Author Topic: Woodward's effect  (Read 489633 times)

Offline Bob Woods

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 304
  • Salem, Oregon USA
  • Liked: 427
  • Likes Given: 1350
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1740 on: 12/05/2018 02:02 am »
What about side-to-side deformation?

Online Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1429
  • United States
    • /r/QThruster
  • Liked: 3927
  • Likes Given: 1272
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1741 on: 12/05/2018 02:52 am »
What about side-to-side deformation?

Much worse even than compression and tensile! These flexure bearings are NOT designed for shear forces whatsoever.

« Last Edit: 12/05/2018 03:22 am by Monomorphic »

Offline Bob Woods

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 304
  • Salem, Oregon USA
  • Liked: 427
  • Likes Given: 1350
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1742 on: 12/05/2018 07:59 am »
Thanks Jamie!

So following on your work and Shell's and others, folks need to build a better test apparatus. You have presented good evidence that false positives are possible or even likely. The Traveller talked about a rotary suspended rig but never published any results. (I'm guessing it has its own design problems such as coriolis effects.)

So what the hell are Heide and Martin up to? Time to share with people who are very interested.

We need DATA.
« Last Edit: 12/05/2018 08:48 am by Bob Woods »

Offline Augmentor

  • Member
  • Posts: 87
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 64
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1743 on: 12/05/2018 10:07 pm »
Monomorphic,

The drilling down to the bearings and other components in the system are enlightening.

I have a few questions. First, for the casual reader, a little background information to act as a general guide to the role of simulation.

In the worlds of systems, aerospace and products, there is an interactive exchange between four areas of research, design and development (RDD) including theory, experiment, modeling and simulation. The preference is to align all four areas. The four approaches are scientifically used in basic research and development (basic R&D) to determine the essence of the effect (hard science) as well as product R&D to develop a product for manufacturing. In all instances, nature has the final say in experiments and products since the real world offers surprises and shocks, and the scientists and engineers may not have planned for all contingencies and unintended consequences.

A fifth area, animation, is important since it is used to convey ideas for the common good. As such, animation is usually a simplified version to show design, changes, movement/flow and internal details, typically for an audience from general to specialist. A fly through presentation, both static and dynamic, can provide details, planned, suspected and even unexpected. While closely related by computer and software, animation is not simulation which provides far greater detail and relies more on finite analysis methods applied to the representive design. Data may be the result of an equation(s), numerical analysis of data, or both.

Experiments can be broken down into four groups:

1. Power Supply
2. Instrumentation
3. Device or unit under test (DUT, UUT)
4. Thermodynamics - passive or active
 
Assumptions are made in all four, and importantly, need to match what nature is telling us. Assumptions can be stated/stipulated by Size (volume), Weight (mass) and Power (kWe, kWhr) - (SWAP),  analyze numerical and curve fitted. Error bars show systematic and random error range. The goal is to make precise AND accurate measurements.

Just because you have a high precision instrument or simulation does not mean you have an accurate reading or representation. Precision and accuracy are not the same; yet are required especially since thermodynamics may cause expansions and contractions that affect operations and readings. So the appropriate temperature range also need to be determined since that is one of the usual suspects for artifacts and inaccurate readings

That said,

1. What is the eventual goal for simulation?

2. What is the standard for experiment and simulation(?), perhaps experiment or simulation aka nature or computer?

3. Is simulation or experiment as a standard or is this simply a POV of both?

4. Is iterative improvement being used in a data exchange with the theorists, models and experimentalists?

5. Is simulation being used to produce changes to the other three areas of theory, modeling and experiment?

6. Is the simulation used as an accelerator to remove obstacles or to challenge theory, modeling and experiment?

7. Is the simulation used to claim the experiment is wrong or the theory, modeling and experiment is wrong?

8. What are the limits of simulation?

Best

Augmentor

« Last Edit: 12/05/2018 10:08 pm by Augmentor »

Offline soms42

  • Member
  • Posts: 24
  • Netherlands
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1744 on: 12/09/2018 12:13 pm »
What about side-to-side deformation?

Much worse even than compression and tensile! These flexure bearings are NOT designed for shear forces whatsoever.

Very nice simulations!

The used flex bearing are indeed only designed as zero-friction rotational bearings with a rotational freedom of a few degrees (if i remember correct up to +/-30 degrees max). However, when rotating they act as a torsion spring which is used in the balance to measure the force.
A rough estimate with a deflection of 10um for a force measurement, means that the balance rotates about +-0.00001 degrees. I think that all other deformations can be considered constant during the measurements, so they should not be influencing the measurement.

So, in what way are those simulations relevant?

Online Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1429
  • United States
    • /r/QThruster
  • Liked: 3927
  • Likes Given: 1272
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1745 on: 12/09/2018 04:23 pm »
Very nice simulations!

The used flex bearing are indeed only designed as zero-friction rotational bearings with a rotational freedom of a few degrees (if i remember correct up to +/-30 degrees max). However, when rotating they act as a torsion spring which is used in the balance to measure the force.
A rough estimate with a deflection of 10um for a force measurement, means that the balance rotates about +-0.00001 degrees. I think that all other deformations can be considered constant during the measurements, so they should not be influencing the measurement.

So, in what way are those simulations relevant?
The Finite Element Analysis (FEA)of the bearings proves what was suspected for a while and predicted by several people here. This from PotomacNeuron:

"The weight of the experiment platform will droop the part of the bearing that is fixed to the platform. Even if the other part of the bearing is installed perfectly vertical, the movement of the platform will not be in the horizontal plane. Thus any mass center shift will induce force that is hard to separate from thrust."

It is relevant because it gives me a better idea how to simulate the central flexure bearing - using the constraints and joints available to me in Inventor. A simple revolution joint, that constrains the movement of the central bearing to 2 degrees of freedom is obviously not sufficient. The joint needs the full 3 degrees of freedom of the real-world bearing to be accurately simulated. 

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9982
  • UK
  • Liked: 1961
  • Likes Given: 192
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1746 on: 12/09/2018 06:58 pm »
Thanks Jamie!

So following on your work and Shell's and others, folks need to build a better test apparatus. You have presented good evidence that false positives are possible or even likely. The Traveller talked about a rotary suspended rig but never published any results. (I'm guessing it has its own design problems such as coriolis effects.)

So what the hell are Heide and Martin up to? Time to share with people who are very interested.

We need DATA.

Has he departed from these parts again, The Traveller?

Offline tdperk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 340
  • Liked: 136
  • Likes Given: 65
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1747 on: 12/12/2018 09:54 pm »
Thanks Jamie!

So following on your work and Shell's and others, folks need to build a better test apparatus. You have presented good evidence that false positives are possible or even likely. The Traveller talked about a rotary suspended rig but never published any results. (I'm guessing it has its own design problems such as coriolis effects.)

So what the hell are Heide and Martin up to? Time to share with people who are very interested.

We need DATA.

It would be good to have a mechanical drawing set of Dr. Woodward's gear.  It would help to see if for example Monomorphic's ideas bear any relationship to reality on the real side.

Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Liked: 1789
  • Likes Given: 418
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1748 on: 12/25/2018 11:20 pm »
The heated materials would  gain ~ .0000004% in mass , evidencing the veracity of E = MC2 once again .  The uneven mass gain might seem tiny , but in a weightless environment the effect would soon become apparent . 
Per the above, a diagram would help, some of what you wrote is confusing trying to follow.

Besides which it is not clear in what step you claim the conservation law breaking magic is supposed to happen. The mass gain is accounted for in the conservation of momentum and energy. The only effect would be the device moving from the radiation pressure (if the laser radiation is coming from an external source), and also from the asymmetric thermal radiation reaction, which would be less than a photon rocket. (Less because it would be radiated in a spread of directions, in contrast to a laser which is nearly unidirectional.)

Offline Augmentor

  • Member
  • Posts: 87
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 64
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1749 on: 12/26/2018 02:48 am »
Ok, so again there is no diagram and a raw idea of a “technological demonstrator”, not an engine.

Simply stating that E = m c^2 is not the solution to transient mass...it’s just not sufficient enough to provide a description of a potential process.

Is momentum conserved? In this case, one has to consider angular momentum, not just linear momentum.

That said, the Woodward equation depends on quick pressure change, quick enough to cause an acceleration of both external and internal mass. Substituting photons for electrons is obvious. Adding rotating rollers requires angular momentum considerations.

Do the math. Use the wave equation and not just the particle equations.

A useful exercise would be to draw a isometric or schematic diagram of the idea as well as a block diagram of the process.

The idea as presented can be upgraded to using carbon nanotubes and reducing the expensive laser to LEDs. Of course, this will complicate the math, EM and nonlinear resonance modes.








Online Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1429
  • United States
    • /r/QThruster
  • Liked: 3927
  • Likes Given: 1272
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1750 on: 01/14/2019 02:18 pm »
This is the latest plot from Woodward regarding the TU Dresden replication efforts sent out to his email list several days ago. It appears that Heidi Fearn's visit was fruitful in that they were able to see the same signal shape as seen by Fullerton and Buldrini, and simulated/replicated by me. The big problem is the signal was measured at ~0.065uN, which is well over an order of magnitude less than what is being measured at Fullerton. TU Dresden's measurements are of the same order as the Buldrini measurements, but still less than half of those!

Woodward claims there is only a "calibration" problem now, but I find it hard to believe that Fullerton's calibration was off by such an enormous amount.  The more likely explanation, which I have written of before, is that Newtonian Artifacts caused by multi-body dynamics will show different magnitudes of apparent "thrust" on specific balances because of unique differences in the pendulum arm length, optical sensor specs, moment of inertia, spring stiffness, etc.   If it was real thrust, it would show the same magnitude of thrust on all properly calibrated balances, regardless of the physical parameters of the balances.
« Last Edit: 01/14/2019 02:19 pm by Monomorphic »

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1379
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1430
  • Likes Given: 1900
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1751 on: 01/14/2019 02:26 pm »
This is the latest plot from Woodward regarding the TU Dresden replication efforts sent out to his email list several days ago. It appears that Heidi Fearn's visit was fruitful in that they were able to see the same signal shape as seen by Fullerton and Buldrini, and simulated/replicated by me. The big problem is the signal was measured at ~0.065uN, which is well over an order of magnitude less than what is being measured at Fullerton. TU Dresden's measurements are of the same order as the Buldrini measurements, but still less than half of those!

Woodward claims there is only a "calibration" problem now, but I find it hard to believe that Fullerton's calibration was off by such an enormous amount.  The more likely explanation, which I have written of before, is that Newtonian Artifacts caused by multi-body dynamics will show different magnitudes of apparent "thrust" on specific balances because of unique differences in the pendulum arm length, optical sensor specs, moment of inertia, spring stiffness, etc.   If it was real thrust, it would show the same magnitude of thrust on all properly calibrated balances, regardless of the physical parameters of the balances.

What was the wattage? How does this new data compare to a photon rocket?

Online Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1429
  • United States
    • /r/QThruster
  • Liked: 3927
  • Likes Given: 1272
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1752 on: 01/14/2019 02:58 pm »
What was the wattage? How does this new data compare to a photon rocket?

I do not know yet as that info was not shared.  I would suggest asking Woodward for this information. 

It seems the signal is getting smaller and smaller with every partial replication. My suspicion is that either the moment of inertia is very different on the Fullerton balance, or the laser displacement sensor used by Woodward has a very different displacement constant than that used by TU Dresden and Buldrini - or a combination of both. But these too should not have an influence on real thrust if the balance is properly calibrated.

Now that TU Dresden can replicate the signal, it should be a simple matter for them to perform experiments suggested by those here and elsewhere that can determine if it is real thrust or a false-positive.
« Last Edit: 01/14/2019 03:08 pm by Monomorphic »

Offline MathewOrman

  • Member
  • Posts: 20
  • Poland
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1753 on: 01/17/2019 08:18 am »
What was the wattage? How does this new data compare to a photon rocket?

I do not know yet as that info was not shared.  I would suggest asking Woodward for this information. 

It seems the signal is getting smaller and smaller with every partial replication. My suspicion is that either the moment of inertia is very different on the Fullerton balance, or the laser displacement sensor used by Woodward has a very different displacement constant than that used by TU Dresden and Buldrini - or a combination of both. But these too should not have an influence on real thrust if the balance is properly calibrated.

Now that TU Dresden can replicate the signal, it should be a simple matter for them to perform experiments suggested by those here and elsewhere that can determine if it is real thrust or a false-positive.

You are right, Newtonin's remnant force I suspect from gyro procession effect and in space there will be no thrust at all...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhldn0ef138&feature=youtu.be

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9982
  • UK
  • Liked: 1961
  • Likes Given: 192
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1754 on: 01/18/2019 05:04 pm »
Well it looks like at least someone in government was interested in warp drives.

The Government’s Secret UFO Program Funded Research on Wormholes and Extra Dimensions

Quote
Yet another title, “Warp Drive, Dark Energy, and the Manipulation of Extra Dimensions,” was attributed to theoretical physicist Richard Obousy, director of the nonprofit Icarus Interstellar, which claims to be “researching technologies that will enable breakthroughs in interstellar travel.” Obousy was credited by Gizmodo in 2009 for creating “a scientifically accurate warpship design” that could hypothetically be propelled through space by manipulating dark energy.

Offline birdman

  • Member
  • Posts: 7
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1755 on: 01/18/2019 05:09 pm »
Well it looks like at least someone in government was interested in warp drives.

The Government’s Secret UFO Program Funded Research on Wormholes and Extra Dimensions

Quote
Yet another title, “Warp Drive, Dark Energy, and the Manipulation of Extra Dimensions,” was attributed to theoretical physicist Richard Obousy, director of the nonprofit Icarus Interstellar, which claims to be “researching technologies that will enable breakthroughs in interstellar travel.” Obousy was credited by Gizmodo in 2009 for creating “a scientifically accurate warpship design” that could hypothetically be propelled through space by manipulating dark energy.

Screw all this physics talk about resonance and shear and wattage, just say "dark energy" and be done with it!

Tags: