# 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

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

« 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:

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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:

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
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:

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

Here is Raine's paper:

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.

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
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://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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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

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:

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:

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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
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

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)

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

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

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.

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)

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:
(2) Become a peer-reviewer;

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:
(2) Become a peer-reviewer;

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-
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-
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-
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.

[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