... caught in the peer-review process...
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
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_effectQuoteIf 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 amountsWiki says Woodward doesn't deny this, but says that the energy comes from the rest of the universe. Sounds like perpetual motion to me!
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?
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).
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.
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.
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.
It clearly violates local conservation of momentum in any practical, testable sense.