Author Topic: Woodward's effect  (Read 461755 times)

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 675
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 261
  • Likes Given: 292
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1580 on: 11/10/2018 05:15 AM »
I have wondered myself if putting a vibrating weight on the end of a spring loaded pendulum might not shift the pendulum by just adding energy to the spring which stretches it.  Is this what is being speculated to happen? 

Let us for instance take the weight on the end to have the mass of a planet in space.  Only the beam will shift in this case.  Fully contracted the beam remains in its original position.  Upon vibration, it will exist on average in between its fully extended position and fully contracted position. 

If we make the beam and weight of equal effective mass (considering rotating objects with mass) then both their fully extended displacement equilibrium should be equal distance from the fully contracted position.  If the weight remained extended then of the spring would bring the beam back to center, but with vibrations I think the spring will not be able to remain at zero energy. 

I guess the question might be if the pendulum spring can move to a position where it osculates back and forth about its previous equilibrium after being thrown off by expanding the weight under continuous osculation.  I want to say no under the case of equal effective mass because of momentum conservation.  with equal beam and weight displacement the beam has its momentum which gives it half the energy and the weigh thrown the other way has its momentum giving it the other half the energy. 
Edit: On the other hand the spring force provides a force different from just the shifting masses.

Correct me if I am wrong in my understanding. 

To avoid the confusion, my advice would be to make a point at the end of the beam to mount the vibrating motor that is adjustable.  Find the sweet spot where when the system is expanded, there is no deflection of the beam.  Then vibrate to your hearts content. 

That or a friction-less floating system where it can accumulate momentum.  Possibly linear.  Maybe like they did with the photonic laser thruster. 
« Last Edit: 11/10/2018 06:42 AM by dustinthewind »

Online meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1829
  • Liked: 1683
  • Likes Given: 402
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1581 on: 11/10/2018 06:26 AM »
Moving on to the simulation...here are four or five related requirements for quality research: theory, experiment, 
Modeling and simulation. The peer review process at the highest levels requires a review of each area...simulation is a tool, not an end in itself. The fifth area is animation which is built-in to many simulators these days.
Not how peer review works, and just one of theory, experiment, or simulation can be sufficient for a paper. That is how research works, so that one person can come up with an idea, and someone else can refine it, or use different resources they have to test it.

Most of the aerospace software for simulation is of significantly higher quality than the software used. The reason for using Solidworks and COMSOL was to be able to provide deliverables to aerospace firms. Matlab and Simulink are also a good start. Compatibility, precision, accuracy, scaling, software tools, engineering/physics capabilities are a few of the reasons for selecting Solidworks and COMSOL. I could argue other high end programs and add-on software. Converting the Autodesk simulation to Solidworks and COMSOL for testing will be needed at some point. Results may prove even more revealing.

IMHO the simulator used is probably ok but requires an unnecessary learning curve or excessive conversion to the physicists and engineers who are suppose to be your audience. It is not an acceptable deliverable to NASA. Or other research especially for the complexity and breadth of physics. See if Autodesk can be moved up to COMSOL simulation.
None of that actually says anything technically wrong with the simulation, or any reason to use a different tool. Some even goes off on a tangent about tools like Matlab/Simulink which simply are an entirely worse tool for this application. At best they would be for a lower fidelity model than what was already done, with more potential for mistakes.

Organizations that require a specific tool do so for consistency, so they don't need to maintain a large number of expensive licenses for different tools. Such decisions will be biased towards tools with more advanced cutting edge features which are irrelevant in this situation.

Autodesk is not known usually for research quality tools and therefore, is not even considered for research in physics, especially in the complex environment of acoustic, electromagnetic and gravitation. Nice for the classroom and simple demonstrations; not for the depth and complexity required in basic research for a mesoscopic effort involving gravitation and quantum mechanics. Screws, yes. EM and Gravitational effects, no.

It appears the simulation was built-up only so far to that of mechanical resonance - no EM, no gravitational effort, and that stiction , aka stick-slip or slip-stick, was found to be significant. Bravo! Drill down but continue to add to the simulation such that you have both device details as well as the balance sensor details. Check your assumptions at this level against the real deal of a MEGA. And when you build the full system, check again.
You seem to have entirely missed the point. If a fake thrust signal can be generated entirely without the new physics effects, and experiments show a signal that is comparable to the expectation from standard forces, that negates the experiments as evidence of new physics.

Is there an issue with your simulation? Yes. IMHO an incomplete simulation that was insufficient to draw conclusions from and exhuberant extrapolation during an incremental build that lacked interactive communication with the prime theorist and experimentalist who happens to be the designer/builder as well as the Principle Investigator of leading a team of PhDs and propulsion experts.
There is an issue in your post where you failed to actually name a specific issue with the simulation while claiming there was one. It seems you have nothing other than bias. Also, no amount of hollow praise for Woodward changes the fact that he still hasn't retracted the paper he wrote that failed at high school level physics, or the fact that his statements in the posted e-mails are just as wrong.

Without building the entire device and experimental setup too incorporating all the nuances, the research is not about Woodwardís work; i=the simulation is only about a Newtonian stiction engine that produces comparative thrust. The more difficult challenge is to determine how that thrust that meets the nonlinear experimental data for the past seven years; the current simulation does not IMHO.
Your opinion is wrong. If a device like Woodward's produces a fake thrust signal, that is an actual real error in Woodward's experiments that he has to account for. If Woodward believes there is still a signal underneath that, he will have to do the work to either build a device that only has his signal and not the extra fake thrust, or he has to very carefully characterize and remove the extra signal. It is no one else's responsibility to do that, and he is the one with access to the full sets of historical data.

So roll up the sleeves. You started this, a good thing since the team has not had the time or resources to do extensive simulations. Carry on and carry through.
One good part of your post that I can agree with, as long as the carry through does not include using tools that are a step backwards, or wasting money on more expensive tools that don't do anything different in a basic dynamics analysis.

Offline soms42

  • Member
  • Posts: 17
  • Netherlands
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1582 on: 11/10/2018 09:28 AM »
Newtonian physics (and relativity) is based on conservation of momentum.
So, if you show thrust in a newtionian simulation of a machian space drive on a thrust-balance, than either you are doing something wrong (e.g. computational rounding errors), or you showed that the measured thrust can come from measurement errors.

It is impossible to show that a machian space drive can work in simulations using newtonian physics. It is that simple!

So why this fuss about this simulation stuff?

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9718
  • UK
  • Liked: 1858
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1583 on: 11/10/2018 09:36 AM »
I think most people who have followed the EM drive threads for years will agree that  monomorphic started as an enthusiast of EM drive. After all, a non-believer from beginning will not invest years of spare time and much of his own money on EM drive or MEGA work. So the  thought of bad motive is groundless.

That said, while simulations can give hints of what really happens, a test of the real drive is necessary. Dr. Woodward should consider lending a MEGA drive to monomorphic for testing. This or other interested group with money should consider granting some $ for this endeavor, for science's sake.

By why did he see fit to air his grievances on a public forum, if someone was communicating with me by email about such a matter I wouldnít then expect them to post that correspondence online.

Offline Povel

  • Member
  • Posts: 44
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1584 on: 11/10/2018 01:03 PM »
From this email exchange, it seems to me that Woodward actually accepts the result of your simulation, but points out that if you were to simulate the entire balance with the central bearing together with the cage and its content it wouldn't be possible to have the arm oscillate around a new time averaged-equilibrium point:

Quote
[..] the simulator argues that the vibration induced in the beam by the cage/device makes the beam vibrate to a new time-averaged position that is recorded as a thrust (because the vibrations are "asymmetric" supposedly).

If the thrust balance were a simple pivoted beam, the simulator's scheme might work.  But the thrust balance is NOT  a simple pivoted beam.  The pivot bearings (C-Flex E - 10 bearings in fact) provide a restoring torque that enforces the zero position of the beam.  So, when the device starts vibrating, after perhaps a small transient response, the beam returns to its zero position notwithstanding that the cage and device are vibrating.  The simulator and one of his supporters want you to believe that this restoring torque is so small as to be completely negligible.  But this is wrong.  The restoring torque IS NOT NEGLIGIBLE.  Taking it as negligible is what gives his specious result and makes the simulation violate momentum conservation. [..]

In the following mail you posted he encouraged you to model the entire apparatus, and he thinks that, if in that case  too the balance arm is deflected it would constitute a violation of momentum conservation.

I'm not sure about the correctness of this argument, so I welcome comments on it, but look at the answer of this question:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/384676/measuring-weight-with-weighing-scale-doing-dumbbells

If I'm standing on a weighing scale and I suddenly lift my arms extremely fast, the scale might temporarily show an increased weight, corresponding to a deflection from the previous equilibrium point;  if after that I simply stay there with my arms lifted, even if my center of mass shifted because of the redistribution of the masses of my body, the scale will show my real weight.

The torsion balance arm with the bearing is in principle similar to a scale with a (torsional) spring.
If part of the device inside the cage rearranges itself so that the center of mass moves relative to the cage that , by itself, won't result in a steady deflection of the balance arm. 


As a side note, while I thank you for sharing with us this correspondence, I have to agree with Star One that it is not fair to post these messages without asking Woodward permission.
I also sent some messages to Woodward, and I am waiting for him to reply, but I won't share them unless he agrees.

Offline Augmentor

  • Member
  • Posts: 83
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 58
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1585 on: 11/10/2018 02:07 PM »
I read your email that instead of just working out your differences with the author, that posting to NSF was in order.

I thought that's what we were doing until I woke up to an email sent to a bunch of influential people I don't know disparaging my work and accusing me of ulterior motives.

Speaking of ulterior motives, don't you think you should disclose you've been trying to get people together to start a business around propellantless propulsion, specifically the mach effect thruster and emdrive?  ;)

You didnít get the memo? Many people here on NSF would like to turn their hobby into a business. And in fact, a few already have sold their design/builds.

Actually, this is old news. Woodward noted in his book, Making Starships and StargatesĒ (2012) that a number of folks in aerospace were looking to invest.

My view is simple. Woodward has the best theory since itís really nothing more than applied General Relativity, a calculation with the confines of GR. Seems to be the best theory in the world on a propellentless drive as others have suggested.

My view? Mach effects exist but are not ready for prime time since like most PP devices, itís stuck in basic R&D. Eventually, applied R&D and eventually Product R&D efforts are needed.

CLean up the flaws in the simulation; donít get stuck on the stick-slip action only.

So in fairness, Iíll add the Monomorphic Stiction (stick-slip) Drive to the Space Drive candidate list of propellentless drives.

David


Online meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1829
  • Liked: 1683
  • Likes Given: 402
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1586 on: 11/10/2018 04:56 PM »
CLean up the flaws in the simulation; donít get stuck on the stick-slip action only.

So in fairness, Iíll add the Monomorphic Stiction (stick-slip) Drive to the Space Drive candidate list of propellentless drives.
How is claiming with no evidence that the simulation is flawed fair?

How is falsely claiming that Monomorphic is demonstrating a new type of propellantless drive fair? Monomporphic is demonstrating that certain tests of a supposed propellantless drive are invalid due to a major unaccounted for error which has nothing to do with propellantless propulsion.

Offline ThinkerX

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 334
  • Alaska
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 63
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1587 on: 11/10/2018 08:01 PM »
Apologies, memory is a tad hazy.

Didn't Rodal present a paper arguing that Woodward's device could not operate according to the stated principles?

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 675
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 261
  • Likes Given: 292
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1588 on: 11/10/2018 08:52 PM »
Apologies, memory is a tad hazy.

Didn't Rodal present a paper arguing that Woodward's device could not operate according to the stated principles?

I don't remember the paper.  I think however it's a matter of fact that black holes merge via exhausting energy into the vacuum by gravitational waves.  I think the question is what levels of acceleration, velocity and mass we need to modulate the vacuum to significant levels ourselves.  Woodward derived it from general relativity which I think already predicts gravitational waves.  I believe the rocket part of woodford's equation describes ejection of the vacuum energy.  I'm not sure but I think the Wormhole part is describing modifying the density of the local vacuum.  When an object is either accelerated heavily or reaches large velocities, its effective mass should increase.  The relativistic slowing of time, physical pancaking of the object, change in effective mass, should represent an increased coupling with the vacuum, or a pressure.  Pulling hard during this time should eject the vacuum mass or density wave in this direction.  The Wormhole effect seems to either describe giving the local vacuum a relative velocity countering relativistic effects.  Its effect reduces relativistic increase in Mass.  That or the Mach worm hole effect describes reducing the effective mass of an object by decoupling it from the vacuum or the metric or inducing low pressure in the vacuum.   I would suspect if the relativistic effective mass can be canceled then so can the time slowing effects which limit us to the speed of light. 

We do know that black holes can lose energy to the vacuum and induce waves in it so it is a start.  Now we just need to see what we can do with it ourselves.
« Last Edit: 11/10/2018 09:01 PM by dustinthewind »

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 675
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 261
  • Likes Given: 292
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1589 on: 11/10/2018 08:55 PM »
I suspect the way the megadrive is designed it's difficult to grab it at the midsection so that it doesn't induce vibrations in the torsion pendulum.  It would be nice however if it could be done.

Offline Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1384
  • United States
    • /r/QThruster
  • Liked: 3888
  • Likes Given: 1252
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1590 on: 11/10/2018 11:11 PM »
Apologies, memory is a tad hazy.

Didn't Rodal present a paper arguing that Woodward's device could not operate according to the stated principles?

Yes, my recollection of Rodal's presentation concluded that it must be a local interaction.

Offline Augmentor

  • Member
  • Posts: 83
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 58
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1591 on: 11/11/2018 08:15 PM »
CLean up the flaws in the simulation; donít get stuck on the stick-slip action only.

So in fairness, Iíll add the Monomorphic Stiction (stick-slip) Drive to the Space Drive candidate list of propellentless drives.
How is claiming with no evidence that the simulation is flawed fair?

How is falsely claiming that Monomorphic is demonstrating a new type of propellantless drive fair? Monomorphic (sic) is demonstrating that certain tests of a supposed propellantless drive are invalid due to a major unaccounted for error which has nothing to do with propellantless propulsion.

You donít seem to be lacking an opinion. What do you think is going on?

First off, Jaime has made the effort to develop a simulation of the MEGA drive, an experimental thruster still in basic research and not in applied or product R&D.
 
Was stiction identified? Yes and compared to verifiable thrust by others at the 1 uN level

Can stiction explain the data runs since 2012? No, it only explains 1 uN and not higher levels of thrust or nonlinear variations in frequency.

Did the Monomorphic simulation get to using active mass to produce relativistic internal changes from an electric pulse? No. Only Newtonian kinematics, resonance and stiction were required.

Did the simulation provide thermodynamics similar to the MEGA? No, Monomorphic has not gone that far yet.

Since the incremental build and test procedure used by Monomorphic claims stiction thrust, he has effectively staked out what can be described and acknowledged author as the designated Monomorphic Stiction Drive.

Best

David






 


Furthermore, there does not appear to be any accounting for the voltage to the 4th power seen since 2012 in numerous tests.

The end result is that he found something unusual and needs to do two things now: finish the full build and test of the MEGA, and figure out the role of stiction.

Since he has not built and operated the full MEGA, he has only a partial build which he claims produces stiction thrust similar thrust to the 1uN. Therefore, he has built a Stiction Drive, a partial MEGA drive.



Offline Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1384
  • United States
    • /r/QThruster
  • Liked: 3888
  • Likes Given: 1252
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1592 on: 11/11/2018 09:58 PM »
Was stiction identified? Yes and compared to verifiable thrust by others at the 1 uN level

Can stiction explain the data runs since 2012? No, it only explains 1 uN and not higher levels of thrust or nonlinear variations in frequency.

I have no idea where this 1uN number comes from. I've been able to generate up to nearly 6uN of false positive thrust in the lab.

Did the Monomorphic simulation get to using active mass to produce relativistic internal changes from an electric pulse? No. Only Newtonian kinematics, resonance and stiction were required.

That's kind of the whole point. If the phenomenon can be simulated using Newtonian physics only through a heretofore unknown mechanism, then Occam's Razor would imply the more complicated theory is less likely to be true.   

Since the incremental build and test procedure used by Monomorphic claims stiction thrust, he has effectively staked out what can be described and acknowledged author as the designated Monomorphic Stiction Drive.

If you must call it something, call it the Monomorphic False-Positive Thrust Drive


Furthermore, there does not appear to be any accounting for the voltage to the 4th power seen since 2012 in numerous tests.

I think V4 will be seen as something akin to Ptolemaic Epicycles, where theory was fit to the observations, or coincidence that observations matched the more complicated theory.

« Last Edit: 11/11/2018 10:11 PM by Monomorphic »

Offline Augmentor

  • Member
  • Posts: 83
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 58
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1593 on: 11/12/2018 01:11 AM »
Monomorphic,

Iím surprised. 1 uN was verified in 2016 by three experts: one lab each in Canada, Germany and Austria. Itís been published data for sometime.

The V^4 data is derived from Woodwardís calculation within GR. The theory suggested 3 or 4 in the exponent.  Over time the data runs gathered show progressive improvement in the exponent from closer to 3 to now 3.9. Coincidence is more likely than any other conjecture or guess.

Occamís razor doesnít prove anything and can be misleading as a result. Itís a choice of simplicity.

However, the Monomorphic Stiction Drive (MSD) does not disprove Mach effect Thruster. The MSD is a subset of Newtonian only resonant thrust in flat space.

David







Offline Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1384
  • United States
    • /r/QThruster
  • Liked: 3888
  • Likes Given: 1252
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1594 on: 11/12/2018 12:56 PM »
Iím surprised. 1 uN was verified in 2016 by three experts: one lab each in Canada, Germany and Austria. Itís been published data for sometime.

To my knowledge, 1uN has NOT been verified by three independent experts.

The Canadian, George Hathaway, said during the 2016 workshop that he saw something slightly above noise level, but to this day says that he never replicated Woodward's results.

The Germans, Tajmar's group, said they measured a tiny fraction of 1uN, but when he wrote his paper, he reported the results as inconclusive. And now Tajmar states that they have falsified Woodward's results.

The only "replication," if you can call it that, was Buldrini. He reported 0.15uN, not 1uN.

 So, there has not even been one independent replication of 1uN. In fact, the small magnitude of Buldrini's signal lends support to the theory that this is just a Newtonian artifact (slide 64 of my Estes Park 2018 presentation).

« Last Edit: 11/12/2018 04:26 PM by Monomorphic »

Offline tdperk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 315
  • Liked: 107
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1595 on: 11/12/2018 04:56 PM »
And now Tajmar states that they have falsified Woodward's results.

However, it is known Tajmar did not in fact attempt a duplication which could falsify Woodward's results.

Offline soms42

  • Member
  • Posts: 17
  • Netherlands
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1596 on: 11/12/2018 08:15 PM »
One of the major problems with proving or disproving the woodward-mach effect is that the used experimental devices operate in the noise-level.

Does anybody know if there have been attempts to increase the effect by making the device smaller?

E.g: rough estimation for decrease the size 10-fold would:

 * increase the resonance frequency by 10 ==> effect is 10^6 bigger.
 * reduce the energy fluctuation by 10^3 ==> effect 1000 times smaller.
 * reduce drive power by a factor 100 (would be 1000 for same frequency).

Hence the force is 1000 time bigger while the drive power is 100 times smaller.
Also: less power and smaller dimensions allow for continues operation because cooling can prevent overheating.

Looks pretty good to me, or am i missing something?

Offline Augmentor

  • Member
  • Posts: 83
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 58
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1597 on: 11/12/2018 11:34 PM »
One of the major problems with proving or disproving the woodward-mach effect is that the used experimental devices operate in the noise-level.

Does anybody know if there have been attempts to increase the effect by making the device smaller?

E.g: rough estimation for decrease the size 10-fold would:

 * increase the resonance frequency by 10 ==> effect is 10^6 bigger.
 * reduce the energy fluctuation by 10^3 ==> effect 1000 times smaller.
 * reduce drive power by a factor 100 (would be 1000 for same frequency).

Hence the force is 1000 time bigger while the drive power is 100 times smaller.
Also: less power and smaller dimensions allow for continues operation because cooling can prevent overheating.

Looks pretty good to me, or am i missing something?

A smaller device is possible by reducing the amount of active mass (PZT) in which case the trade off between volume decreasing and frequency rising is possible.

There is a large formula with numerous constants and variables that can be reduced to a two variable envelope, an oversimplification but a useful place to start. Force is a function of voltage and frequency, a power envelope.

F = f(V, f)

The first issues is the interaction between V and f. Change V and f changes; change f and V changes. Increase or decrease in frequency results in a change in voltage, an AC signal  over a DC base. Likewise, an increase in voltage produces a change in frequency. The V-f relationship needs work.

Nature scales in different ways. Machian force scales as V^3, perhaps as much as V^4. Why? Donít know. But that is what the data suggests from curve fitting tests as early as 2012.

Also, Nature scales Mach effects by frequency, f^4 is considered to be rather solid, but data is required to verify this. So, we can modify the equation about to show scaling by changes in V and f to

F = f(V, f) = A (V^4) (f^4)

Where A are all the other constants and functions

Monomorphic has yet to provide a formula for the Stiction thruster so that a theoretical comparison could be performed.

Online meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1829
  • Liked: 1683
  • Likes Given: 402
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1598 on: 11/13/2018 12:01 AM »
Monomorphic has yet to provide a formula for the Stiction thruster so that a theoretical comparison could be performed.
Of course not, Monomorphic has not described a "stiction thruster."

The device described by Monomorphic (which is just a generic version of Woodward's device) produces an apparent displacement that incorrectly registers as a force on a torsional pendulum. The cause this is not "stiction," and it is not a thruster. There are obviously multiple parameters that affect the amount of displacement, and how much fake thrust this translates to depends on the overall setup.

Is this clear enough for you to stop misrepresenting the facts now?

Offline Augmentor

  • Member
  • Posts: 83
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 58
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1599 on: 11/13/2018 03:28 AM »
Meberbs,

No active mass; no Mach effect thrust.

You misunderstand that this is not a generic version of MEGA. Itís only a partial build. Monomorphic has only produced a device or two that relies on stick-slip aka stiction to produce a measurable force. Technically, the device is nothing more than a forced, damped harmonic oscillator that due to stick-slip action produces thrust.
Of course, this is only the first half of a Machian thruster and lacks additional processes.

Can you do math? That might clear up some aspects of your insitance that an orange is an apple.

D

Tags: