Assume the Woodward Effect is real. What kind of accelerations are possible?

[EzinX]

Please don't fight the topic. I acknowledge that due to all the problems that known physics would have if the Woodward Effect is real, the measured force probably is caused by an interaction with the external environment whenever tests are performed. Neverthless, if it were a real thing, what kind of performance would you get from a spacecraft?

Wikipedia provides a big nasty equation predicting a transient mass fluctuation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect

Help me translate this into theoretical thruster force : mass ratios based upon the best known real world materials that exist today for the capacitor parts. I would assume the actual space drive apparatus would suspend this variable mass object between large superconducting magnets and oscillate it back and forth as rapidly as possible. What kind of force production could you get relative to the mass of all this equipment? What would be the power demands? As the spacecraft accelerates and has a higher relative velocity to the average velocity of the external universe it is actually interacting with, what would that do to your acceleration?

[Mazon Del]

My understanding based on the article is that the thrust has a direct correlation with the power supplied to it. At which point your limitation ends up being how big can you make this device (to handle the increased power) before the size itself compromises the very effect you are looking for, if it even ever does.

[Frozen_Heart]

thrust has a direct correlation with the power supplied to it

Could just hook it up to a nuclear power station. If it goes through the roof then the effect has been verified.

[Brotoro]

"Assume physics as we know it is wrong. What would happen?"

I can't say. I no longer have a basis to make predictions upon.

[Sandworm]

As I understand it, he is using an increase in energy to alter the mass of an object. This change in mass is the force/acceleration potential. I'm not sure which math to use, this is really out-there physics to me, but ...

E=MC^2 or M=E/C^2

So the potential force available is the amount of energy OVER the speed of light ... squared. If my math is correct, this is going to be an astronomically small number. Think of all the energy in a nuclear bomb. That would give you an instantaneous push of a few pounds. To maintain a few pounds of thrust you would have to continuously apply the energy of a continuously exploding bomb.

If an ion drive is the force similar to the weight of a nickle, a refrigerator-sized nuclear reactor might produce a Woodward effect similar to the weight of a largish bacteria.

Given the amount of energy available from various sources (solar panels do have an end-of-life) I'm not sure that this effect would be any better than xenon. Even beamed-up power could probably be used better directly (lasers pushing things) than via a woodward drive.

Edited December 10, 2014 by Sandworm

[Aethon]

" Local system energy and momentum conservation is maintained by interactions with all the distant mass in the universe. Therefore to accelerate a spacecraft here, the Machian interpretation of inertial reaction forces means that each star or other distant matter in the universe will move in the opposite direction of the locally accelerated mass in response here – even if only on an extremely small scale. Conservation of energy and momentum must be maintained globally, but nature doesn’t say how big the system box has to be, nor when the accounting has to be done."

Paul March

Hmm.. I can see the headline now. " Is the expansion of the Universe caused by exotic extraterrestrial starship propulsion? "

[NERVAfan]

I think some of the Woodward effect people suggest exactly that. Although maybe not just extraterrestrial but also from our future... or something.

[NERVAfan]

As I understand it, he is using an increase in energy to alter the mass of an object. This change in mass is the force/acceleration potential. I'm not sure which math to use, this is really out-there physics to me, but ...

E=MC^2 or M=E/C^2

So the potential force available is the amount of energy OVER the speed of light ... squared. If my math is correct, this is going to be an astronomically small number.

I think their concept is that that is just an "on switch" and the vast majority of the effect comes from energy ambient in the universe - "gravinertial flux" IIRC. It has something to do with the Mach's principle concept that inertia comes from the sum of mass-energy in the universe, or something like that.

[Nuke]

its sort of like filling a tank with water, pushing it a meter, emptying it, and pulling it a meter. this wouldn't work because the water has to go somewhere when its drained and come from somewhere when its filling the tank. if this was another tank on a spacecraft, then momentum is conserved and you dont go anywhere. instead replace the water tank with a variable mass object and now you are on to something.

the device discribed uses capacitors. according to the theory some quantum voodoo causes the rest mass of the dielectric (the insulator between the conductive plates in the capacitor) to change when the capacitor is charged and discharged. if this charging and discharging is in sync with a mechanical oscillation (they used a peizo electric device or an inductor) then you should get some go.

its nice to know i can build a reactionless drive out of parts found in my junk drawer (assuming its not quack science). i need to come up with an rf power supply though.

[Sandworm]

I think their concept is that that is just an "on switch" and the vast majority of the effect comes from energy ambient in the universe - "gravinertial flux" IIRC. It has something to do with the Mach's principle concept that inertia comes from the sum of mass-energy in the universe, or something like that.

After thinking about it (just went to gym) I don't see any reason why it cannot work. Matter can be converted into energy (see nuclear fission) and can go the other way (cannot think of example but matter did come from somewhere). So you push against a mass of matter, turn it into massless energy, pull it back, then convert the energy back into matter. I just think the amount of energy required would be so much that it isn't worth the effort.

[Nuke]

id need proof that variable mass objects can actually exist.

[NERVAfan]

id need proof that variable mass objects can actually exist.

That's not the physically questionable part of it; that's just straightforward mass-energy equivalence. A charged battery or capacitor should by mass-energy equivalence have more mass than a discharged one. (Very slightly more mass - one kilowatt-hour = 3.6 megajoules = 4 x 10^-11 kg = 40 nanograms). Unless I am missing something...

But that doesn't help. If you are charging and discharging the capacitor in a closed system, the mass-energy of the system isn't changing (because it's a closed system and energy is conserved).

As I said, the Mach Effect/Woodward Effect idea (as I understand it, anyway) is that the charge/discharge is just a "spark" or "on switch" and the real energy comes from outside (from the entire universe, in fact).

I think it's unlikely to be correct, but I'm not sure it actually violates conservation of energy or momentum because (in the idea) the 'Mach drive' spacecraft isn't really a closed system and is exchanging energy and momentum with the universe at large.

(I don't see how they get around FTL communication problems with exchanging energy/momentum with distant parts of the universe, though.)

[NERVAfan]

its sort of like filling a tank with water, pushing it a meter, emptying it, and pulling it a meter. this wouldn't work because the water has to go somewhere when its drained and come from somewhere when its filling the tank. if this was another tank on a spacecraft, then momentum is conserved and you dont go anywhere. instead replace the water tank with a variable mass object and now you are on to something.

the device discribed uses capacitors. according to the theory some quantum voodoo causes the rest mass of the dielectric (the insulator between the conductive plates in the capacitor) to change when the capacitor is charged and discharged. if this charging and discharging is in sync with a mechanical oscillation (they used a peizo electric device or an inductor) then you should get some go.

Essentially, though I don't think they think it's a quantum effect - it's supposed to have something to do with the nature of inertia/inertial mass.

[TheDarkStar]

After thinking about it (just went to gym) I don't see any reason why it cannot work. Matter can be converted into energy (see nuclear fission) and can go the other way (cannot think of example but matter did come from somewhere). So you push against a mass of matter, turn it into massless energy, pull it back, then convert the energy back into matter. I just think the amount of energy required would be so much that it isn't worth the effort.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work this way. Energy has no rest mass, but it still has an inertial mass equivalent to the inertial mass the matter you would get if you converted the energy to matter.

Basically, conservation of momentum.

[EzinX]

Unfortunately, it doesn't work this way. Energy has no rest mass, but it still has an inertial mass equivalent to the inertial mass the matter you would get if you converted the energy to matter.

Basically, conservation of momentum.

As I understand it, the woodward effect "device" is plugged right into the wall. It can't be that simple, can it? Electrons rush in from the wall, making it heavier during part of the cycle and they are sent back to the wall during the other half.

Well, technically, AC power doesn't involve a transfer of electrons, but DC power supplies have capacitors in them that would act like the other half of the problem. An external capacitor on the lab power supply stores the electrons during half the cycle. Since a spacecraft can't do this (you can't store mass in another tank and have it not count against the spacecraft's inertial mass), there you have it.

Someone must have noted this. I'm not arrogant enough to think I'm the first to propose this. Huh.

[Nuke]

you need an rf (really just high frequency ac) power supply. this need not be massive, for example the inverter for a laptop screen (or rather its florescent backlight) is about the size of your thumb. however this is usually high voltage low frequency, and as best i can tell you want the opposite*. the piezo electric one runs a few khz, and the inductor based one runs at about 8mhz (and judging from the size of the caps and diameter of the coil windings, probibly at a low voltage*). but then again its just another power supply. both psu and thruster together without the solar panel would be a few ounces. i could probibly build a supply and the thruster with parts i have on hand, though i dont know if i could get any useful data out of it. i dont have a torsion pendulum, faraday cage, or vacuum chamber on hand.

i dont think the electron mass is relevant (do they have any mass, i know they have zero rest mass, but when does an electron ever sit still?). it would be the same as my water analogy anyway. but i seem to get that there is something else going on, other than charging and discharging a capacitor.

*i read some of the sources on wikipedia and aparently it uses high frequency and high voltage. you might need a beefy transformer for that. i also found out that the name of the device was "flux capacitor".

Edited December 11, 2014 by Nuke

[Mazon Del]

(I don't see how they get around FTL communication problems with exchanging energy/momentum with distant parts of the universe, though.)

My understanding was that it wasn't actually an FTL exchange, so much as a very delayed one. However long it would take the 'effect' that you are abusing to make the engine work to reach the rest of the universe.

Frankly this engine in a way has always felt to me a lot like a certain method to abuse the stock market. Lets say you have billions of dollars and the fastest connection to the stock market available. You dump your billions into buying stock in Microsoft. An instant after the BUY is received, the system has to make a snap judgment on how much the stock is now worth, and for various design/speed reasons it ALWAYS overshoots. But another tick or two later it corrects as the slower 'real' calculations finally catch up. So, what you do after you click the BUY command, is you (one clock tick later) click SELL. Normally buying a stock, waiting a second, and then selling it should have you at net zero (net negative really due to trade fees). However, on the time scale involved, you actually sold while the stock was worth more than it was supposed to be because of the tiny overshoot. So at the end of the day what has happened is that you 'stole' money from the other stockholders. This system however requires A) Billions of dollars, An obscenely expensive connection to the stock exchange, and C) To be done years ago because they closed the loophole that let this happen.

For some reason this engine has always kind of felt like it was abusing the same sort of situation somehow. Which of course it isn't. Just conceptually that is how it feels.

[-Velocity-]

(I don't see how they get around FTL communication problems with exchanging energy/momentum with distant parts of the universe, though.)

Since they claim they are exchanging momentum via gravitational interactions, it's not FTL. Theoretically, gravity is carried by gravitons, which have zero rest mass, so they travel at c. So the speed of gravity is the same as the speed of light and the speed of the strong force and the maximum speed at which two spatially separated things can effect each other - c. The weak force is carried by particles that do have (quite high) rest masses, and so it cannot travel at c, but I don't know what its actual propagation velocity would be. Because the weak force is so short-ranged though, who really cares, I guess.

[-Velocity-]

Could you make an "reactionless" drive by moving mass/energy in such a way to preferentially launch gravity waves in one direction? Gravity waves carry energy and should carry away momentum. There should be a gravity wave radiation pressure. You'd be exchanging momentum with the objects behind you, through gravity waves. Even if possible, the thrust you would get would be incredibly, incredibly, incredibly tiny. You'd be vastly better off just shooting a laser out the back of your spacecraft and using the momentum of the photons you're emitting to provide thrust- and that momentum would still be pretty tiny, but at least it would be measurable.

[EzinX]

You know, if there was a lot of interstellar hydrogen floating around in the universe, such that there was a significant amount in every direction, you could make a much more efficient rocket that scooped it up in flight and flung it out the back extremely fast. You're not at the tyranny of the rocket equation because you are gaining mass during flight. This is what a Bussard ramjet is, now, the problem with one is that :

1. There isn't as much interstellar hydrogen as expected when the idea was proposed 2. Fusion doesn't give you enough energy to fling the hydrogen fast enough. You would need to convert the protons directly to energy somehow

If the mass of the universe was emitting an ocean of "gravitons", and there was a way to interact with these gravitons and fling them away like a rocket thruster, and whatever particle comprises a graviton has inertia, you'd also get a benefit here. It would be more energy efficient than a photon drive, again, assuming the gravitons have significantly more momentum than a photon.

No FTL interactions here, and if gravitons travel at C, there would be some kind effect similar to red-shift blue-shift as your spacecraft travels faster, which would make your "graviton engine" behave differently as your spacecraft reaches velocities faster than the average velocity of all those gravitons

Also, tampering with this "graviton sea" might result in changes to the way the mass of the universe moves, long term, possibly speeding up expansion.

This is tenuous, perhaps...but is it violating any physical laws?

Edited December 11, 2014 by EzinX

[-Velocity-]

If the mass of the universe was emitting an ocean of "gravitons", and there was a way to interact with these gravitons and fling them away like a rocket thruster, and whatever particle comprises a graviton has inertia, you'd also get a benefit here. It would be more energy efficient than a photon drive, again, assuming the gravitons have significantly more momentum than a photon.

Gravitons have WAY less momentum and energy than a photon, which is why we never can observe them. They are so low energy that they behave like waves all the time, and never like quantized particles, like higher energy photons can. There is probably no known process that can produce gravitons with high enough energy to actually appear like quantized particles to any known or even conceivable detection system.

Photons have way more energy and momentum and are much, much easier to produce in large quantities.

No FTL interactions here, and if gravitons travel at C, there would be some kind effect similar to red-shift blue-shift as your spacecraft travels faster,

The red/blue shift effect would be exhibited in a increase or decrease in the observed frequency of gravitational radiation- gravity waves. Gravity waves carry so little energy that no one has ever directly observed any, though we may be getting close. We know gravity waves must exist because theoretically they are required, and we've observed close pulsar pairs that are spiraling inward towards each other at exactly the rate predicted by the conversion of their orbital energy into gravitational radiation.

I will note that I am not certain as to whether all physicists are certain that gravitons exist. There might be theories of gravity that do not invoke the use of gravitons, but honestly, a universe where gravity is a fundamental force with a force-carrying particle, and not some weird other thing, seems to me a much more simple (and thus, likely) explanation.

which would make your "graviton engine" behave differently as your spacecraft reaches velocities faster than the average velocity of all those gravitons

Gravitons are massless force carriers that travel at c, exactly like photons, so they appear to travel at c from all reference frames. So exactly as you cannot travel faster than light, you cannot travel faster than gravity.

Edited December 11, 2014 by |Velocity|

[NERVAfan]

This is what a Bussard ramjet is, now, the problem with one is that :

1. There isn't as much interstellar hydrogen as expected when the idea was proposed 2. Fusion doesn't give you enough energy to fling the hydrogen fast enough. You would need to convert the protons directly to energy somehow

The lack of hydrogen is right (specifically, the Solar System is in a low-density area, the Local Bubble; IIRC the original calculations used the galactic average), but it's not really a problem with fusion being too low-energy; it's a problem of drag caused by collecting the hydrogen and the extreme difficulty of fusing normal hydrogen (¹H), which is the vast majority of hydrogen. So far we can't even get net power out of deuterium-tritium fusion, which is vastly easier.

EDIT:

i dont think the electron mass is relevant (do they have any mass, i know they have zero rest mass,

No, electrons have rest mass (about 1/1836 that of a proton, IIRC).

[EzinX]

Gravitons are massless force carriers that travel at c, exactly like photons, so they appear to travel at c from all reference frames. So exactly as you cannot travel faster than light, you cannot travel faster than gravity.

I'm using the wrong terms here. What I was getting at is that suppose you built a photon sail. As you sail away from earth and gain speed, the light from the laser at earth would appear red shifted, and you would get less thrust. If you could interact with gravitons, and they are actually super awesome and current physicists are dead wrong, and those gravitons are coming from the stars of the universe, then as you gain speed you'd have something similar to red/blue shift occur and your thrust would reduce.

It is really important that this happenes, because otherwise you could violate conservation of energy.

[Sandworm]

I'm using the wrong terms here. What I was getting at is that suppose you built a photon sail. As you sail away from earth and gain speed, the light from the laser at earth would appear red shifted, and you would get less thrust. If you could interact with gravitons, and they are actually super awesome and current physicists are dead wrong, and those gravitons are coming from the stars of the universe, then as you gain speed you'd have something similar to red/blue shift occur and your thrust would reduce.

It is really important that this happenes, because otherwise you could violate conservation of energy.

Unless these gravitrons aren't pushing, but are pulling you. Then the blueshift might actually increase your thrust as you run into more and more of them. That is how conventional gravity works. The faster you move towards a body, the greater the rate of increase in acceleration.

[-Velocity-]

I'm using the wrong terms here. What I was getting at is that suppose you built a photon sail. As you sail away from earth and gain speed, the light from the laser at earth would appear red shifted, and you would get less thrust. If you could interact with gravitons, and they are actually super awesome and current physicists are dead wrong, and those gravitons are coming from the stars of the universe, then as you gain speed you'd have something similar to red/blue shift occur and your thrust would reduce.

It is really important that this happenes, because otherwise you could violate conservation of energy.

You'd get your thrust from gravitational radiation pressure, in other words. A static gravitational field cannot be used to accelerate you away from an object, as the gravitons emitted by a static field have zero energy and so a static field would just attract you. This is similar how the photons emitted by a static electric field have zero energy (wavelength = infinity) and are thus never able to make the "jump" from an undetectable virtual particle to a detectable, quantized, real particle.

But yes, you'd see the energy drop as the wavelength of the gravity waves decreased due to "redshift".

The question is, CAN you absorb or reflect gravity waves? I believe the answer is yes, certainly. Conductors and dielectrics change the electromagnetic waves passing through them by having charges that can move in response to the electric and magnetic fields in an electromagnetic wave passing through it. So a piece of matter that has masses (gravitational "charges") that move in response to the passing gravitational wave should likewise modify gravitational wave propagation through it. So you should have materials that can absorb gravitational waves or slow them down. Boundaries/surfaces should also exist that have non-zero reflection coefficients too, so that allows the reflection of gravitational radiation too.

All such effects are going to be incredibly, immeasurably weak. Gravity interacts extremely, extremely, extremely weakly with matter, as compared to the electromagnetic force. Gravity is so weak that we almost never even observe the gravitomagnetic side of it, and only the fact that there are no negative gravitational charges allows us to observe it at all.