There's a certain amusing historical irony in the idea of returning to powering ships with (photon & magnetic) sails, but I never imagined spaceships might revive a version of _reciprocating piston engines,_ ratcheting themselves forward through spacetime one hyper-fast piston cycle at a time. I hope to see a testbed fly before too long and find out whether it really can inch itself along in a vacuum without propellant-Can't think of a much more exciting development to witness.
Seeing a memorable interview here. Some genius' will be remembered, when they will be gone. Sorry, Jimbo, after all, that you've been through, having you with us on a day-to-day basis is a pleasure. Shout-out to John for keeping us on track! By "us", I'm referring to the average Joe (globally speaking), being able to enjoy the marvels and discoveries of science, TODAY, as they come. THANK YOU!!
It is good to see Professor Woodward and Mach-Woodward Effect in the public eye again. I have been watching since the first public display. The m=E/C^2 mass change is very much like Professor Leo Susskind’s mass due to energy of particle oscillation without the Higgs’ field. I was fascinated to see the piezo stack driving my BMW fuel injectors.
Listening to this video, while in hypnagogic state, let's you imagine the people in the engineering room of the starship enterprise discussing the warp drive.
Mike Marsden has already created the Mac Quan 1 which used inertia alone to convert angular acceleration and angular deceleration into linear acceleration (linear thrust) using just electric motors. Some people call it inertial propulsion or a reactionless drive, he calls it mass displacement.
hm... obviously I'm full of doubts... (I'm a physicist myself). Yes, I see that movement but since it is claimed this motion is the reason and looking at the spring loaded slider, I have the following theories: * stick slip? ... yes, I'd like to see this floating in mid air * some mechanical resonance mechanism? * how come one charges (and therefore increase mass) the actuator, increase its mass, then translate the actuator slightly in direction A and THEN discharge it... the electrons should transfer their inertia to the wire or wherever they're being discharged to and that should be the end of the momentum conversation, no? I really wish Mr. Woodward to be right, but the fact that this video is the only 'proof' makes me doubt it even more. I mean, why has this not been tested in vacuum, on wheels on a simple plastic rail, with a battery pack? I really really want to be wrong, but I think (like many of us physicists), this has nothing to it :-/ Please proof us wrong, Mr. Woodward!!!!
Indeed - "trying to pull yourself out of the swamp by your own hair" with pull frequency of 30khz. If only you could get rid of the charge of the capacitor to the void of the space, but more efficient way to do that is by converting energy to light and just shine to the opposite direction of required required movement.
@@n3r0z3r0 well irradiating the energy away as light would indeed be a waste of energy, since the radiation pressure would be insignificant to the thrust this Mach Effect device supposedly delivers. The charge of the capacitance is not wastes if discharged to somewhere else and then partly used again! Therefore it'd be only logicical to not irradiate the energy away! If I had more time I'd contact Mr. Woodward, and have him send me one of his 'gizmos' so I could test it properly in a vacuum, on a super low resistance rail or something. What's taking NASA or whoever is conducting the tests so long? It should either have been debunked within weeks or a sensational paper of new discovery should have come out by now. How has neither of these two things happened yet?
@@randfee But if the capacitor discharge back to the same physical place bonded to the propelled object, you also lose the momentum achieved by displacing mass(charge), right ? Simple analogy: 1. pump water into some reservoir. 2. move reservoir to a some distance 3. pump water back 4. return reservoir back to its initial place 5. repeat All that can be achieved is a fancy vibration and no movement threw space. Movement can be achieved only if you leave displaced water at step 2 while returning empty reservoir back to initial place. Please correct me. And there is no need to have s fancy vacuum place to measure propulsion - balanced on a string horisontal pendulum with counterweights and some vibration suppression (some foam, should work at 30khz perfectly) should be more then enough.
The change of mass in the capacitors or piezoelectric crystals does not come from them having "more electrons," rather it comes from an increase in potential energy. After all, a charged capacitor contains more or less the same amount of electrons as a discharged one, if you consider both the anode and cathode. Therefore electrons cannot "transfer inertia" anywhere, except for their mass shifting along the wires (at a fraction of the speed of electricity itself, by the way.) I don't see any problem with transferring some amount of energy L to/from an object in order to increase/decrease its inertial mass by L/c² (which is tiny.) I also don't have any objection to the use of piezoelectric crystals to couple the phase of the inertial mass variation to a physical oscillation, in fact it's quite ingenious. My issue is with the figure of 10N/kW of thrust, which is preposterous, as well as with their "explanation" that it taps into the entire Universe's gravitational field or some such. If their current devices can really output such thrust from electricity alone, albeit in an irregular manner, why don't they put them on a pendulum or some other mounting mechanisms that cannot physically have any stick/slip effect? In any case, I'll keep following their experiment. Godspeed.
"The slip/stick mechanism is impossible" with my swing pendulum test: activate the Drive at the top of the swing, perpendicular to the swing direction. Gravity doesn't pull back against it, and any circular deflection of the pendulm's swing will be preserved.
A fairly simple micro controller circuit should be able to provide thermal compensation to maintain resonant frequency. This type of regulation is commonly used in RF applications.
My best guess is that it doesn't work and all he's seeing are vibrations but anyhow, if he can get some decent funding maybe he'll be able to put a working model on a Spacex rocket for a definiive test in space.
I'm glad he used a ufo to tell him it could be done. I'm also heartened that there is a omnidirectional force in the universe that is usually not observed because it is balanced.
If you could actually "change the mass" of an object without gathering or releasing mass, the LEAST interesting application would be propelling. You could effectively create a perpetual motion machine.
My main question which nags at me so is: how do you change the mass of the piezoelectric crystals? How do you do it in a way that makes the crystal more massive when thrown to the front of the gizmo, and then less massive when at the back? If this question is answerable to anyone who understands relativity, I would greatly appreciate it.
The first part of your question is relatively easy: it is based on the equivalence of mass and energy, “the most important upshot of the special theory of relativity,” in Einstein's own words. In simple terms, if an object absorbs or emits an amount of energy L, its inertial mass will correspondingly either increase or decrease by an amount L/c². Therefore, if you charge and discharge an array of capacitors (Woodward's old setup) or strain and relieve an array of piezoelectric crystals (his current setup) you are changing their inertial mass (by a minuscule amount.) As for the second part, how to synchronize that effect with the gizmo's motion: in their current setup they use a particular piezoelectric material that oscillates with a particular set of harmonics (frequency ratios) with respect to the electric signal it is energized with. They say they need to solve a few issues, such as calibrating the electric signal to the thermal changes in the material, but allegedly this problem is also mostly solved. The big question is, how can those small ultrasonic vibrations, coupled with incredibly tiny variations in mass, generate large amounts of thrust? In this video he mentions 10N/kW, which is insane: it means generating 1kg or 2.2lb of force (I'm translating Newtons to Earth gravity equivalents) for every 1kW of electric power supplied to the devices. The musings for this aspect is where they start talking nonsense IMO, citing the gravitational field of the entire universe or some such. We'll just have to wait for confirmations (if any) of this technology.
@@firefly618 ah I see. I never really thought of how E=mc^2 could go both ways lol. I imagine that unless the piezoelectric vibrates at such a frequency that it gets some considerable portion of the speed of light relative to the gizmos body (which would require a rediculous amount of energy), that 10N/kW sounds quite rediculous. Thank you so much for your response!
Why does he say the figure of merit is the force per watt? Isn't it also important to pay attention to the force divided by the weight of the device? If that's too high, no flying cars, no launch vehicles.
As a yardstick, a tesla (very heavy, batteries with decent energy density) doesn't produce a third of a killowatt of output over the average mile. If it had thrusters like that, it certainly couldn't lift itself. Are you gonna power these things with microwave beams or something?
@@johnkoetsier Thanks! I mean.. this would be pretty world changing, if true. I am a mechanical engineer, and if keeping the devices at a consistent temperature is the biggest hurdle.. I would think that could be solved in short order - let's get on that!
@@vantongerent And ... James just responded. Here's his message: "Thanks for reaching out. There has been progress on the project in the past few years. As it turns out, I am planning an update for a small list of interested parties to go out today with a little luck. Be pleased to add you to the list if you like. Turns out that the new design when you interviewed me several years ago has been refined to the point where its utility, with some more engineering, is manifest." I've asked to be added to the list, and I'll try to do a follow-up video with him when he''s ready.
My questions are if this mechanism is able to increase and decrease a mass by some small amount where in the cycle would it need to happen and how does it overcome the law of "conservation of energy" I have thought about it and it would seem that regardless of a change in mass of an isolated system the law of conservation of energy would prevail in that a lighter mass would accelerate faster thus balancing inertia?
Let's say we have a 100t vessel, need to add 10km/s during one day, a Mach motor operates at 1MHz, and 1000 devices. Then a delta of masses must be equal to 10^12 J per one part of 1000. I've taken a realistic 10km/s and 1 day, unrealistic 1Mhz, and energy is still huge. Even if we will use electric resonance, that amount is insane. I don't think those crystals can be used in a practical engine.
It is a very new technology. Once it comes out of its experimental phase it will become smaller and more energy efficient. Eventually it will probably be as simple as building a modern jet.
So hypothetically let’s assume this technology can work and we can scale it up to a propel a space ship large enough to carry human passengers, couldn’t this space ship be used as a one-way time machine because of time dilation. Let’s say we solve fusion power and we solve this tech and build a space ship with this propulsion system that’s powered by a small fusion drive or a small nuclear generator, and the ship accelerates at 1g in a big giant loop with a trajectory that eventually brings it back to Earth. Accelerating at a constant 1g the ship should reach about 99% of the speed of light in about 1 year and then let’s say the ship decelerates at 1g for 1 year and the loop trajectory brings the ship back to Earth when its speed is close to 0. I don’t know the math, but I do know that as a result of time dilation because if such high speeds, after the 2 years of time that’s passed on the ship, tens of thousands of years will have passed back on Earth. Hypothetically the people on the spaceship could decide how far into the future of Earth they want to travel and then figure out exactly how fast they need to accelerate and decelerate and for how long so they will return back to Earth at the exact amount of time in the future that they chose. Hypothetically instead of a billionaire cryogenically freezing his host with the hope of behind unfrozen hundreds or thousands of years in the future, he could use a space ship like thus to time travel and after only a few months or a year of 1g acceleration to near the speed of light and then decelerating and traveling in a loop back to Earth, the billionaire could time travel returning to Earth in a future when life extension medical technology will likely allow for human lifespans that last hundreds or even thousands of years. On another UA-cam channel the contributor figured out that if a ship with this tech accelerated at ⅓ G to 99% of the speed of light and then decelerated to a stop with a total trip time of about 3 years aboard the ship, around 70,000 years would have passed back on Earth. So if this trip was done in a loop back to Earth, the passengers would be in a time machine traveling 70,000 years into the future. Wrap you head around that.
I just want to say that these piezo's is what we use a speakers too and now they have this other function. So could we put a stack in a perpendicular magnetic field to make gravity waves with by molecular cyclic shaking?
Man, he just rambles and rambles with his dumb jokes and dumb stories. It seem like half the time is taken up with this nonsense. Then he tosses in a bunch of math that no one understands. The poor host is gracious, but I can see he's annoyed.
There's a certain amusing historical irony in the idea of returning to powering ships with (photon & magnetic) sails, but I never imagined spaceships might revive a version of _reciprocating piston engines,_ ratcheting themselves forward through spacetime one hyper-fast piston cycle at a time. I hope to see a testbed fly before too long and find out whether it really can inch itself along in a vacuum without propellant-Can't think of a much more exciting development to witness.
Long life to you Mr Woodward! I hope you get to see the fruit of this decades long toil!
Truely admire your work!
Seeing a memorable interview here.
Some genius' will be remembered, when they will be gone. Sorry, Jimbo, after all, that you've been through, having you with us on a day-to-day basis is a pleasure.
Shout-out to John for keeping us on track! By "us", I'm referring to the average Joe (globally speaking), being able to enjoy the marvels and discoveries of science, TODAY, as they come.
THANK YOU!!
It is good to see Professor Woodward and Mach-Woodward Effect in the public eye again. I have been watching since the first public display.
The m=E/C^2 mass change is very much like Professor Leo Susskind’s mass due to energy of particle oscillation without the Higgs’ field.
I was fascinated to see the piezo stack driving my BMW fuel injectors.
Listening to this video, while in hypnagogic state, let's you imagine the people in the engineering room of the starship enterprise discussing the warp drive.
Mike Marsden has already created the Mac Quan 1 which used inertia alone to convert angular acceleration and angular deceleration into linear acceleration (linear thrust) using just electric motors. Some people call it inertial propulsion or a reactionless drive, he calls it mass displacement.
hm... obviously I'm full of doubts... (I'm a physicist myself).
Yes, I see that movement but since it is claimed this motion is the reason and looking at the spring loaded slider, I have the following theories:
* stick slip? ... yes, I'd like to see this floating in mid air
* some mechanical resonance mechanism?
* how come one charges (and therefore increase mass) the actuator, increase its mass, then translate the actuator slightly in direction A and THEN discharge it... the electrons should transfer their inertia to the wire or wherever they're being discharged to and that should be the end of the momentum conversation, no?
I really wish Mr. Woodward to be right, but the fact that this video is the only 'proof' makes me doubt it even more.
I mean, why has this not been tested in vacuum, on wheels on a simple plastic rail, with a battery pack?
I really really want to be wrong, but I think (like many of us physicists), this has nothing to it :-/ Please proof us wrong, Mr. Woodward!!!!
Indeed - "trying to pull yourself out of the swamp by your own hair" with pull frequency of 30khz.
If only you could get rid of the charge of the capacitor to the void of the space, but more efficient way to do that is by converting energy to light and just shine to the opposite direction of required required movement.
@@n3r0z3r0 well irradiating the energy away as light would indeed be a waste of energy, since the radiation pressure would be insignificant to the thrust this Mach Effect device supposedly delivers. The charge of the capacitance is not wastes if discharged to somewhere else and then partly used again!
Therefore it'd be only logicical to not irradiate the energy away!
If I had more time I'd contact Mr. Woodward, and have him send me one of his 'gizmos' so I could test it properly in a vacuum, on a super low resistance rail or something. What's taking NASA or whoever is conducting the tests so long?
It should either have been debunked within weeks or a sensational paper of new discovery should have come out by now. How has neither of these two things happened yet?
@@randfee But if the capacitor discharge back to the same physical place bonded to the propelled object, you also lose the momentum achieved by displacing mass(charge), right ?
Simple analogy:
1. pump water into some reservoir.
2. move reservoir to a some distance
3. pump water back
4. return reservoir back to its initial place
5. repeat
All that can be achieved is a fancy vibration and no movement threw space.
Movement can be achieved only if you leave displaced water at step 2 while returning empty reservoir back to initial place. Please correct me.
And there is no need to have s fancy vacuum place to measure propulsion - balanced on a string horisontal pendulum with counterweights and some vibration suppression (some foam, should work at 30khz perfectly) should be more then enough.
The change of mass in the capacitors or piezoelectric crystals does not come from them having "more electrons," rather it comes from an increase in potential energy. After all, a charged capacitor contains more or less the same amount of electrons as a discharged one, if you consider both the anode and cathode. Therefore electrons cannot "transfer inertia" anywhere, except for their mass shifting along the wires (at a fraction of the speed of electricity itself, by the way.)
I don't see any problem with transferring some amount of energy L to/from an object in order to increase/decrease its inertial mass by L/c² (which is tiny.) I also don't have any objection to the use of piezoelectric crystals to couple the phase of the inertial mass variation to a physical oscillation, in fact it's quite ingenious.
My issue is with the figure of 10N/kW of thrust, which is preposterous, as well as with their "explanation" that it taps into the entire Universe's gravitational field or some such. If their current devices can really output such thrust from electricity alone, albeit in an irregular manner, why don't they put them on a pendulum or some other mounting mechanisms that cannot physically have any stick/slip effect?
In any case, I'll keep following their experiment. Godspeed.
Awesome interview. A great “dump” of info and wonderful primer on the topic. Thank you both so much!
"The slip/stick mechanism is impossible" with my swing pendulum test: activate the Drive at the top of the swing, perpendicular to the swing direction. Gravity doesn't pull back against it, and any circular deflection of the pendulm's swing will be preserved.
A fairly simple micro controller circuit should be able to provide thermal compensation to maintain resonant frequency. This type of regulation is commonly used in RF applications.
Let's celebrate this by naming the invention as "The Woodward Engine"
I agree.
No one has mentioned the effects as per the electromagnetic field lines of the earth's magnetic field
My best guess is that it doesn't work and all he's seeing are vibrations but anyhow, if he can get some decent funding maybe he'll be able to put a working model on a Spacex rocket for a definiive test in space.
I'm glad he used a ufo to tell him it could be done. I'm also heartened that there is a omnidirectional force in the universe that is usually not observed because it is balanced.
It sounds very much like this "inertial field reaction" experiment is a validation of the "zero point field"...
How did the satellite deviate? 🤔
What's the build up speed for these devices on a hypothetical ship? In other words, how long to go from zero to 50%, or even 10% light speed?
T.T.Brown did this 100 years ago as a college dropout.
I hope this gets fast tracked.
If you could actually "change the mass" of an object without gathering or releasing mass, the LEAST interesting application would be propelling. You could effectively create a perpetual motion machine.
Academic to Enterprise I like the way of realisation, also the fact gravity induced the inertia.
But why ? 1g is inside out in all direction.
I wonder when Nasa will be done testing it
i believe nasa proved it dint work
What happens when the spring breaks do to metal fatigue?
Can opposing magnetic fields be used like a spring?
good question
4:00 I’m dizzy, is this an actual responsible scientist and engineer?
The electrons that are used to add mass still retain their momentum and mass when removed.
Reminds me of a speaker motor
you absolute genius
My main question which nags at me so is: how do you change the mass of the piezoelectric crystals? How do you do it in a way that makes the crystal more massive when thrown to the front of the gizmo, and then less massive when at the back?
If this question is answerable to anyone who understands relativity, I would greatly appreciate it.
The first part of your question is relatively easy: it is based on the equivalence of mass and energy, “the most important upshot of the special theory of relativity,” in Einstein's own words. In simple terms, if an object absorbs or emits an amount of energy L, its inertial mass will correspondingly either increase or decrease by an amount L/c². Therefore, if you charge and discharge an array of capacitors (Woodward's old setup) or strain and relieve an array of piezoelectric crystals (his current setup) you are changing their inertial mass (by a minuscule amount.)
As for the second part, how to synchronize that effect with the gizmo's motion: in their current setup they use a particular piezoelectric material that oscillates with a particular set of harmonics (frequency ratios) with respect to the electric signal it is energized with. They say they need to solve a few issues, such as calibrating the electric signal to the thermal changes in the material, but allegedly this problem is also mostly solved.
The big question is, how can those small ultrasonic vibrations, coupled with incredibly tiny variations in mass, generate large amounts of thrust? In this video he mentions 10N/kW, which is insane: it means generating 1kg or 2.2lb of force (I'm translating Newtons to Earth gravity equivalents) for every 1kW of electric power supplied to the devices. The musings for this aspect is where they start talking nonsense IMO, citing the gravitational field of the entire universe or some such.
We'll just have to wait for confirmations (if any) of this technology.
@@firefly618 ah I see. I never really thought of how E=mc^2 could go both ways lol. I imagine that unless the piezoelectric vibrates at such a frequency that it gets some considerable portion of the speed of light relative to the gizmos body (which would require a rediculous amount of energy), that 10N/kW sounds quite rediculous. Thank you so much for your response!
so you saw a flying saucer
Why does he say the figure of merit is the force per watt? Isn't it also important to pay attention to the force divided by the weight of the device? If that's too high, no flying cars, no launch vehicles.
As a yardstick, a tesla (very heavy, batteries with decent energy density) doesn't produce a third of a killowatt of output over the average mile. If it had thrusters like that, it certainly couldn't lift itself.
Are you gonna power these things with microwave beams or something?
This was 3 years ago.. is there a follow up video to this interview with a status update?
I will try to check in with James Woodward
and ... emailed. hopefully he sees it and responds
@@johnkoetsier Thanks! I mean.. this would be pretty world changing, if true. I am a mechanical engineer, and if keeping the devices at a consistent temperature is the biggest hurdle.. I would think that could be solved in short order - let's get on that!
@@vantongerent And ... James just responded. Here's his message:
"Thanks for reaching out. There has been progress on the project in the past few years. As it turns out, I am planning an update for a small list of interested parties to go out today with a little luck. Be pleased to add you to the list if you like. Turns out that the new design when you interviewed me several years ago has been refined to the point where its utility, with some more engineering, is manifest."
I've asked to be added to the list, and I'll try to do a follow-up video with him when he''s ready.
@@johnkoetsier awesome! Can’t wait!!
correct me if im wrong, these things are vibrating all the time? wont they wear out & overheat?
Finally! We can have hover boards for real! If we can regulate the thrust linearly that is.
A quantum solid state device would use around 100 milliwatts to get 1milligram of "thrust" traction
My questions are if this mechanism is able to increase and decrease a mass by some small amount where in the cycle would it need to happen and how does it overcome the law of "conservation of energy" I have thought about it and it would seem that regardless of a change in mass of an isolated system the law of conservation of energy would prevail in that a lighter mass would accelerate faster thus balancing inertia?
Why do I need gasoline just to get around?
Imagine if we all had a right to a complete understanding of the periodic tables by the age of 10, or 20, maybe 30.
Let's say we have a 100t vessel, need to add 10km/s during one day, a Mach motor operates at 1MHz, and 1000 devices. Then a delta of masses must be equal to 10^12 J per one part of 1000. I've taken a realistic 10km/s and 1 day, unrealistic 1Mhz, and energy is still huge. Even if we will use electric resonance, that amount is insane. I don't think those crystals can be used in a practical engine.
It is a very new technology. Once it comes out of its experimental phase it will become smaller and more energy efficient. Eventually it will probably be as simple as building a modern jet.
Gravitec Testing at NASA LEEIF facility of asymmetric capacitor in vacuum
UA-camr Koetsier is a dutch name.
So hypothetically let’s assume this technology can work and we can scale it up to a propel a space ship large enough to carry human passengers, couldn’t this space ship be used as a one-way time machine because of time dilation. Let’s say we solve fusion power and we solve this tech and build a space ship with this propulsion system that’s powered by a small fusion drive or a small nuclear generator, and the ship accelerates at 1g in a big giant loop with a trajectory that eventually brings it back to Earth. Accelerating at a constant 1g the ship should reach about 99% of the speed of light in about 1 year and then let’s say the ship decelerates at 1g for 1 year and the loop trajectory brings the ship back to Earth when its speed is close to 0. I don’t know the math, but I do know that as a result of time dilation because if such high speeds, after the 2 years of time that’s passed on the ship, tens of thousands of years will have passed back on Earth.
Hypothetically the people on the spaceship could decide how far into the future of Earth they want to travel and then figure out exactly how fast they need to accelerate and decelerate and for how long so they will return back to Earth at the exact amount of time in the future that they chose.
Hypothetically instead of a billionaire cryogenically freezing his host with the hope of behind unfrozen hundreds or thousands of years in the future, he could use a space ship like thus to time travel and after only a few months or a year of 1g acceleration to near the speed of light and then decelerating and traveling in a loop back to Earth, the billionaire could time travel returning to Earth in a future when life extension medical technology will likely allow for human lifespans that last hundreds or even thousands of years.
On another UA-cam channel the contributor figured out that if a ship with this tech accelerated at ⅓ G to 99% of the speed of light and then decelerated to a stop with a total trip time of about 3 years aboard the ship, around 70,000 years would have passed back on Earth. So if this trip was done in a loop back to Earth, the passengers would be in a time machine traveling 70,000 years into the future. Wrap you head around that.
reach the speed of light at time stands still!
@@shaun906 Only in the ship.
Nasa should build a big light bubble and travel with it. It should cover a spacecraft by little suns ,maybe it works.🤔
I just want to say that these piezo's is what we use a speakers too and now they have this other function. So could we put a stack in a perpendicular magnetic field to make gravity waves with by molecular cyclic shaking?
No
UFO propulsion
How does he know the UFO he saw was in orbit. Could simply have been a high altitude aircraft.
It is a slip stick device , using the fabric of spacetime - inertia to achieve the slip and react against the stick.
makes me happy I am on the 6,000 scientist that has watched this video, god I guess I am smart after all
Like piezoelectrics.
I could probably take the guy more seriously if he would stop resting his head on his hand.
He's old and seems to have a cold
Also I think he is talking to the image rather than his web cam location, a classic error for non Podcasters
Man, he just rambles and rambles with his dumb jokes and dumb stories. It seem like half the time is taken up with this nonsense. Then he tosses in a bunch of math that no one understands. The poor host is gracious, but I can see he's annoyed.