar considered back in the 60s. It is described in most clearly in the 1964 and 1966 original papers by Hoyle and Narlikar, which are the papers Fearn uses for guiding her derivation and which she refers to.

It is also referenced in their book, where after introducing it and showing what are the differences between it and GR they write:


"6. A variable gravitational constant arises in the HN cosmologies if we relax the assumption that λa are constants. If λa change with time then it is  possible to generate cosmological models in which G changes with time.
We will not discuss such models in detail."

[Hoyle-Narlikar - Introduction to cosmology, 1993, pg. 271]


The implication is that their theory does not normally allow for G to be a variable.

HN-SEP is also referenced in this book (https://books.google.it/books?id=S7avUXmRTKkC&pg=PA460&lpg=PA460&dq=hoyle+narlikar+variable+g&source=bl&ots=Rr7OeJY8s4&sig=ACfU3U0HiLUmqEJer85rGmuQBZFHdY0GZQ&hl=it&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi699WGyI7jAhWGDuwKHQelDrYQ6AEwAnoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=hoyle%20narlikar%20variable%20g&f=false) and in this 1981 paper by Raine, Mach's principle and space-time structure, (it is paywalled, sorry), where he writes (as a skeptic):


"Since the superstrong principle of equivalence is valid in the Hoyle-Narlikar theory as in general relativity, the most the theory could achieve is a reformulation of general relativity (with the possible interest in early versions of the theory (Hoyle and Narlikar 1966) that the reformulation works only for universes having large numbers of particles)." [pg 1174]


There are a number of serious complications in discussing this subject, and subtleties regarding the fact that HN theory is conformally invariant, meaning, roughly, that it does not have any absolute unit of lenght in it.
For this reason, in the smooths fluid approximation of the theory, the role of the constant G in GR is taken here by a scalar field, representing the arbitrariness of units systems (and the value of mass) at every point.

This is not the same thing of BD field representing a variable G, because in this latter case the field cannot be made constant by a suitable choice of a conformal frame (the theory is not conformally invariant in general), and assuming the field to be constant completely cancels any additional physics brought by BD over GR.

Additionally, both conformal and scalar-tensor theories of gravity can be expressed in two special conformal frames, the Jordan frame (where the scalar field couples non-minimally with the scalar curvature) and the Einstein frame (where the scalar field couples minimally with the scalar curvature).

The usual equations of BD and HN are expressed in the Jordan frame.

In general, BD action expressed in the Einstein frame do not reduce to GR action, because the scalar field couples non-minimally with matter and it has additional kinetic terms. The consequence of this is that the theory does not respect even the weak equivalence principle: matter does not move along geodesics. Obviously the SEP is also violated.

In contrast, HN action expressed in the Einstein frame reduces straight into Einstein-Hilbert action. As a consequence it satisfies the SEP (*)

Just that statement has multiple problems with it. There is in fact a key difference between the versions of HN used by Fearn and Rodal, and that is that Fearn's cannot be made consistent with the universe we leave in as pointed out by Hawking.


We already discussed this, Fearn not including the cosmological constant in her derivation is an imprecision on her part that doesn't significantly impact her derivation of Woodward's like equation.
The remark over the need to include the cosmological constant first appeared in this (https://physics.fullerton.edu/~heidi/JMP-Mach0.pdf) Fearn's paper, but, as it is evident even in Rodal's treatment, the inclusion of the Λ term doesn't alter the conclusion over Woodward's like terms in the equations.

Also, Rodal does not point out an "unexplained assumption" but an "unexplained inconsistency." an inconsistency is a mistake.

He doesn't use the word "inconsistency", nor "mistake".

I had some time to look into HN, re-read Rodal's and Fearn's papers. I noticed more things and cleared up others.

The first is that Rodal is wrong in the way he claims the theory (in particular equation (14)-(15) and the other following) to be "conformal scalar-tensor". He is using the definition of mo= c√3/(4πGo) , but this definition is equivalent to taking equation ( 8 ) and singling out a special conformal frame, losing the conformal invariance in the process.
As a consequence, equations obtained by using definition (14) and its variant with a variable part are NOT conformally invariant. There are ways to include a variable G without losing this property, they are discussed by Hoyle and Narlikar in their later papers, but Rodal doesn't use this approach, so the title and abstract are quite misleading.

The second is that Rodal is wrong in characterizing equations (10)-(11) as the "invariant" form of equation ( 8 ). The two set of equations are distinct, one representing the gravitational equations, the other representing the "wave" equation describing the behaviour of m. These two sets of equations aren't actually indipendent from one another, the latter being the trace of the former, but in any real problem the two sets need to be considered separately.
The whole system is underconstrained, a conformal frame needs to be chosen, and once that's done the two sets become indipendent from one another.

Finally, in her discussion of Woodward, Fearn uses equation ( 8 ) in Rodal's paper and recasts it in the form criticized by Rodal.
She is actually using the conformally invariant equations, but it seems like she's abusing the notation by writing 6/m2 as G, even though she didn't single out any conformal frame that would allow such identification. This is confirmed by the video of her 2016 presentation at Estes Park.

Even so, this blunder does not affect her discussion of the Woodward's-like terms. This point is better explained in her 2014 paper here (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280134251_AIAA_Joint_Propulsion_Conference_Ohio_2014_Theory_of_a_Mach_Effect_Thruster_Technical_Session_Nuclear_and_Future_Flight_Propulsion), where she leaves the equation written in the form ( 8 ) and discusses the RHS Woodward's like terms.


While this is not what Fearn does, it has been shown by Islam in the 70s (here (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/mathematical-proceedings-of-the-cambridge-philosophical-society/article/conformal-frames-and-field-equations-in-a-conformal-theory-of-gravitation/BA17ABB0A953BB33D13EC698DC1513A8), here (https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.1968.0163), and here (https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rspa.1969.0180)), and summed up in this paper (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0305-4470/12/3/012) by Suggett, that the choice of m = constant everywhere is not the only, nor the most physical one, to recover GR and Newtonian physics from HN.

There's another choice that allows to have a constant G while at the same time retain all RHS terms.
Under such perfectly legit choice the equations end up assuming a form very similar to that discussed by Fearn in 2016, all without breaking the SEP.

In conclusion, Rodal's paper

- Is not about a "conformal scalar-tensor theory" at all, since it singles out one conformal frame and reach its conclusions in it, breaking the invariance.

- Breaks the SEP by allowing a variable G. The equations are not conformally invariant, so no amount of rescaling can cancel this space and time dipendence.

 

In contrast Fearn's paper and her derivation:

- Keep the conformal invariance

- Keep the SEP valid, since GR is recovered by choosing a conformal frame. Said differently, HN equations written in Einstein frame correspond to GR.


_________________________________________________________________________________
(*) In general, this is valid only in the vacuum case or for a null trace stress-energy tensor.
For having regular matter transform conformally (that is, to appear minimally coupled to the scalar field in the Einstein frame) and thus have the equations respect SEP in this situation, one needs to postulate that in the Jordan frame the matter lagrangian couples non-minimally with the scalar field. More info in this paper (https://www.academia.edu/424719/Conformal_Classes_of_Brans-Dicke_Gravity).

It is unclear to me if HN satisfies this condition, but considering how the "scalar field" is just one characteristic of matter (its mass) it does not seem impossible. One should ask Narlikar about this.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 07/13/2019 02:16 pm
Woodward's reply is interesting. I find quite emberassing that people here are focusing on literally the last 3 words he wrote instead of trying to understand his point.

I do not fully agree on certain points he mentions, but I'll discuss these and rest of the reply later. These points are not really relevant to the derivation of his effect anyway.

Since Woodward cited repeatedly his JBIS paper, I think it would be worthwile to share it here. Luckily it seems like it is available online for free (along with the rest of that JBIS volume)
https://bis-space.com/membership/jbis/2017/JBIS-v70-no10-11-October-November-2017_ddo33x.pdf (https://bis-space.com/membership/jbis/2017/JBIS-v70-no10-11-October-November-2017_ddo33x.pdf)


Not sure how this is supposed to be anything other than an off topic post. If you want to analyse the psychology of a group of people take it to a psychology forum. Anyway there is nothing worse than armchair psychology anyway in the first place.

I'm speaking from personal experience. The fact is Woodward gave a speech at Estes Park 2018 where he called Aerospace Corp scientists, TU Dresden scientists, and myself "deniers" and ostracized the skeptics.

I really don't see how you are "ostracized". You were allowed to do a presentation at Estes Park. You are part of Woodward's mailing list, able to interact with him at any moment. Same for the Dresden team, as far as I can tell. They seem to be in constant contact with Woodward and his team.

It looks to me that Woodward is actually the one surrounded here. 

I'm also somewhat in doubt that he is not interested in falsifying his theory/experiment.
It rather looks like he doesn't think any of the criticism he received hold much water.
I can't speak about the experiments, but there seems to be a general lack of clarity in the community regarding the content of his hypothesis, and that surely affects how seriously he takes certain criticisms.

It certainly is partially his own fault. I wouldn't go as far to say it is entirely his fault, however.

Personally, I did contact him to criticize his "overunity paper" and other things about 10 months ago. I wrote a pretty long email, and he told me he didn't have time to properly reply to me (it was before Estes Park). He wrote me again some months after to tell me he had not forgotten my message. I guess that now he has, maybe I should solicit him again.
Anyway, he didn't strike me as someone that does not listen to criticism, if properly argumented, but rather as a stubborn elder professor.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/13/2019 02:40 pm
You are part of Woodward's mailing list, able to interact with him at any moment.

Woodward removed me from his email list shortly after the Estes Park Workshop. I have to ask around to have his emails forwarded to me now. Apparently he did not like it that I responded when he criticized my work.

But I agree with meberbs, further discussion of it isn't really of value. The technical issues are more interesting.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 07/13/2019 03:32 pm
You are part of Woodward's mailing list, able to interact with him at any moment.

Woodward removed me from his email list shortly after the Estes Park Workshop. I have to ask around to have his emails forwarded to me now. Apparently he did not like it that I responded when he criticized my work.

But I agree with meberbs, further discussion of it isn't really of value. The technical issues are more interesting.



I wasn't aware of this. Out of curiosity I sent an e-mail to Woodward to hear his version of the events. I'll post it here if he replies to me.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 07/13/2019 04:02 pm
[..] More relevantly, there are techinical issues with what was said, for now I will just leave it at this:
That is, calling phi + PHI = PHITOT, PHITOT = phi, which is minuscule by comparison with PHI. 
translating that into more clear wording, and changing phi, PHI, and PHITOT to a,b,and c respectively, that says:
a+b=c, |a| << |b|, therefore a=c. There is a pretty clear problem with that and that is obviously not what is said in Rodal's paper. This does not seem to be just a typo, I don't see coherent way to make sense of the rest of Woodward's statements on the subject.

He is simply stating that both Brans-Dicke and Rodal are ignoring the enormous non-local potential due to the rest of the universe and only considering the local one, which is very much what they are doing. This comes from a conception of gravity that associates it only with local non null curvature, which is not quite right.


Woodward explains this further in the JBIS paper. It is also explained in this mathpage article (https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath622/kmath622.htm) I already posted:

Quote
Einstein did not regard “flat” Minkowski spacetime as being free of a gravitational field. He regarded the inertial field and the gravitational field as identical, represented by the metric tensor. In particular, he did not identify curvature with gravitation, which is why in his 1907 review article he was able to speak about a “homogeneous gravitational field”. According to some modern physicists this is a contradiction in terms, because they maintain that a gravitational field is identical with intrinsic curvature of the spacetime manifold, whereas (by definition) curvature is absent from a homogeneous gravitational field. Nevertheless, it is possible – at least in principle – to construct such a thing, by a suitable arrangement of masses (a fact which strangely doesn’t seem to embarrass those who identify gravity with curvature). The resolution of this conundrum is simply that gravity is not a local phenomenon. Indeed this is another way of expressing the equivalence principle.


It would be nice if Woodward handled this the way most scientists would such as through a letter to the editor or his own paper, since that would facilitate a reply from Rodal.

I agree, though probably Woodward is already in direct contact with Rodal, so I doubt publishing a paper would facilitate him. Anyway, I don't think it is impossible that a paper could follow.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 07/14/2019 02:03 am
Povel, I am not going to directly respond to your giant post above, it is a gish-gallop of incorrect claims, and you dragging things further and further off topic (meta-meta-discussion resulting from you saying I am making accusations while you avoid addressing what you actually said.) Taking your hypothetical example about a grammatical criticism of Rodal's paper, the topic would be the grammar of Rodal's paper, not grammar in general, you introduce a false dichotomy in your argument to change the subject, just as you did in the thread. Based on this I do take back my claim that your were lying when you claimed I was changing the subject. You have adequately demonstrated that you somehow can't comprehend that the topic of discussion has always been Rodal's paper, in particularly its accuracy, which involves criticisms of the paper and responses to said criticisms.

As another example of how your post is just dragging things away from the subject at hand, you again demonstrate your lack of understanding of Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism, while entirely dropping any reference to the reason you originally brought it up: you claimed there is no back reaction in the theory, even though it is there.

Anyway, I am tired of trying to respond to your endless list of misunderstandings of everything you are talking about, if you want to make a criticism of Rodal's paper you can write a letter to the editor and the review process can sort out your misunderstandings.

[..] More relevantly, there are techinical issues with what was said, for now I will just leave it at this:
That is, calling phi + PHI = PHITOT, PHITOT = phi, which is minuscule by comparison with PHI. 
translating that into more clear wording, and changing phi, PHI, and PHITOT to a,b,and c respectively, that says:
a+b=c, |a| << |b|, therefore a=c. There is a pretty clear problem with that and that is obviously not what is said in Rodal's paper. This does not seem to be just a typo, I don't see coherent way to make sense of the rest of Woodward's statements on the subject.
He is simply stating that both Brans-Dicke and Rodal are ignoring the enormous non-local potential due to the rest of the universe and only considering the local one, which is very much what they are doing. This comes from a conception of gravity that associates it only with local non null curvature, which is not quite right.
No, as I said, he incorrectly assigns to Rodal a completely backwards and contradictory assumption thorugh the provided equations.

Woodward explains this further in the JBIS paper. It is also explained in this mathpage article (https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath622/kmath622.htm) I already posted:

Quote
Einstein did not regard “flat” Minkowski spacetime as being free of a gravitational field. He regarded the inertial field and the gravitational field as identical, represented by the metric tensor. ...

But from Woodward:
All of his [Brans'] math follows from a formalism for general relativity devised by Landau and Lifschitz many years ago recently explicated by Poisson and Will in their recent text Gravity.  The formalism is constructed in Minkowski spacetime -- spacetime with inertia, but without gravity.  So, obviously, inertia is not a gravitational phenomenon.  Brans' work is referred to as justification for this assumption.
Yet another inconsistency. And I use that word explicitly, since based on your previous post you don't understand that a statement of the form "Someone says X here, but the opposite of X there" is the definition of pointing out an inconsistency.

It would be nice if Woodward handled this the way most scientists would such as through a letter to the editor or his own paper, since that would facilitate a reply from Rodal.

I agree, though probably Woodward is already in direct contact with Rodal, so I doubt publishing a paper would facilitate him. Anyway, I don't think it is impossible that a paper could follow.
I didn't really phrase my statement correctly there, the point is to have a discussion in a peer-reviewed arena full of people who understand the relevant physics, rather than on some e-mail list of Woodward's fans.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Povel on 07/14/2019 12:42 pm
Povel, I am not going to directly respond to your giant post above, it is a gish-gallop of incorrect claims, and you dragging things further and further off topic (meta-meta-discussion resulting from you saying I am making accusations while you avoid addressing what you actually said.)


I had to search what "gish-gallop" means.
So essentially you are now accusing me of drowning the thread with irrelevant and fallacious statements.
Of course for making your point you should prove at least that a significant number of my claims is indeed irrelevant and fallacious. That takes a bit more effort than simply stating it, like you have repeatedly done.

Originally I was only trying to show you how your claim about Brans paper is wrong. You didn't address my points in any reasonable way, but you brought more and more arguments in the discussion , which I addressed.
 
I literally addressed every single claim that I made by citing sources and explaining them; your only comeback was that I was twisting them (without proving how).


Taking your hypothetical example about a grammatical criticism of Rodal's paper, the topic would be the grammar of Rodal's paper, not grammar in general, you introduce a false dichotomy in your argument to change the subject, just as you did in the thread.


I don't see any false dichotomy here. Grammar of Rodal's paper is "grammar in general". There's only one grammar.
If you are talking about it you are evidently not talking "about" Rodal's paper, because it is a subject that is completely removed from it, and can be discussed totally separately from Rodal's paper..just like Brans paper and its content.


You have adequately demonstrated that you somehow can't comprehend that the topic of discussion has always been Rodal's paper, in particularly its accuracy, which involves criticisms of the paper and responses to said criticisms.


Show me where the content of the following quote appears inside Rodal' paper then, in particular the underlined part.

Quote
Brans clearly and explicitly found that the Mach effect producing local forces is simply not a real effect present in GR. He found that there is no real, physically detectable, local inertial-induction effect in general relativity capable of generating forces due to mechanical coupling with the distant universe. This non existent inertial-induction effect underlies the claims that Woodward has made. What Brans addresses is explicitly the form of Mach's principle needed for Woodward's device to do anything.

I introduced this as a rephrasing of your point of view regarding the content of Brans' paper. You didn't disagree with this characterization.


As another example of how your post is just dragging things away from the subject at hand, you again demonstrate your lack of understanding of Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism, while entirely dropping any reference to the reason you originally brought it up: you claimed there is no back reaction in the theory, even though it is there.


Explain how I'm demonstrating a lack of understanding of Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism please.

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html (http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html)

Section 27-2 and 27-6

As for the backreaction, again, it is not there unless you introduce an additional law (which can be either field-charge momentum conservation or, equivalently, since it is contained in it, Lorentz force law; the latter is just the rate-of change of the momentum in matter).
Maxwell 4 equations are insufficent without an additional law, and they don't give you any interaction between field and other charges.

I explained the problem of linear field equations (all linear field equations in fact); it seems you didn't have anything in particular to criticize about it, but still felt the need to claim I'm wrong for no good reason. Not a proper way to argue, I'm afraid.


Anyway, I am tired of trying to respond to your endless list of misunderstandings of everything you are talking about, if you want to make a criticism of Rodal's paper you can write a letter to the editor and the review process can sort out your misunderstandings.


I wrote my wall of text mainly as a reply to your previous post, in particular:


All of this basically amounts to assertions that presuppose the existence of a theory that you refer to as HN-SEP. It does not make sense for such a theory to exist, since the variations that supposedly drive the Mach effect seem like they would inherently violate the strong equivalence principle.

If you are going to claim that Fearn or Woodward uses a version of HN different from the one in the paper I linked (which demonstrates equivalence with Brans-Dicke) Then you are going to have to point out what specifically is different. After that, you can work on trying to demonstrate compatibility with the strong equivalence principle.

It is simply impossible to satisfy your request in a shorter post. If you weren't interested in receiving a reply, you should have not wrote this.

I have shown you:

- How HN-SEP exists.

- How Fearn and Woodward use a version of HN that is not the same of the one used by Rodal, and I explained in what they differ.

- How HN  is not equivalent to BD in general.

You didn't provide any reasonable criticism on any of the point above.

You are free to ignore whatever you want, but in a conversation this is called a cop out.

No, as I said, he incorrectly assigns to Rodal a completely backwards and contradictory assumption thorugh the provided equations.

You are reading too much into this, the expression is not meant to be an equation, but a statement about what Brans-Dicke and Rodal factually do. The rest of the reply and the paper I linked support this view.

Strong local potential would be incompatible with the approximation used by Rodal in section 2, and strong non-local potential are simply ignored under almost any circumstances. Woodward's claim (and not only his,as I've shown) is that the latter is not always justified, nor correct.


Woodward explains this further in the JBIS paper. It is also explained in this mathpage article I already posted:

Quote
Einstein did not regard “flat” Minkowski spacetime as being free of a gravitational field. He regarded the inertial field and the gravitational field as identical, represented by the metric tensor. ...

But from Woodward:
All of his [Brans'] math follows from a formalism for general relativity devised by Landau and Lifschitz many years ago recently explicated by Poisson and Will in their recent text Gravity.  The formalism is constructed in Minkowski spacetime -- spacetime with inertia, but without gravity.  So, obviously, inertia is not a gravitational phenomenon.  Brans' work is referred to as justification for this assumption.
Yet another inconsistency. And I use that word explicitly, since based on your previous post you don't understand that a statement of the form "Someone says X here, but the opposite of X there" is the definition of pointing out an inconsistency.


The subject of your quote from Woodward is not Brans, but Rodal.

Anyway, there is no inconsistency.
Woodward point is that a cosmic Minkowski spacetime and asymptotic flatness are a physical impossibility that hide the machian nature of GR. What appears to be a minkowskian flat spacetime can also result from cosmologies with uniform mass-energy distribution. He goes more in detail about this in the JBIS paper:

Quote
Minkowski spacetime, of course, is an unobservable fiction that exists nowhere in our universe, a pre-general relativistic artefact. The closest thing to flat spacetime in our reality is the spatially flat spacetime of FRW cosmology. And that spacetime is a gravitational field with Φ = c2


This point is fundamentally the same made by the author of mathpages in the quote I copied. See also the drawing provided in the same page. It is also a point stressed in MTW in its Mach's principle section.


I didn't really phrase my statement correctly there, the point is to have a discussion in a peer-reviewed arena full of people who understand the relevant physics, rather than on some e-mail list of Woodward's fans.


I still agree.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: soms42 on 07/15/2019 06:04 am
I see diminishing constructive text in the discussion between Povel and Meberbs.
I would suggest that Povel and Meberbs move their dispute to a private channel.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/15/2019 12:13 pm
After running some tests with shaped DC loops on another thread, I was a little concerned that Lorentz forces could have influenced my earlier results with the asymmetric shaker on the Fullerton-style thrust balance. So I removed the magnets and springs and just ran the harmonic AC signals through the voice coils.  Since the signals are both harmonic and AC, I was expecting the Lorentz forces to sum to zero.  I was pleasantly surprised that I was correct as you can see in the chart below.  There were zero Lorentz forces detected when 2-second 125 hz harmonic AC signals are sent through the coils. This was a test that I needed to check off the list to make sure it cannot be claimed the coils are interacting with the ambient B field.

This test confirms that the earlier false-positive results were caused solely by the anharmonic vibrations in the device.

The slow movement upwards in the displacement plot is because I was not patient enough to wait the hour or two it takes for the bearings to droop down to their lowest position after making a major change to the mass of the balance.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 07/15/2019 04:07 pm
I see diminishing constructive text in the discussion between Povel and Meberbs.
I would suggest that Povel and Meberbs move their dispute to a private channel.

Not understanding the context or details of their discussion doesn't mean it's not constructive.  This is a forum to discuss the fundamental principals of the concept as well as experiment.  If they want to they can split the thread into theoretical and experimental bit ultimately the two are interlaced.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 07/15/2019 06:05 pm
I see diminishing constructive text in the discussion between Povel and Meberbs.
I would suggest that Povel and Meberbs move their dispute to a private channel.

Not understanding the context or details of their discussion doesn't mean it's not constructive.  This is a forum to discuss the fundamental principals of the concept as well as experiment.  If they want to they can split the thread into theoretical and experimental bit ultimately the two are interlaced.

Does that include personal disputes as I fail to see how that adds anything to the thread. As this is NSF not some reality TV show.

I see diminishing constructive text in the discussion between Povel and Meberbs.
I would suggest that Povel and Meberbs move their dispute to a private channel.

Not understanding the context or details of their discussion doesn't mean it's not constructive.  This is a forum to discuss the fundamental principals of the concept as well as experiment.  If they want to they can split the thread into theoretical and experimental bit ultimately the two are interlaced.

Does that include personal disputes as I fail to see how that adds anything to the thread. As this is NSF not some reality TV show.

They are discussing fundamental principals of the concept but depending on who the discussion is between it can be a heated or not so heated.  Maybe if both parties agree to not make comments that pertain to individuals and restrict comments rather to the concept.  The problem is the challenging or accusing that one is not comprehending or understanding the concept while the other says the accusations are unfounded and they do understand.  Again it comes down to ironing out the theoretical concept of the effect. 

If there is some incorrect way of looking at it as opposed to a correct way, or even that two ways of looking at it are not possible to tell which is correct with out further evidence of testing then it should be discussed as not knowing may stiffle further development. 

For instance knowing that to discern which concept is correct may require further testing would be important to know and how to test correctly to properly discern between concepts. 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: dustinthewind on 07/15/2019 10:16 pm
Sometimes all you need to do is to agree to disagree and move on..

Well, yeah if it's not worth discussing but let's say the disagreement is over the fundamental behavior of space time.  Let's say it's determined if there is an effect then these assumptions about the fundamental behavior of space time are different than if there is no effect.  Further tests then determine something fundamental about the nature of space time.  Not discussing it all because of disagreement and just ignoring it may lead to learning nothing or even overlooking better routes to testing.  Is it congruent with general relativity or isn't it? 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 07/16/2019 02:18 am
The subject of your quote from Woodward is not Brans, but Rodal.
This may be one of the only correct things you said in your post. I misread it since Brans was the last name stated before the "his," but looking at the context that doesn't make as much sense. There is an issue with the subject being Rodal that I didn't notice before, since Rodal used more than theory in his paper, something that Woodward ignores. The subject isn't really relevant to the point I made though. The point was the inconsistency in Woodward's statements, and your addition of a third quote doe not resolve the inconsistency between the quotes I pointed out.

I am not going to respond to your post in detail just yet, it is another gish-gallop, bringing back subjects that I previously listed as off topic. (If you want a tutorial on electromagnetism, you can PM me and ask.) Even the parts where I narrowed the subject back down to the more recent criticism, you responded with a variety of incorrect statements, such as claiming an equation isn't an equation, that Rodal said something he didn't.

You are free to ignore whatever you want, but in a conversation this is called a cop out.
That is rather one sided of you based on your posts so far, but one nice thing about the forum format is that given enough time a gish-gallop can be dealt with. I have always found it helpful for my understanding to explain things, and can write a series of posts over time responding point-by-point to your claims, I'll still jump over things that are not even tangentially related to the subject at hand such as electromagnetism.

Per the discussion above about the appropriateness of continuing this discussion. There are parts of the conversation between me and Povel that are not appropriate for various reasons, either of us could have just stopped replying to those parts at any time, making us both at fault, further analysis would just drag this thread further off topic. There are many technical things wrong with what Povel has said and clarifying them would be of benefit. It seems some people tend to treat statements like the previous sentence as some kind of personal attack, rather than a simple statement that he has misunderstandings which can be corrected.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: RERT on 07/16/2019 04:32 pm
...
This test confirms that the earlier false-positive results were caused solely by the anharmonic vibrations in the device.
...

Monomorphic - a couple of questions:

1) Can you confirm that the false-positive displacement is a function of the Moment of Inertia of the balance, at a given driving frequency?

2) If so, then is (whoever is responsible for measuring on Woodward's balance) aware that a test showing no sensitivity of (final) displacement to the MI of the balance will therefore argue against a false positive?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/16/2019 10:53 pm
1) Can you confirm that the false-positive displacement is a function of the Moment of Inertia of the balance, at a given driving frequency?

I am working on confirming that now. In the next set of experiments, I will be adding mass to the torsional pendulum to increase the moment of inertia. The prediction for a false-positive is that the magnitude of the signal will also change, but it should not if it was real thrust.

2) If so, then is (whoever is responsible for measuring on Woodward's balance) aware that a test showing no sensitivity of (final) displacement to the MI of the balance will therefore argue against a false positive?

Woodward et al. are aware of these kinds of tests as they have been recommended before. I know I recommended changing the moment of inertia by altering the length of the pendulum arm, for example. My understanding is that Woodward views these kinds of tests as a distraction and so resists spending time and resources doing them.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: RERT on 07/18/2019 02:45 pm
I am working on confirming that now. In the next set of experiments, I will be adding mass to the torsional pendulum to increase the moment of inertia. The prediction for a false-positive is that the magnitude of the signal will also change, but it should not if it was real thrust.
That's great news, I look forward to seeing your results!

Quote
Woodward et al. are aware of these kinds of tests as they have been recommended before. I know I recommended changing the moment of inertia by altering the length of the pendulum arm, for example. My understanding is that Woodward views these kinds of tests as a distraction and so resists spending time and resources doing them.

Thanks. I guess if he felt that his results were not yet unambiguously out of the noise, or even technologically uninteresting, his approach might make sense. First get a signal people care about, then search for possible errors. But still, not the only possible approach, and not exactly designed to encourage constructive suggestions.

I guess we will see how he does in the long term.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/18/2019 09:19 pm
Dr. Jack Sarfatti and Professor Woodward's recent exchange over Dr. Rodal's paper:


From: Jack Sarfatti
Date: Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 12:14 PM

Sorry Jim but none of the equations you write below are consistent with Einstein’s general theory of relativity.

No one who is anyone in mainstream theoretical physics thinks that the rest masses m of elementary particles has anything to do with the classical gravitation field or with cosmology. In fact, you profoundly violate the Einstein equivalence principle. The fundamental property of gravitation is to determine the global pattern of invariant light cones and of real EM-weak-strong force-free timelike geodesics of test particles in which their rest mass m cancels out as was even known to Galileo.

Your use of “phi” makes no sense at all.

e.g. in SSS metric in Einstein’s GR

g00 = 1 + 2phi/c2

where phi  = Newtonian gravity potential per unit test particle mass = -GM/r  where M = SSS source mass.

Not one important theoretical physicist in gravitation of the stature of Kip Thorne for example has endorsed your use of Sciama’s speculation from the 1950’s that he in fact gave up on.




From: "Woodward, James"
Date: Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 4:05 AM

No Jack, it is your assertion that is "not even wrong" in mainstream general relativity.

In spatially flat FRW cosmology the positive non-gravitational energy is:

Ei = mic2

where the subscript i denotes inertial quantities (Einstein, 1905), whereas the gravitational potential energy is:

Eg = mg(phi)

where the subscript g refers to gravitational quantities, mg being the passive gravitational mass, and these quantities are equal and opposite because gravitational energy is negative, so their sum is zero:

mi  c2 - mg (phi) = 0

and,

mi = mg (phi)/c2

If gravitational and inertial mass are equal, as required by the Equivalence Principle, then phi = c2.  This is true for the universe as a whole, and all of its constituent parts.

This has been known for decades about spatially flat FRW cosmology, though its significance has not been appreciated.

 

From: JACK SARFATTI
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 8:13 AM
 

mass = (m X PHI)/c2
 

not even wrong in mainstream general relativity
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/19/2019 10:17 pm
From: Jack Sarfatti
Date: Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 8:26 PM

Typo in 1.6 forgot to include stress tensor





From: Jack Sarfatti
Date: Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 5:21 PM


c^2(x) = [electric permittivity tensor of meta-material(x) + vacuum(x)]uv[magnetic permeability tensor of meta-material(x) + vacuum(x)]^-1

c^2(x) = {[electric permittivity tensor of meta-material(x) + vacuum(x)]uv[magnetic permeability tensor of meta-material(x) + vacuum(x)]^u^v}^-1





From: Jack Sarfatti
Date: Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 12:29 PM


Jim you are completely confused. Your mathematics does not hold together. Your phi = c^2 contradicts your equation 3.2 in your book.

You do not understand the equivalence principle. There is no such thing as a gravitational force in the same sense as the electromagnetic force.

The gravity field creates real force free timelike zero g weightless “free-float” (JA Wheeler) geodesics. This was “Einstein’s happiest thought”.

Real forces push test particles OFF their timelike geodesics (g-force).

You confused constancy and uniformity of speed of light in vacuum with Lorentz invariance of speed of light in special relativity and with tensor covariance in general relativity and you have no understanding of how the Hawking  Unruh effect impacts the issue of what “c” is in G/c^4.

The c(x) I use in meta-material is a spin 0 scalar field, it is a nonuniform dynamic local frame invariant inside the material – a zero rank tensor field from the contraction of the 4D electrical permittivity tensor with the 4d magnetic permeability tensor of the meta-material.

c^2(x) = (permittivity tensor(x) uv permeability tensor ^u^v)^-1

where x is a space-time event in the rest frame of the solid-state meta-material.




From: "Woodward, James"
Date: Friday, July 19, 2019 at 4:00 AM
 

Actually Jack, all of what I've said is part of mainstream general relativity.  All I've done is point out that the properties of the spatially flat FRW cosmology are exactly those required to make inertia and inertial forces gravitational as Einstein insisted must be the case.  Flatness is now the measured fact of our reality.  And Carl Brans' spectator matter argument makes the total Newtonian potential that is  consequence of that cosmology the "locally measured invariant" that it must be for inertial effects to be as we observe them.  No "new" physics (as in your scheme).  Just rearrangement of well-known puzzle pieces.
 
If you want anyone with a reasonable grasp of physics to take you seriously, you should find a willing experimentalist and get him/her to do a test of your scheme.  Until then, people will take the value of c in the denominator of 8piG/c^4 to be the locally measured invariant VACUUM speed of light -- which is everywhere/when (including in media) = 3 X 10^8 m/s.  Maybe you should try to get Keith to work with you on this.  He has both the theoretical and experimental skills you need.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 07/20/2019 01:08 am
From: Jack Sarfatti
Date: Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 5:21 PM

c^2(x) = [electric permittivity tensor of meta-material(x) + vacuum(x)]uv[magnetic permeability tensor of meta-material(x) + vacuum(x)]^-1

c^2(x) = {[electric permittivity tensor of meta-material(x) + vacuum(x)]uv[magnetic permeability tensor of meta-material(x) + vacuum(x)]^u^v}^-1

This bit seems to be about Jack Sarfatti's own theory, rather than Woodward's.

I actually agree with points made by both Sarfatti and Woodward here:

Sarfatti actually dropped by the emDrive here a few months ago in response to some criticisms I had of his theory. He failed to address my main points, one of which was the same as one Woodward makes here: Sarfatti should go propose an actual experimental test of his theory.

Sarfatti's points about Woodward's theory seem more or less on point, except for where he starts promoting his own theory as an alternative. It is clear that c being a constant and phi = c^2 therefore being a constant, makes multiple parts of Woodward's equations simply go away. (Unless Woodward intends for his theory to have a variable speed of light, in which case he needs to start taking a lot more care of variables, because any theory that makes fundamental constants variable needs careful treatment of definitions that Woodward seems to be lacking.)
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/20/2019 10:38 pm
There is a detailed article on the Mach Effect in the latest Scientific American magazine. They even mention me in the article!

"At the Space Studies Institute's 2018 Workshop, a software engineer named Jamie Ciomperlik presented a simulation showing how vibrations in the system could masquerade as oomph."

I cannot post the whole article because of copyright.

The Good Kind of Crazy: The Quest for Exotic Propulsion:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/magazine/sa/2019/08-01/
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob Woods on 07/21/2019 12:52 am
There is a detailed article on the Mach Effect in the latest Scientific American magazine. They even mention me in the article!


Congrats!! Next stop, Stephen Colbert?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/21/2019 11:44 pm
Congrats!! Next stop, Stephen Colbert?

Doubtful!  It has been ~50 years and nobody remembers the people that showed the Dean drive was useless.

I also can't take the credit for the original idea of a false-positive from center-of-mass changes as I got that from Donald E. Simanek, 2003. https://lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/museum/test-pm.htm

"Due to the asymmetric motion inside the box, the center of mass of the box and its contents shifts relative to the box. But the center of mass must still remain where it was before (relative to the laboratory). So the box moves aside, while its center of mass stays put. Newton's laws were working properly, as they always do."
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Star One on 07/22/2019 06:27 am
Congrats!! Next stop, Stephen Colbert?

Doubtful!  It has been ~50 years and nobody remembers the people that showed the Dean drive was useless.

I also can't take the credit for the original idea of a false-positive from center-of-mass changes as I got that from Donald E. Simanek, 2003. https://lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/museum/test-pm.htm

"Due to the asymmetric motion inside the box, the center of mass of the box and its contents shifts relative to the box. But the center of mass must still remain where it was before (relative to the laboratory). So the box moves aside, while its center of mass stays put. Newton's laws were working properly, as they always do."

Why would they remember them?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/27/2019 06:05 pm
There is a detailed article on the Mach Effect in the latest Scientific American magazine. They even mention me in the article!

"At the Space Studies Institute's 2018 Workshop, a software engineer named Jamie Ciomperlik presented a simulation showing how vibrations in the system could masquerade as oomph."

I cannot post the whole article because of copyright.

The Good Kind of Crazy: The Quest for Exotic Propulsion:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/magazine/sa/2019/08-01/

As usual, they build you up then dump cold water at the end by claiming Tajmar essentially completely nullified the effect which I seriously don't believe given the gross and fundamental errors he made in 2018 according to Fearn (as I understand it). Then they open it back up just a tiny crack claiming the last word isn't in yet. At least they admit it is a 'good' crazy and it's getting press.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: MathewOrman on 07/28/2019 01:59 pm
There is a detailed article on the Mach Effect in the latest Scientific American magazine. They even mention me in the article!

"At the Space Studies Institute's 2018 Workshop, a software engineer named Jamie Ciomperlik presented a simulation showing how vibrations in the system could masquerade as oomph."

I cannot post the whole article because of copyright.

The Good Kind of Crazy: The Quest for Exotic Propulsion:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/magazine/sa/2019/08-01/

As usual, they build you up then dump cold water at the end by claiming Tajmar essentially completely nullified the effect which I seriously don't believe given the gross and fundamental errors he made in 2018 according to Fearn (as I understand it). Then they open it back up just a tiny crack claiming the last word isn't in yet. At least they admit it is a 'good' crazy and it's getting press.
Real inventions are based on discoveries...
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/31/2019 04:13 pm
The latest from Professor Woodward:

Gand efolk,[sic]

Heidi was back for a few days and then off to visit family in New Zealand, where she'll be until 10 August.  Meanwhile, life goes on.  The most noteworthy events of the past few weeks are the publication of "A good kind of crazy" in the August issue of Scientific American and an effort to deal with what appears to be a calibration disparity.  3M (Martin, Maxime and Matthias) now see the sort of thrust signatures we do, but claim that they are a factor of 60 smaller than we find them to be.  So we have sent them the parts to build a calibrator like ours.  And we've also sent calibrator parts to George (an internationally known metrologist) to calibrate our calibration system.  Somebodies' calibration system is mucked up, and we're going to find out whose.

As for the lab, we're  still trying to figure out why some devices are duds an other work respectably.  This is complicated by Murphy's Law and my carelessness --  breaking things.  Yesterday was not a good day.  Today is given over to fixing the stuff that got broken yesterday. And maybe tomorrow too. Maybe the day after will be better. . . .

Keep the faith,

Jim


Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/31/2019 05:19 pm
The Scientific American article referenced is no longer behind a paywall: 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-good-kind-of-crazy-the-quest-for-exotic-propulsion/
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/01/2019 01:20 pm
New article by Tajmar on tests on the Emdrive and on Woodward device:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009457651832071X 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/02/2019 05:43 pm
Congrats!! Next stop, Stephen Colbert?

Doubtful!  It has been ~50 years and nobody remembers the people that showed the Dean drive was useless.

I also can't take the credit for the original idea of a false-positive from center-of-mass changes as I got that from Donald E. Simanek, 2003. https://lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/museum/test-pm.htm

"Due to the asymmetric motion inside the box, the center of mass of the box and its contents shifts relative to the box. But the center of mass must still remain where it was before (relative to the laboratory). So the box moves aside, while its center of mass stays put. Newton's laws were working properly, as they always do."

Why would they remember them?

What are the chances that Dean unwittingly captured the Woodward effect and never knew it? Looking at Woodward's equations, I wonder if a mechanical analog is possible and if so, easier to magnify?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/10/2019 02:55 am
I have replaced the home-made hand-wrapped voice coils with identical coils salvaged from loud speakers. I have at least a dozen of these.  :D

These coils are 6 ohm, but I need to use a 470 ohm resistor to get the sub mA required for reliable ~1uN calibration pulses. For now, I change the force by changing voltage.

I also refurbished the asymmetric shaker and mounted it to the torsional pendulum so I can continue experimenting to confirm the false-positive signals are largely influenced by the moment of inertia of the torsional pendulum.



Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/11/2019 02:18 pm
Another false positive confirmed at 117 Hz using the new frictionless asymmetric shaker.  Coincidentally, the 0.94 uN false positive is very close in magnitude to the 1.01 uN calibration pulse.

The next step is to add mass to the pendulum and see how changing the moment of inertia of the system influences the false positive.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/11/2019 03:45 pm
Another false positive confirmed at 117 Hz using the new frictionless asymmetric shaker.  Coincidentally, the 0.94 uN false positive is very close in magnitude to the 1.01 uN calibration pulse.

The next step is to add mass to the pendulum and see how changing the moment of inertia of the system influences the false positive.

And why is it false? Thanks.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/11/2019 03:52 pm
And here is the test with ~250 grams added to the pendulum. Two things can be noticed immediately, the false positive signal shape is different and the magnitude of the signal has decreased by ~23%. 

I suspect we might be able to get the false positive shape back (albeit at a lower magnitude) if we ran the signal for twice as long. However, I don't dare run this device for more than 10 seconds at a time with long cool off periods as there is a chance of it melting since it is made of mostly 3D printed parts.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/11/2019 03:57 pm
And why is it false? Thanks.

The device uses two voice coils and four springs to vibrate two magnets at an audible resonance (117 Hz in this case). The oscillations cause a center of mass shift inside the box which makes the geometry shift a little. 

The device dynamically changes the zero position of the balance. If it was real thrust, then the signal should not have changed much with the added 250 grams - like the calibration pulse didn't change much.

If the measured force is different for balances with different moment of inertia, it means that the force is an artifact.

If the force is EXTERNAL, the force should be measurable regardless of a change in inertia of the pendulum (like the calibration pulse).  The fact that adding mass to the pendulum decreases the measured force, shows that what is measured is NOT an external force. 

It does not come from the Mach effect of stars billions of light years away. It is an INTERNAL artifact.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: SeeShells on 08/12/2019 01:31 am
The one issue I have with your very fine testing is you haven't matched the 37KHz drive frequency that the MEGA drive uses. 117HZ is 316 times lower.
Shell

And why is it false? Thanks.

The device uses two voice coils and four springs to vibrate two magnets at an audible resonance (117 Hz in this case). The oscillations cause a center of mass shift inside the box which makes the geometry shift a little. 

The device dynamically changes the zero position of the balance. If it was real thrust, then the signal should not have changed much with the added 250 grams - like the calibration pulse didn't change much.

If the measured force is different for balances with different moment of inertia, it means that the force is an artifact.

If the force is EXTERNAL, the force should be measurable regardless of a change in inertia of the pendulum (like the calibration pulse).  The fact that adding mass to the pendulum decreases the measured force, shows that what is measured is NOT an external force. 

It does not come from the Mach effect of stars billions of light years away. It is an INTERNAL artifact.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/12/2019 02:27 am
The one issue I have with your very fine testing is you haven't matched the 37KHz drive frequency that the MEGA drive uses. 117HZ is 316 times lower.

What difference does that make?  Does an experimental artifact with voice coils at 117 Hz mean that at 37 kHz there can be no experimental artifact with a piezo transducer?

These experiments show that Woodward's earlier claims that my simulations break conservation of momentum is complete nonsense.  It is trivial to make the balance move aside for longer than the period of the pendulum using nothing more than mechanical oscillations.

This casts serious doubt on the validity of Woodward's measurements as his thrust balance is not nearly as infallible as he would have you believe.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: SeeShells on 08/12/2019 05:09 am
The one issue I have with your very fine testing is you haven't matched the 37KHz drive frequency that the MEGA drive uses. 117HZ is 316 times lower.

What difference does that make?  Does an experimental artifact with voice coils at 117 Hz mean that at 37 kHz there can be no experimental artifact with a piezo transducer?

These experiments show that Woodward's earlier claims that my simulations break conservation of momentum is complete nonsense.  It is trivial to make the balance move aside for longer than the period of the pendulum using nothing more than mechanical oscillations.

This casts serious doubt on the validity of Woodward's measurements as his thrust balance is not nearly as infallible as he would have you believe.
Not saying that the thrust balance is infallible but your 117Hz given the harmonic length and weight of your balance arm would tend to show a greater movement and deviation at lower frequencies than 37KHz.

What you designed is similar to a metronome with weights attached driven by a set of coils that you use to represent the MEGA device.

Keeping the arm length and the masses the same while driving at a higher frequency would lead to a greater damping movement of the arm itself. Similar you tried to froce drive a metronome arm at a higher frequency using voice coils. This is why I question results with the lower driving frequency. I believe you would need to drive it at the 37KHz with mass and lengths the same to be a viable test to truly refute Woodward's findings.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/Metronome_Nikko.jpg/800px-Metronome_Nikko.jpg)

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/12/2019 06:11 am
This is why I question results with the lower driving frequency. I believe you would need to drive it at the 37KHz with mass and lengths the same to be a viable test to truly refute Woodward's findings.

No, it is much simpler, and the responsibility of Woodward, who is the person making the claim of new physics, to run the recommended experiments by adding mass to the pendulum and looking for changes in the signal strength. Woodward has been fighting tooth and nail to prevent these kinds of tests. I think it is because he knows that adding mass to the pendulum decreases the measured force.

Then there is the fact that the ~2 uN claimed by Woodward has never been reproduced by an independent lab. All replications have been over an order of magnitude less than what Woodward is measuring. This huge difference cannot be made up for by an error in their calibration. The only plausible explanation is that it is an artifact.

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: SeeShells on 08/12/2019 01:40 pm
This is why I question results with the lower driving frequency. I believe you would need to drive it at the 37KHz with mass and lengths the same to be a viable test to truly refute Woodward's findings.

No, it is much simpler, and the responsibility of Woodward, who is the person making the claim of new physics, to run the recommended experiments by adding mass to the pendulum and looking for changes in the signal strength. Woodward has been fighting tooth and nail to prevent these kinds of tests. I think it is because he knows that adding mass to the pendulum decreases the measured force.

Then there is the fact that the ~2 uN claimed by Woodward has never been reproduced by an independent lab. All replications have been over an order of magnitude less than what Woodward is measuring. This huge difference cannot be made up for by an error in their calibration. The only plausible explanation is that it is an artifact.
I would politely disagree.

Since you took to the task to refute the MEGA drive it is your task to make sure your results mirror the test bed and device to the best of your ability. To me and others our testing still leaves questions unanswered.

As you know I've also been critical of the Woodward test bed and the construction of the devices and test bed, from physical construction, thermal curing and to even the unprofessional levels of wiring and soldering.

You have taken extraordinary time, effort and technical expertise to construct various test beds to test multiple devices and I was one of the first to say so. To me you have left out an important detail with this frequency of operation, (regardless of what others have or have not tested).

Sadly Woodward does not take criticism of his work and from advise from those experienced in the art in a positive nature. You shouldn't either. If this is an artifact of the test bed/device and not a reflection of The Mach Effect, then you should take the steps needed.

Shell
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/12/2019 02:02 pm
Since you took to the task to refute the MEGA drive it is your task to make sure your results mirror the test bed and device to the best of your ability. To me and others our testing still leaves questions unanswered.

As you know I've also been critical of the Woodward test bed and the construction of the devices and test bed, from physical construction, thermal curing and to even the unprofessional levels of wiring and soldering.

You have taken extraordinary time, effort and technical expertise to construct various test beds to test multiple devices and I was one of the first to say so. To me you have left out an important detail with this frequency of operation, (regardless of what others have or have not tested).

Sadly Woodward does not take criticism of his work and from advise from those experienced in the art in a positive nature. You shouldn't either. If this is an artifact of the test bed/device and not a reflection of The Mach Effect, then you should take the steps needed.

How is this anything other than moving the goal post? Now, using my own funds (I never took a cent from anyone), I am expected to exactly replicate every aspect of the mach effect device, while Woodward (with over half a million dollars in grants from NASA) isn't even expected to perform a simple recommended (and inexpensive) experiment such as adding ~300 grams of mass.  That is an experiment that could be performed in a lazy afternoon, but it is also an experiment that he absolutely refuses to let happen because the results could falsify his measurements. 

That's not taking criticism badly, that is acting in bad faith. 

I have now proven what I set out to prove: there is no doubt that oscillations can produce false positives on a Fullerton style thrust balance, the moment of inertia of the balance has a large influence on the shape and magnitude of the false-positive signal, and my previous simulations are not breaking conservation of momentum (as claimed by Woodward).  ;D
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: bad_astra on 08/12/2019 04:43 pm
This is why I question results with the lower driving frequency. I believe you would need to drive it at the 37KHz with mass and lengths the same to be a viable test to truly refute Woodward's findings.

No, it is much simpler, and the responsibility of Woodward, who is the person making the claim of new physics, to run the recommended experiments by adding mass to the pendulum and looking for changes in the signal strength. Woodward has been fighting tooth and nail to prevent these kinds of tests. I think it is because he knows that adding mass to the pendulum decreases the measured force.

I hate getting involved in this thread. And I won't reply further if I can avoid it.  I appreciate the work you do, but that is unfair comment on Woodward. From what I've seen, you're at least as emotionally committed in your own method of finding as he might be. These oscillation periods could be important, and you can't really claim to have a viable falsification method if you're not employing that. I appreciate the effort and work you put into it, but Shells is correct.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 08/12/2019 04:59 pm
This is why I question results with the lower driving frequency. I believe you would need to drive it at the 37KHz with mass and lengths the same to be a viable test to truly refute Woodward's findings.

No, it is much simpler, and the responsibility of Woodward, who is the person making the claim of new physics, to run the recommended experiments by adding mass to the pendulum and looking for changes in the signal strength. Woodward has been fighting tooth and nail to prevent these kinds of tests. I think it is because he knows that adding mass to the pendulum decreases the measured force.

I hate getting involved in this thread. And I won't reply further if I can avoid it.  I appreciate the work you do, but that is unfair comment on Woodward. From what I've seen, you're at least as emotionally committed in your own method of finding as he might be. These oscillation periods could be important, and you can't really claim to have a viable falsification method if you're not employing that. I appreciate the effort and work you put into it, but Shells is correct.
Your comment is the unfair one here. This thread has documented multiple cases of Woodward being completely dismissive of criticism, and otherwise performing various actions inconsistent with appropriate standards of science. It would be trivial for Woodward to run this test, whereas testing to the level that SeeShells requested is nearly impossible for Monomorphic. (It would never be good enough unless he got Woodward's device directly from Woodward.) It is completely unfair to compare Monomorphic's behavior here to Woodward's.

You are misrepresenting what Monomorphic claimed, as the claim is "that oscillations can produce false positives on a Fullerton style thrust balance, the moment of inertia of the balance has a large influence on the shape and magnitude of the false-positive signal, and my previous simulations are not breaking conservation of momentum." The claim is not that this experiment 100% falsifies Woodward's results, just that this is a potential error source that Woodward cannot simply handwave away. It does prove Woodward wrong in his claims about vibrations and conservation of momentum, but this is not the first time Woodward has been caught in a physics mistake.

Frequency may have some impact on the magnitude of the signal produced, but that is not relevant to any of the claims made by Monomorphic. If Woodward's device is a real force, the add mass to the balance method can be used by him to show that the signal is not from that error source.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/12/2019 05:14 pm

I have now proven what I set out to prove...

That's always a bad way to do science. You may be correct but why should I not think you may have confirmation bias?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/12/2019 05:26 pm
That's always a bad way to do science. You may be correct but why should I not think you may have confirmation bias?

The data speaks for itself. If you think there is some specific error in the experiment that can lead to a false false-positive or an error in the conclusions reached, then please point it out and we can discuss.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 08/12/2019 06:47 pm

I have now proven what I set out to prove...

That's always a bad way to do science. You may be correct but why should I not think you may have confirmation bias?
Having a clear and specific end goal (hypothesis) is how science is done, problems arise when the end goal is poorly defined. (The emDrive thread can never end, because there is always going to be "but what if thrust exists, but is even smaller." Until you get down to a photon rocket.)

As Monomorphic says, if there is a flaw in the experiment that means it does not show what it claims to, share it. Accusing someone of confirmation bias when you can see the data that shows exactly what is claimed doesn't even get to be called science. If you have issues with the data, share them, don't attack the experimenter.

To summarize the test results here (I am leaving the results as variables to show the characteristic that matter, you can go back to Monomorphic's results to see exact numbers.):

Initial Configuration:
External calibration pulse: X signal
Internal vibrations: Y signal

With Added Mass:
External calibration pulse: X signal
Internal vibrations: < Y signal
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: SeeShells on 08/12/2019 10:31 pm
This is why I question results with the lower driving frequency. I believe you would need to drive it at the 37KHz with mass and lengths the same to be a viable test to truly refute Woodward's findings.

No, it is much simpler, and the responsibility of Woodward, who is the person making the claim of new physics, to run the recommended experiments by adding mass to the pendulum and looking for changes in the signal strength. Woodward has been fighting tooth and nail to prevent these kinds of tests. I think it is because he knows that adding mass to the pendulum decreases the measured force.

I hate getting involved in this thread. And I won't reply further if I can avoid it.  I appreciate the work you do, but that is unfair comment on Woodward. From what I've seen, you're at least as emotionally committed in your own method of finding as he might be. These oscillation periods could be important, and you can't really claim to have a viable falsification method if you're not employing that. I appreciate the effort and work you put into it, but Shells is correct.
Your comment is the unfair one here. This thread has documented multiple cases of Woodward being completely dismissive of criticism, and otherwise performing various actions inconsistent with appropriate standards of science. It would be trivial for Woodward to run this test, whereas testing to the level that SeeShells requested is nearly impossible for Monomorphic. (It would never be good enough unless he got Woodward's device directly from Woodward.) It is completely unfair to compare Monomorphic's behavior here to Woodward's.

You are misrepresenting what Monomorphic claimed, as the claim is "that oscillations can produce false positives on a Fullerton style thrust balance, the moment of inertia of the balance has a large influence on the shape and magnitude of the false-positive signal, and my previous simulations are not breaking conservation of momentum." The claim is not that this experiment 100% falsifies Woodward's results, just that this is a potential error source that Woodward cannot simply handwave away. It does prove Woodward wrong in his claims about vibrations and conservation of momentum, but this is not the first time Woodward has been caught in a physics mistake.

Frequency may have some impact on the magnitude of the signal produced, but that is not relevant to any of the claims made by Monomorphic. If Woodward's device is a real force, the add mass to the balance method can be used by him to show that the signal is not from that error source.
Quote
Frequency may have some impact on the magnitude of the signal produced, but that is not relevant to any of the claims made by Monomorphic. If Woodward's device is a real force, the add mass to the balance method can be used by him to show that the signal is not from that error source.

Frequency driven harmonic systems do show the impact of frequency and
Not disputing that monomorphic is seeing a asymmetrical deviation of a torsional pendulum with set masses on a pivoting arm, driven by voice coils, springs and weights. His tests setup and build isn't voodoo science but rooted in mechanical physics and yes he will see offsets that could be taken as thrusts but directly related to the frequencies used.
This is not what I question.

I would ask monomorphic to increase his driving frequency through a series of steps to be able to see the effects of the driving frequency to the offsets. Also ask what is the highest frequency he can drive his voice coil/spring/weighs at from his setup.

Shell
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/13/2019 12:43 am
I would ask monomorphic to increase his driving frequency through a series of steps to be able to see the effects of the driving frequency to the offsets. Also ask what is the highest frequency he can drive his voice coil/spring/weighs at from his setup.

In order to explore higher frequencies I will need to either pump up the amplitude (and deal with the heat somehow), or find more efficient voice coils. These home made voice coils are not very efficient as the coils are hand wound and the magnets are not matched very well. This means they do not wiggle (stroke) as much as they could. This is because I had to make them small enough to fit on the Fullerton balance.

Voice coils have a frequency range that they operate within. Typically 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz (20kHz). 
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: aero on 08/13/2019 03:44 am
I would ask monomorphic to increase his driving frequency through a series of steps to be able to see the effects of the driving frequency to the offsets. Also ask what is the highest frequency he can drive his voice coil/spring/weighs at from his setup.

In order to explore higher frequencies I will need to either pump up the amplitude (and deal with the heat somehow), or find more efficient voice coils. These home made voice coils are not very efficient as the coils are hand wound and the magnets are not matched very well. This means they do not wiggle (stroke) as much as they could. This is because I had to make them small enough to fit on the Fullerton balance.

Voice coils have a frequency range that they operate within. Typically 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz (20kHz).

Wouldn't the coil be smaller if you dropped the extremely low frequencies? Smaller to fit on the balance. The frequency range is barely impacted by using a coil ranging from 400 Hz to 20,000 Hz. Am I missing something indispensable that requires the frequency range of 20Hz to 400Hz for the tests you are doing?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: SteveKelsey on 08/13/2019 07:53 am
You can buy replacement voice coils for tweeters online for a few dollars. They will reach 20k hz  and some will go beyond. Very compact and as they are mass produced they are reasonably consistent and to spec. As the diaphragm of the tweeter is an unnecessary mass you can remove this and the high frequency response will improve.

A link to help https://www.ebay.com/b/Tweeter-Voice-Coil-Parts/185027/bn_115558500
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/13/2019 12:46 pm
Wouldn't the coil be smaller if you dropped the extremely low frequencies? Smaller to fit on the balance. The frequency range is barely impacted by using a coil ranging from 400 Hz to 20,000 Hz. Am I missing something indispensable that requires the frequency range of 20Hz to 400Hz for the tests you are doing?

It all comes down to the stroke (displacement) of the magnet inside the voice coil. PZT is unique in that the actuator stroke remains relatively constant even at higher frequencies. My experience with the voice coils is that the stroke decreases pretty rapidly at higher frequencies and the signal drops below the detection range of my laser displacement sensor.



From: Introduction to “Mach Effect Propulsion, an Exact Electroelasticity Solution”  By Dr. Rodal

An electromagnetic shaker, Fig. 7, provides a much larger displacement than a hard PZT Langevin stack, but a significantly smaller force. This is because the force provided by the electromagnetic shaker is effectively given by the magnetic field times the current times the coil length. On the other hand the hard PZT Langevin stack provides a much greater force with a much smaller displacement. This is because the hard PZT Langevin stack’s force is proportional to the modulus of elasticity of the hard PZT (which is close to the modulus of elasticity of aluminum) times the cross-sectional area of the PZT plates, times the piezoelectric coefficient in the longitudinal direction of the stack, times the electric field (applied voltage to each piezoelectric plate in the stack divided by the thickness of the piezoelectric plate). The force provided by the PZT Langevin stack can be much greater than that of an electromagnetic shaker because it relies on the high modulus of elasticity of the PZT. This is the reason why electromagnetic shakers have to be made very large, much larger than the cross-sectional area of Langevin stacks, to provide similar forces. On the other hand, the piezoelectric stack provides a much smaller displacement because the piezoelectric strain effect in a piezoelectric material like hard PZT is very small (less than 200 micrometer displacement for a typical stack), particularly when compared to an electromagnetic shaker (typically over 100 mm). As Monkman et.al. state in page 92 of [6], piezoelectric actuators are basically capacitive elements whose force is maintained at the end of the stroke without the need of supplying additional energy (ignoring losses), and this is in complete contrast with electromagnetically driven actuators like electromagnetic shakers, where energy must continue to be supplied if the full actuator force is to be maintained.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/13/2019 12:54 pm
You can buy replacement voice coils for tweeters online for a few dollars. They will reach 20k hz  and some will go beyond. Very compact and as they are mass produced they are reasonably consistent and to spec. As the diaphragm of the tweeter is an unnecessary mass you can remove this and the high frequency response will improve.

We are renovating our new house and decided to get rid of the whole house stereo system. I pulled out at least a dozen speakers and have been able to extract 6 ohm voice coils from there.  I have not had the chance to incorporate them into the shaker yet, but I have used them for the calibration.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 08/13/2019 01:48 pm
Wouldn't the coil be smaller if you dropped the extremely low frequencies? Smaller to fit on the balance. The frequency range is barely impacted by using a coil ranging from 400 Hz to 20,000 Hz. Am I missing something indispensable that requires the frequency range of 20Hz to 400Hz for the tests you are doing?

It all comes down to the stroke (displacement) of the magnet inside the voice coil. PZT is unique in that the actuator stroke remains relatively constant even at higher frequencies. My experience with the voice coils is that the stroke decreases pretty rapidly at higher frequencies and the signal drops below the detection range of my laser displacement sensor.
So basically, you could measure the frequency dependence of your setup, but it would likely be very different than the frequency dependence of Woodward's setup, so ultimately only tests with Woodward's device could test a hypothesis about whether Woodward's device is simply producing this error source?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/13/2019 02:19 pm
So basically, you could measure the frequency dependence of your setup, but it would likely be very different than the frequency dependence of Woodward's setup, so ultimately only tests with Woodward's device could test a hypothesis about whether Woodward's device is simply producing this error source?

Tests with the real device would be ideal to falsify the hypothesis if using the method of adding mass to the pendulum.  The EM shakers are only an analogue to the PZT actuator but there is some overlap in their frequency responses.

I seriously doubt I could detect a 37kHz signal from voice coils unless I had a significantly better laser displacement sensor and logging equipment. Like $10,000 better.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/13/2019 05:21 pm
That's always a bad way to do science. You may be correct but why should I not think you may have confirmation bias?

The data speaks for itself. If you think there is some specific error in the experiment that can lead to a false false-positive or an error in the conclusions reached, then please point it out and we can discuss.

If you want to falsify Woodward you have to follow Woodward's protocol exactly. Has your work been published?
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: meberbs on 08/13/2019 05:27 pm
That's always a bad way to do science. You may be correct but why should I not think you may have confirmation bias?

The data speaks for itself. If you think there is some specific error in the experiment that can lead to a false false-positive or an error in the conclusions reached, then please point it out and we can discuss.

If you want to falsify Woodward you have to follow Woodward's protocol exactly. Has your work been published?
How many times does it need to be repeated that the goal of the tests so far was just to demonstrate that this type of error can exist on the type of balance used by Woodward?

It does not directly falsify Woodward's tests, but it does indicate that Woodward should check for this error source, and provides a simple method with which to do so.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/13/2019 06:21 pm
How many times does it need to be repeated that the goal of the tests so far was just to demonstrate that this type of error can exist on the type of balance used by Woodward?


Hopefully that's the last time in this thread for me. :) Sorry, I lost track of that.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: SeeShells on 08/14/2019 02:56 pm
That's always a bad way to do science. You may be correct but why should I not think you may have confirmation bias?

The data speaks for itself. If you think there is some specific error in the experiment that can lead to a false false-positive or an error in the conclusions reached, then please point it out and we can discuss.

If you want to falsify Woodward you have to follow Woodward's protocol exactly. Has your work been published?
How many times does it need to be repeated that the goal of the tests so far was just to demonstrate that this type of error can exist on the type of balance used by Woodward?

It does not directly falsify Woodward's tests, but it does indicate that Woodward should check for this error source, and provides a simple method with which to do so.

I sincerely hope that the NIAC team around the MEGA drive...
From http://ssi.org/programs/ssi-exoticpropulsioninitiative/
Professor Heidi Fearn (CalState University Fullerton), Dr. José Rodal, Dr. Marshall Eubanks, Mr. Paul March, and Emeritus Professor James F. Woodward (Principal Investigator)
and those who greatly contribute behind the scenes do the science that is needed for this project.

Setting aside the heated debates from Monomorphic's tests he truly provided invaluable information on a potential error source about the torsion pendulum used by the NIAC team. I know this potential error hasn't fallen on deaf ears along with other issues pointed out by others. And your correct Meberbs it hasn't disproved the Mach Effect, just an potential error.

Open science like this tends to be messy with heated debates and we should be glad that it is so, as we all gain.

Shell



 

Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/15/2019 02:27 pm
AIAA Propulsion & Energy Forum
19–22 AUGUST 2019 | INDIANAPOLIS, IN

Wednesday, 21 August 2019
185-NFF-6 The Future of Nuclear and Breakthrough Propulsion Room 101
Chaired by: J. CAVERA, Blue Origin LLC and G. WILLIAMS

14:30 hrs
AIAA-2019-4285
New Experimental Results for Mach Effect Gravitation Assist ( MEGA ) drives
H. Fearn, J. Woodward, California State University, Fullerton, CA


________________________________________________________________

16:00 hrs
AIAA-2019-4288
An Examination of Warp Theory and Technology to Determine the State of the Art and Feasibility
J. Agnew, University of Alabama, Huntsville, Huntsville, AL
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: DamianM on 08/16/2019 09:42 pm
AIAA Propulsion & Energy Forum
19–22 AUGUST 2019 | INDIANAPOLIS, IN

Wednesday, 21 August 2019
185-NFF-6 The Future of Nuclear and Breakthrough Propulsion Room 101
Chaired by: J. CAVERA, Blue Origin LLC and G. WILLIAMS

14:30 hrs
AIAA-2019-4285
New Experimental Results for Mach Effect Gravitation Assist ( MEGA ) drives
H. Fearn, J. Woodward, California State University, Fullerton, CA


________________________________________________________________

16:00 hrs
AIAA-2019-4288
An Examination of Warp Theory and Technology to Determine the State of the Art and Feasibility
J. Agnew, University of Alabama, Huntsville, Huntsville, AL

Interstellar Travel by Means of Wormhole Induction Propulsion (WHIP)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253979249_Interstellar_Travel_by_Means_of_Wormhole_Induction_Propulsion_WHIP
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: SeeShells on 08/18/2019 05:24 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
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Monomorphic 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.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: bad_astra 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.
Title: Re: Woodward's effect
Post by: Chris Bergin 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