From everything I can glean from the internet and with my amateurish results it appears the Woodward Effect is delivering a small “Mach like” force using only electrical current. I believe this can now be considered a new force in physics. Nothing has been published but there are reports of significant drive forces using Dr. Woodward’s MEGA (Mach Effect Gravity Assist) device in two new modes: Hanging from nylon line and moving on a virtually frictionless air bushing slide. MEGA is operating near resonance so the major force is toward the smaller mass. When a hanging device moves toward the smaller mass the so called Dean Drive argument is moot. (A Dean Drive device can move along a frictional surface in either direction due to the “slip-stick effect” but not suspended). A hanging Dean Drive can possibly move a very slight bit toward the heavy mass if the action of the vibrating small mass causes the device center of mass to shift slightly (on average) toward the small mass. There is no way a hanging Dean Drive can move toward the small mass nor can it move on a frictionless surface. The MEGA reported forces are still fairly small (3 mN) but 10^3 times more powerful than earlier and if it works in space and can be scaled, a spacecraft star drive will be possible.
So here’s your chance to work on a new force in physics. My latest Ver4.0 is easier to build than earlier versions and is delivering repeatable results in the direction of the smaller mass. But first I want to mention a controversy resurfaced with a lengthy paper by Dr. Jose Rodal in the very prestigious and mainstream journal of General Relativity and Gravitation, where he states in part, concerning the mass-energy fluctuations of Dr. Woodward’s theory:
In summary, this is a higher order effect and thus appears to be too small to be used in practical space travel application (unless the spacecraft is near a black hole or a neutron star).
Rodal, J.J.A.: A Machian wave effect in conformal, scalar–tensor gravitational theory. Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 51, 61–84 (2019)e
Dr. Woodward had previously not been published in mainstream theoretical physics journals, but has now responded to this criticism in the same journal and concluded in part about the Mach effect controversy:
The arguments, however, have been restricted to the general relativity community and “academic” until quite recently. For example, a decade and more ago, when the Higgs interaction was widely hailed as the “origin of mass” (mass being the measure of inertia), no one even bothered to mention that Einstein took gravity to be the origin of inertia and that the topic had been long and at times hotly debated in the general relativity community. Rodal’s dismissive critique of Mach effects falls squarely within this tradition. A year or so ago, however, he sent me an apposite Feynman quote: “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
General Relativity and Gravitation (2020) 52:11
I don’t understand enough general relativity to comment on this argument but it certainly appears that the MEGA drive is providing experimental data. Drs Woodward/Fern are getting great results, a few others have seen lesser results and even my DIY device is showing a few uNs of force. My Ver. 4.0 stack is lighter than previous stacks and now suspended over two saltwater reservoirs to provide the drive power. This design eliminates the hanging drive wires of the previous model that some argue could cause false positives. Achieving comparable results with the same stack using different drive methods is further confirmation that the force is real. The requested construction details follow or you can skip to the test results below.
Construction
Figure 15 shows the PA2JEW piezoelectric (PzC) stack with a .17g brass counterweight attached with 9340 Hysol epoxy. The drive wires were replaced with short pieces of 30 AWG copper with the strands separated (for high frequency isolation) and terminated with short pieces of 24 gauge silver wire (Figures 16 and 17). A square paper tube surrounds the stack and has the 2 lb test nylon fish line supports attached with superglue. The blue saltwater bath is made from a silicone ice cube tray with silver drive wire on the bottom. Two heaping tsp salt in 200 ml distilled water replaces the liquid metal previously attempted. These tiny devices are drastically effected by surface tension. All liquid metals have 10 times the surface tension of water. Also the water surface is affected by the ability of the water to wet the sides of the bath. Applying glycerin or similar to the bath sides provides a wettable surface that allows the bath to be more level. The laser and sled are described in earlier blogs. Drive power is supplied with an ordinary signal generator and with my simple amplifier design shown in Figure 18.
Test Results
Results below represent three tests showing mean values of 10 runs each. Stack #4 is driven at 444 kHz with a short pulse (0.5 s) that starts the stack swinging and followed by a long pulse (1.3 s) that holds it in an elevated position. Force is shown in blue, drive power in red and the error bars represent +/- 1.0 sigma about the mean. Because of the stacks small mass (~.34 g) it was necessary to reduce the power (< 1 watt) in order to keep the signal in the linear range. Figure 19 shows results from the laser measuring movement from the east end of the stack which is also the large mass end. Figure 20 shows results from the laser measuring movement from the west end of the stack which is the small mass end. The stack had to be repositioned in the west test resulting in an small increase in power and force. Comparing the two test reveals a clear thrust of about 2 uN toward the small mass. The stack was then reversed 180 degrees and the last test ran again. This resulted in Figure 21 which is still measuring on the west end and now the large mass end. Notice there is a small tendency to diminish the positive laser measurements (bias) probably because of nonlinearities. Normally the last result is subtracted from the previous one thereby erasing any such systemic bias. This results in Figure 22 which clearly shows a few uNs force toward the small mass.
Variability from one test to the next is less of a problem in Ver. 4.0 but is still an issue. The Ver. 4.0 stack has much less mass and only one epoxy joint so those factors likely allow the stack to resonate at 444 kHz which is near the PA2JEW design frequency (450 kHz). Previous versions had much larger mass, nuts, bolts and two epoxied joints that likely required the higher frequency (616 kHz) to fluctuate the mass. The higher frequency of Ver. 3.1, being close to 3/2 the fundamental, always delivered forces toward the large mass (Notice the PzC length/width = 3/2). Now with Ver. 4.0 operating near the first harmonic, the force is toward the small mass.
This Mach effect force reversal was predicted by Dr. Rodal , although at twice the fundamental, where he modeled the PzC stack using a partial differential equation. He obtained an exact continuous solution, one result of which is shown on Slide 60 of his presentation at the 2017 Advanced Propulsion Workshop. What appears to be a theoretical reversal in his recent paper, but isn’t, may be explained by his comment concerning a 10^2 or 10^6 scale factor required for Slide 60. Regardless of controversies and scale factors, with my amateurish results and primarily with the laboratory grade thrust reversal results by Drs Woodward/Fern, this is powerful confirmation of the Mach effect.
As before let me know any questions, error modes or suggestions that come to mind. Until next time, thanks for viewing. – Larry
Recent Comments