Author Topic: Woodward's effect  (Read 428121 times)

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1374
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1426
  • Likes Given: 1894
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1400 on: 04/19/2018 08:44 PM »
...
Yes there is no problem with a photon rocket. There is no important difference between it and any other rocket. Now if you can point to the terrawatt laser beam shining out the ass end of your drive and show me the terrawatt nuclear power plant powering it then I agree there is no violation of conservation of energy and momentum.  Photon rockets are possible if profoundly impractical and horribly wasteful for any velocity short of a good fraction of the speed of light.

But until you show me the planet melting laser and the massive power supply...

If you are in an electric car with the windows blacked out you can still figure out how fast you are traveling by measuring how much energy it takes to accelerate. The faster you are going the more energy it takes to go faster.

If you are pushing against the quantum vacuum you could try the same trick. If it works then you have established a universal frame of reference. That is bad.

If it does not work then you have violated conservation of energy. That is worse.

Through all this you have not said which you believe. How much power does it take to accelerate at perfect efficiency and does that power depend on velocity like a car? You are on the horns of a dilemma here.

Think of it this way as an example of what I mean by "pushing on the QV", because we are talking apples and oranges around each other.

If I have a plate with a large surface area, which oscillates along the Normal axis of that plane. For 1/2 cycle, the plate moves toward the rear and imparts momentum to the QV by providing a time-varing acceleration, thereby increasing the relative temperature via Unruh radiation. The radiation generated exerts a Radiation-Reaction force on the plate, pushing back, and pushing the supporting ship in the opposite direction. The exhaust is photons, so it performs like a photon rocket.

It still requires fuel of some sort to drive the oscillating plate and restore the energy that was given to the QV. This comes from the fuel or a battery. On the reverse 1/2-cycle, the acceleration is minimized so that there is asymmetry, thereby rectifying the reaction force to be mostly in one direction. From an outside observer's point of view, it is radiating more in one direction over the other, but it still performs like a photon rocket.
« Last Edit: 04/20/2018 12:02 AM by WarpTech »

Offline ppnl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 219
  • Liked: 130
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1401 on: 04/20/2018 01:22 AM »
...
Yes there is no problem with a photon rocket. There is no important difference between it and any other rocket. Now if you can point to the terrawatt laser beam shining out the ass end of your drive and show me the terrawatt nuclear power plant powering it then I agree there is no violation of conservation of energy and momentum.  Photon rockets are possible if profoundly impractical and horribly wasteful for any velocity short of a good fraction of the speed of light.

But until you show me the planet melting laser and the massive power supply...

If you are in an electric car with the windows blacked out you can still figure out how fast you are traveling by measuring how much energy it takes to accelerate. The faster you are going the more energy it takes to go faster.

If you are pushing against the quantum vacuum you could try the same trick. If it works then you have established a universal frame of reference. That is bad.

If it does not work then you have violated conservation of energy. That is worse.

Through all this you have not said which you believe. How much power does it take to accelerate at perfect efficiency and does that power depend on velocity like a car? You are on the horns of a dilemma here.

Think of it this way as an example of what I mean by "pushing on the QV", because we are talking apples and oranges around each other.

If I have a plate with a large surface area, which oscillates along the Normal axis of that plane. For 1/2 cycle, the plate moves toward the rear and imparts momentum to the QV by providing a time-varing acceleration, thereby increasing the relative temperature via Unruh radiation. The radiation generated exerts a Radiation-Reaction force on the plate, pushing back, and pushing the supporting ship in the opposite direction. The exhaust is photons, so it performs like a photon rocket.

It still requires fuel of some sort to drive the oscillating plate and restore the energy that was given to the QV. This comes from the fuel or a battery. On the reverse 1/2-cycle, the acceleration is minimized so that there is asymmetry, thereby rectifying the reaction force to be mostly in one direction. From an outside observer's point of view, it is radiating more in one direction over the other, but it still performs like a photon rocket.

Ok your engine isn't a car. But that is only the first horn of the dilemma. The other horn is the problem of constant power for constant acceleration.

Ok, let me ask the question in a simpler way. You say it works like a photon rocket. Fine. A laser pointer is small, cheap to make, has amazing energy efficiency and produces enough photons to, you know, actually measure. In what way is your drive better than a laser pointer?

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1374
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1426
  • Likes Given: 1894
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1402 on: 04/20/2018 02:33 AM »
....
Ok your engine isn't a car. But that is only the first horn of the dilemma. The other horn is the problem of constant power for constant acceleration.

Ok, let me ask the question in a simpler way. You say it works like a photon rocket. Fine. A laser pointer is small, cheap to make, has amazing energy efficiency and produces enough photons to, you know, actually measure. In what way is your drive better than a laser pointer?

It's not. My point was to set proper expectations. Based on QED, "on average" pushing against the QV is not expected it to be any better than a photon rocket. Similarly, based on my Engineering Model of QG, a gravity drive is not expected to be any better than a photon rocket either. :( Sad but true.

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 658
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 257
  • Likes Given: 287
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1403 on: 04/20/2018 03:35 AM »
....
Ok your engine isn't a car. But that is only the first horn of the dilemma. The other horn is the problem of constant power for constant acceleration.

Ok, let me ask the question in a simpler way. You say it works like a photon rocket. Fine. A laser pointer is small, cheap to make, has amazing energy efficiency and produces enough photons to, you know, actually measure. In what way is your drive better than a laser pointer?

It's not. My point was to set proper expectations. Based on QED, "on average" pushing against the QV is not expected it to be any better than a photon rocket. Similarly, based on my Engineering Model of QG, a gravity drive is not expected to be any better than a photon rocket either. :( Sad but true.

What do you think about a premise of the mach effect such that if the curvature of local space causes a gradient in acceleration, then inducing a gradient in the acceleration of an object might have an effect to impose curvature on local space? 

Similar to the reversibility of some physical mechanisms such as magnetic induction. 

One question I am not sure of is why in matter, would there be some non-symmetric acceleration inherent, so as to curve local space, and cause the gravitational effect.  I suppose if you consider the boundaries of a proton/neutron nucleolus, containing large amounts of energy, is there some massive acceleration at the boundary as opposed to the center required to contain that energy?  That energy being in some inherent osculation. 
« Last Edit: 04/20/2018 03:37 AM by dustinthewind »

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1374
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1426
  • Likes Given: 1894
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1404 on: 04/20/2018 04:12 AM »

What do you think about a premise of the mach effect such that if the curvature of local space causes a gradient in acceleration, then inducing a gradient in the acceleration of an object might have an effect to impose curvature on local space? 

Similar to the reversibility of some physical mechanisms such as magnetic induction. 

One question I am not sure of is why in matter, would there be some non-symmetric acceleration inherent, so as to curve local space, and cause the gravitational effect.  I suppose if you consider the boundaries of a proton/neutron nucleolus, containing large amounts of energy, is there some massive acceleration at the boundary as opposed to the center required to contain that energy?  That energy being in some inherent osculation.

What is "curvature on local space"? In my Engineering Model of QG, the curvature is determined by the gradients in the radiative damping. The damping is induced by coupled photon pairs, in QED it would be written <A*A>, where "A" is the EM gauge 4-vector field. This is proportional to the energy density, which when quantized is simply the SUM of all photon energies in the volume.

Based on this, the curvature is seen as a means of exchanging momentum with atoms, using photons. Gravity appears to exert a much larger acceleration than a comparable photon rocket of equal potential energy, but in reality the energy density around the Earth is in the GPa, and if you calculate the power in/out of the system, it's a lot greater than any photon rocket, because it takes place in a narrow bandwidth around the Compton wavelength (zitterbewegung) of the individual fermion particles matter is composed of, (electrons and quarks).

IMO the MEGA is reproducing this process on a macroscopic scale. The mass fluctuation depends on the asymmetry, as you derived previously in the graph you posted. The peak of the graph will produce instantaneous thrust greater than a photon rocket by 2 to 3 orders of magnitude. But the average thrust will be at best, the same as a photon rocket because it is exchanging momentum with the gravitational field using massless particles (photons).

« Last Edit: 04/20/2018 04:27 AM by WarpTech »

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 658
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 257
  • Likes Given: 287
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1405 on: 04/20/2018 12:56 PM »

What do you think about a premise of the mach effect such that if the curvature of local space causes a gradient in acceleration, then inducing a gradient in the acceleration of an object might have an effect to impose curvature on local space? 

Similar to the reversibility of some physical mechanisms such as magnetic induction. 

One question I am not sure of is why in matter, would there be some non-symmetric acceleration inherent, so as to curve local space, and cause the gravitational effect.  I suppose if you consider the boundaries of a proton/neutron nucleolus, containing large amounts of energy, is there some massive acceleration at the boundary as opposed to the center required to contain that energy?  That energy being in some inherent osculation.

What is "curvature on local space"? In my Engineering Model of QG, the curvature is determined by the gradients in the radiative damping. The damping is induced by coupled photon pairs, in QED it would be written <A*A>, where "A" is the EM gauge 4-vector field. This is proportional to the energy density, which when quantized is simply the SUM of all photon energies in the volume.

Based on this, the curvature is seen as a means of exchanging momentum with atoms, using photons. Gravity appears to exert a much larger acceleration than a comparable photon rocket of equal potential energy, but in reality the energy density around the Earth is in the GPa, and if you calculate the power in/out of the system, it's a lot greater than any photon rocket, because it takes place in a narrow bandwidth around the Compton wavelength (zitterbewegung) of the individual fermion particles matter is composed of, (electrons and quarks).

IMO the MEGA is reproducing this process on a macroscopic scale. The mass fluctuation depends on the asymmetry, as you derived previously in the graph you posted. The peak of the graph will produce instantaneous thrust greater than a photon rocket by 2 to 3 orders of magnitude. But the average thrust will be at best, the same as a photon rocket because it is exchanging momentum with the gravitational field using massless particles (photons).



Is it possible, while photons being considered mass-less, that induction of motion to the local frame of photons has some momentum associated with it.  That inducing an asymmetric curvature on the vacuum (unlike matter) causes an effect of changing the frame.  Similar to Lense-Thirring effect or Gravitomagnetism (change in the angular rotation frame of light) or similar to the frame change of light falling toward a gravitational source, except that the gravitational source is symmetric, so no net effect on the frame of the vacuum in total.  Assuming some energy level associated with the vacuum so giving it a net push allowing greater than photon propulsion.  Implying some momentum stored in the vacuum from Gravitomagnetism.
« Last Edit: 04/20/2018 02:09 PM by dustinthewind »

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1374
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1426
  • Likes Given: 1894
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1406 on: 04/20/2018 03:41 PM »
...

Is it possible, while photons being considered mass-less, that induction of motion to the local frame of photons has some momentum associated with it.  That inducing an asymmetric curvature on the vacuum (unlike matter) causes an effect of changing the frame.  Similar to Lense-Thirring effect or Gravitomagnetism (change in the angular rotation frame of light) or similar to the frame change of light falling toward a gravitational source, except that the gravitational source is symmetric, so no net effect on the frame of the vacuum in total.  Assuming some energy level associated with the vacuum so giving it a net push allowing greater than photon propulsion.  Implying some momentum stored in the vacuum from Gravitomagnetism.

From this, it sounds like you are differentiating between the "empty" vacuum which you refer to as having a "frame" and the "stuff" that is in it. In my Model, the "empty" vacuum has no curvature, it has no frame. If it can't be measured or observed, it has no effect on reality, which to me says "it doesn't exist". What exists is the stuff that fills the volume, in this case it is quantized fields of oscillators. The curvature is simply a geometrical interpretation of the interaction that takes place between particles and fields when there are both driving sources and damping (sinks) of energy for the harmonic oscillations of the field.

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 658
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 257
  • Likes Given: 287
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1407 on: 04/21/2018 02:17 AM »
...

Is it possible, while photons being considered mass-less, that induction of motion to the local frame of photons has some momentum associated with it.  That inducing an asymmetric curvature on the vacuum (unlike matter) causes an effect of changing the frame.  Similar to Lense-Thirring effect or Gravitomagnetism (change in the angular rotation frame of light) or similar to the frame change of light falling toward a gravitational source, except that the gravitational source is symmetric, so no net effect on the frame of the vacuum in total.  Assuming some energy level associated with the vacuum so giving it a net push allowing greater than photon propulsion.  Implying some momentum stored in the vacuum from Gravitomagnetism.

From this, it sounds like you are differentiating between the "empty" vacuum which you refer to as having a "frame" and the "stuff" that is in it. In my Model, the "empty" vacuum has no curvature, it has no frame. If it can't be measured or observed, it has no effect on reality, which to me says "it doesn't exist". What exists is the stuff that fills the volume, in this case it is quantized fields of oscillators. The curvature is simply a geometrical interpretation of the interaction that takes place between particles and fields when there are both driving sources and damping (sinks) of energy for the harmonic oscillations of the field.

If the vacuum is so coupled to matter then why is the vacuum so decoupled with respect to matter concerning the Gravitomagnetic effect?

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1374
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1426
  • Likes Given: 1894
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1408 on: 04/21/2018 03:57 PM »
...

Is it possible, while photons being considered mass-less, that induction of motion to the local frame of photons has some momentum associated with it.  That inducing an asymmetric curvature on the vacuum (unlike matter) causes an effect of changing the frame.  Similar to Lense-Thirring effect or Gravitomagnetism (change in the angular rotation frame of light) or similar to the frame change of light falling toward a gravitational source, except that the gravitational source is symmetric, so no net effect on the frame of the vacuum in total.  Assuming some energy level associated with the vacuum so giving it a net push allowing greater than photon propulsion.  Implying some momentum stored in the vacuum from Gravitomagnetism.

From this, it sounds like you are differentiating between the "empty" vacuum which you refer to as having a "frame" and the "stuff" that is in it. In my Model, the "empty" vacuum has no curvature, it has no frame. If it can't be measured or observed, it has no effect on reality, which to me says "it doesn't exist". What exists is the stuff that fills the volume, in this case it is quantized fields of oscillators. The curvature is simply a geometrical interpretation of the interaction that takes place between particles and fields when there are both driving sources and damping (sinks) of energy for the harmonic oscillations of the field.

If the vacuum is so coupled to matter then why is the vacuum so decoupled with respect to matter concerning the Gravitomagnetic effect?

A field oscillator (particle or quanta) is constantly exchanging virtual photons with the vacuum. EM field coupling strength depends on the polarization of the fields as well as the intensity of virtual photons. Gravity is the result of damping the oscillator, where the gradient in the damping factor causes an imbalance in the EM exchange. Damping only affects a tiny percentage of the photons, so the coupling strength is much smaller. Make sense?

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 658
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 257
  • Likes Given: 287
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1409 on: 04/24/2018 02:51 PM »
...

Is it possible, while photons being considered mass-less, that induction of motion to the local frame of photons has some momentum associated with it.  That inducing an asymmetric curvature on the vacuum (unlike matter) causes an effect of changing the frame.  Similar to Lense-Thirring effect or Gravitomagnetism (change in the angular rotation frame of light) or similar to the frame change of light falling toward a gravitational source, except that the gravitational source is symmetric, so no net effect on the frame of the vacuum in total.  Assuming some energy level associated with the vacuum so giving it a net push allowing greater than photon propulsion.  Implying some momentum stored in the vacuum from Gravitomagnetism.

From this, it sounds like you are differentiating between the "empty" vacuum which you refer to as having a "frame" and the "stuff" that is in it. In my Model, the "empty" vacuum has no curvature, it has no frame. If it can't be measured or observed, it has no effect on reality, which to me says "it doesn't exist". What exists is the stuff that fills the volume, in this case it is quantized fields of oscillators. The curvature is simply a geometrical interpretation of the interaction that takes place between particles and fields when there are both driving sources and damping (sinks) of energy for the harmonic oscillations of the field.

If the vacuum is so coupled to matter then why is the vacuum so decoupled with respect to matter concerning the Gravitomagnetic effect?

A field oscillator (particle or quanta) is constantly exchanging virtual photons with the vacuum. EM field coupling strength depends on the polarization of the fields as well as the intensity of virtual photons. Gravity is the result of damping the oscillator, where the gradient in the damping factor causes an imbalance in the EM exchange. Damping only affects a tiny percentage of the photons, so the coupling strength is much smaller. Make sense?

I think I understand, but by suggesting coupling it seems as though the vacuum gains a life of its own. 

Something with its own energy and therefore mass.  Not sure how that translates into a frame. Especially with backwards time propagators possibly.

If we had in the vacuum some particles running backwards in time (virtual) and some forward in time then I guess that could give a frame at rest with respect to the coupled particle as well as frames in motion away and towards by the ict vector (minkowski space) via vacuum tilt (effective velocity) away and towards, near gravitational sources.  Not sure that makes sense yet.   

Tunneling could be a particle being swallowed by the vacuum disturbance wave and another like particle created by the vacuum on the other side.  Energy canceled by the backwards propagator, particle creation instigated by vacuum fluctuations.


I guess they are suggesting some reverse time operator in order to instantly couple to the rest of the matter in the universe for thrust but it just seems so appealing to look at it as a local effect.  I think even Dr. Rodal was suggesting it has more to do with the local matter than the rest of the matter in the universe in an old presentation video I was watching.  The mach effect seems a lot like changing the coupling to something local in the vacuum to get a net push.  I still question if one reaches near the speed of light, if one wouldn't experience some reduced effectiveness of the mach effect, though I have seen statements that its always at rest with respect to you which goes back to the immutable vacuum as opposed to a natural one. 

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36313.0;attach=821698
« Last Edit: 04/25/2018 02:11 PM by dustinthewind »

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1458
  • Liked: 1110
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1410 on: 04/25/2018 02:43 PM »
Just an FYI:  one of the organizers of the 2016 Estes Park workshop, Dr. Lance Williams, now affiliated with The Aerospace Corporation, presented the following at an American Physical Society meeting recently.  It has now been released publicly.  Thanks to Lance for sharing.

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1848
  • Liked: 238
  • Likes Given: 287
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1411 on: 04/25/2018 03:16 PM »
Just an FYI:  one of the organizers of the 2016 Estes Park workshop, Dr. Lance Williams, now affiliated with The Aerospace Corporation, presented the following at an American Physical Society meeting recently.  It has now been released publicly.  Thanks to Lance for sharing.


This is very useful. Even a clod like me can get a grasp on this presentation. I hope more people who haven't heard of Woodward get to see this.
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1848
  • Liked: 238
  • Likes Given: 287
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1412 on: 04/25/2018 03:40 PM »
Does this mean that the MEGAdrive is interacting primarily with the gravitation field of the Virgo supercluster rather than local gravity wells? Does the nearness of closer gravity wells effect the performance of the drive?
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline Bob Woods

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 288
  • Salem, Oregon USA
  • Liked: 402
  • Likes Given: 1261
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1413 on: 04/26/2018 01:30 AM »
Does this mean that the MEGAdrive is interacting primarily with the gravitation field of the Virgo supercluster rather than local gravity wells? Does the nearness of closer gravity wells effect the performance of the drive?
No, I think the Virgo supercluster is just an example of a very strong gravity source due to the size/density of the total matter. At this point I don't think anyone posits anything other than a general relationship with gravity as it permeates the universe.


First step is experimental proof.




Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4169
  • Liked: 589
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1414 on: 04/28/2018 08:21 AM »
Does this mean that the MEGAdrive is interacting primarily with the gravitation field of the Virgo supercluster rather than local gravity wells? Does the nearness of closer gravity wells effect the performance of the drive?

Consider that the MEGAdrive is first interacting with the local gravinertial field, and that this field is a product of the arrangement of all matter in the universe. The distant Virgo supercluster could be considered to be a large constituent of the matter which is responsible for the gravinertial field, including the local portion of that field which the MEGAdrive is immediately interacting with. If I could wave a magic wand to make the Virgo supercluster disappear, or perhaps shift it to the other end of the universe, the resultant change in the gravinertial field would take lightspeed to reach where the MEGAdrive is and affect the local portion of the gravinertial field being interacted with. On the other hand, if my magic wand were to instead make nearby Jupiter disappear, the effect would take less time to propagate here since Jupiter is closer, although the magnitude of change felt would be less, since Jupiter is much less massive than the Virgo supercluster.
« Last Edit: 04/28/2018 08:31 AM by sanman »

Offline Jim Davis

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 547
  • Liked: 105
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1415 on: 04/29/2018 04:44 AM »
Consider that the MEGAdrive is first interacting with the local gravinertial field, and that this field is a product of the arrangement of all matter in the universe.

Does the performance of the MEGAdrive depend on its velocity relative to the local gravintertial field? If so, exactly how does performance vary?

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4169
  • Liked: 589
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1416 on: 04/29/2018 08:15 PM »
I'd assume that because the bulk of the universe is quite remote, you wouldn't experience much variation, except across very huge astronomical distances.

Offline InventIT

  • Member
  • Posts: 1
  • Brisbane, Australia
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1417 on: 05/10/2018 02:08 AM »
Martin Tajmar recently  showed  that  only  the  time-derivate  of mechanical  power  is  responsible  for  these  mass
fluctuations. (In the Mach effect / MEGA Drive). I assume that this rules out the electrical charge (in the capacitance of the PZT stack) having any measurable effect.
My analysis of the mechanical movement of the brass and aluminium mass suggest that it may be moving with a saw-tooth acceleration rate.   I propose that the bolts and damping material that squeeze the device together have a mechanical spring effect. The expansion of the stack should be pushing against the pressure of the bolts, and cause a lower acceleration than the contraction of the stack which is assisted by the pressure of the contracting bolts and expanding damper material.
So there would be a relatively higher accelerated contraction cycle and a relatively lower accelerated expansion cycle of the Piezo stack and end masses: A saw-tooth wave form.
The difference in acceleration rate during the push-pull cycle of the Woodward Mach/MEGA drive could be responsible for the net thrust.
The MEGA drive has two masses. A Brass mass at one end and a smaller aluminium mass or end cap at the other.  The direction of thrust is in the direction of the small mass.  Newtons F=MA would determine that the small mass would have a higher acceleration for the same force than the larger mass.
The small mass would have the largest acceleration, and be accelerating at its highest rate when the Piezo stack is contracting.
If mechanical acceleration is the sole or main cause of net thrust, and the acceleration is reacting against "the universe"; This proposed model would support a net thrust in the direction of the small mass.
Martin Tajmars advised that his paper on the subject is in peer review. Perhaps he has the mathematics to support this model, or an alternate theory on mechanical movement in the device. I look forward to studying the paper later this year.
« Last Edit: 05/11/2018 01:04 AM by InventIT »

Offline Augmentor

  • Member
  • Posts: 70
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 54
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1418 on: 05/11/2018 03:32 PM »
Consider that the MEGAdrive is first interacting with the local gravinertial field, and that this field is a product of the arrangement of all matter in the universe.

Does the performance of the MEGAdrive depend on its velocity relative to the local gravintertial field? If so, exactly how does performance vary?

In the Stargates paper, and in his book, Making Stargates,
Woodward develops an equation for the change in force, F'.

In it's simplest form, the derivative of force is defined by

F' = A a^2 + B j v

where v is velocity, a is acceleration, and j is jerk (change in acceleration) and A and B are constants.

Keep in mind that the MEGA system as a whole is undergoing acceleration and that an internal change to the dielectric results in an additional acceleration. In addition, sudden changes to the internal mass will result in small jerk forces. The MEGA is a forced harmonic oscillator where the oscillating mass undergoes internal change.

At 1 uN, a force has been recognized and verified. Great care is taken in experiments to obtain 1 uN clearly.
However, a useful force is 1 N (0.22 lbf, 101 gf).

Scaling form 1 uN to 1 N requires both amplifying the power per unit and multiplying units by array. So a unit could produce 1 mN and then 1,000 units could be used to achieve the 1 N goal.

Obtaining a 1 N thrust is only the first step.  One has to put electrical power in to obtain an output of thrust. So a good measure is N/kWe








Offline Jim Davis

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 547
  • Liked: 105
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1419 on: 05/12/2018 03:33 AM »
[In it's simplest form, the derivative of force is defined by

F' = A a^2 + B j v

where v is velocity, a is acceleration, and j is jerk (change in acceleration) and A and B are constants.

In the second term what is the velocity v relative to?