Star Trek

I'm curious if there are any physicists on here who are familiar with the "warp" metrics of Alcubierre and the various mathematical improvements there on.  Especially those who have followed the research of NASA's Breakthrough Propulsion research and the continuing work of Marc Millis, and who might have an interest in conversing on the subject in more depth.  I have some odd hobbies, and currently I am working on a large scale project involving the potential of the Woodward Effect (not warp, but definitely worth looking into) with a large scale resonance transformer and high-density dielectric internalized capacitor design.

Looking forward to hearing from folks with interest and ideas.

Reference: Frontiers in Propulsion Science, published by the AIAA.

DX

Quote (TNGguy @ April 20 2009, 11:40 pm)

I'm curious if there are any physicists on here who are familiar with the "warp" metrics of Alcubierre and the various mathematical improvements there on. ?Especially those who have followed the research of NASA's Breakthrough Propulsion research and the continuing work of Marc Millis, and who might have an interest in conversing on the subject in more depth. ?I have some odd hobbies, and currently I am working on a large scale project involving the potential of the Woodward Effect (not warp, but definitely worth looking into) with a large scale resonance transformer and high-density dielectric internalized capacitor design. Looking forward to hearing from folks with interest and ideas. Reference: Frontiers in Propulsion Science, published by the AIAA. DX

Woodward Effect has been proven not to exist. as it stand it and several other possible effect for space drive were last look in 2006, all experiments proved negative. As it goes the  researchers at the Austrian Research Centers reported results of a study of the effect using a very sensitive thrust balance. Results did not seem to be in full agreement with the findings claimed by Woodward and collaborators.

this support earlier experiment by John G. Cramer, Curran W. Fey, and Damon V. Casissi of the University of Washington reported that they had conducted tests of Woodward's hypothesis, but that results were inconclusive.

A paper by J.H. Whealton published by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information on 4 September 2001 raised serious doubts about the mathematical foundations of Woodward's theory, noted that his experimental results can be explained in terms of force contributions due to time varying thermal expansion, and stated that a laboratory demonstration produced 100 times the Woodward effect without resort to non-Newtonian explanations. Whealton's math, however, has been criticized by Woodward as demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of the effect.

The effect if it exist is too small to see with present testing equipment....

As for warp drive, this is an excellent page with all major papers to date:

http://omnis.if.ufrj.br/~mbr/warp/

also for the Mills group Nasa still maintains a link to their works.

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/index.html

as to date no major experimental evident for many of the theorical space drives has been detected..

Hi lanceromega,

Good to find that there are folks on here who keep up with this research.  I am familiar with the NASA link but was not familiar with the http://omnis.if.ufrj.br/~mbr/warp/ link, thanks very much for the reference.  I am aware of the controversy surrounding most all of these claims, and choose to pursue some of those that create a win-win for me - hobby wise.  For example, the Woodward experiment, if my various versions prove to be utterly without a single micronewton of directional force, will none-the-less result in my having two large and beautiful Tesla coils which I calculate will (with removal of the high-density internal capacitance and replacement with a good top torroid) produce arcs in excess of 36 inches!  So I'll have fun either way, and it will increase my hands-on experience with some of these experiments.  

That, and I feel it's something akin to my duty to try to assist in bringing about the kind of technology and civilization that the ST vision implicitly and explicitly demonstrates...  so I do what I can.

I'm travelling at the moment (in Delaware) but will engage more in depth on these topics on my return.  I'll be reading up more in depth in the interim.  Have you seen the new AIAA book?  It was published just this past February, and so should be quite up to date.  The Woodward effect seems to be, according to this latest book anyway, not quite dead yet...

DX

Quote (TNGguy @ April 26 2009, 11:32 am)

Hi lanceromega, Good to find that there are folks on here who keep up with this research. ¿I am familiar with the NASA link but was not familiar with the http://omnis.if.ufrj.br/~mbr/warp/ link, thanks very much for the reference. ¿I am aware of the controversy surrounding most all of these claims, and choose to pursue some of those that create a win-win for me - hobby wise. ¿For example, the Woodward experiment, if my various versions prove to be utterly without a single micronewton of directional force, will none-the-less result in my having two large and beautiful Tesla coils which I calculate will (with removal of the high-density internal capacitance and replacement with a good top torroid) produce arcs in excess of 36 inches! ¿So I'll have fun either way, and it will increase my hands-on experience with some of these experiments. ¿ That, and I feel it's something akin to my duty to try to assist in bringing about the kind of technology and civilization that the ST vision implicitly and explicitly demonstrates... ¿so I do what I can. I'm travelling at the moment (in Delaware) but will engage more in depth on these topics on my return. ¿I'll be reading up more in depth in the interim. ¿Have you seen the new AIAA book? ¿It was published just this past February, and so should be quite up to date. ¿The Woodward effect seems to be, according to this latest book anyway, not quite dead yet... DX

AIAA are not physicist and they also support Heim's theory, as it goes the various experiment perform show no real detectable effect. One forget that all experiments includes a margin of errors, so what many people who support Woodward effect donot take in to account that all so call positive result falls into this margin and generally are less than other factors that would contribute to a so call positive.

Just think, that Casmir effects which basically due to quantum uncertainty in energy of microscopic region of space time has been tested and proven position by tons of experiment and it is almost undetectable.

Most physicist are open to the idea that Woodward effect may exist, but the experimental data doesnot support it.

Hmmm...  Gut feelings about the Woodward effect - somehow it feels right.  I've got a degree in electronics engineering and yet I never really used it - I've always had a gut FEELING about how things should go together - I was making all sorts of electronic stuff by the time I was 10... never really bothered with a lot of math to figure out transistor biases, etc....  something in me just "knew".  Still does...

So, just for the sake of speculation, how do we know we are doing the RIGHT experiments?  Is there any chance that the effect does exist, but our understanding of it is fundamentally flawed in some way that yields incorrect experimental approaches?

Just thinking out loud I guess... but feel free to comment if you like - you seem to have a pretty good handle on this stuff.

DX

Quote (TNGguy @ May 23 2009, 11:07 pm)

Hmmm... ¿Gut feelings about the Woodward effect - somehow it feels right. ¿I've got a degree in electronics engineering and yet I never really used it - I've always had a gut FEELING about how things should go together - I was making all sorts of electronic stuff by the time I was 10... never really bothered with a lot of math to figure out transistor biases, etc.... ¿something in me just "knew". ¿Still does... So, just for the sake of speculation, how do we know we are doing the RIGHT experiments? ¿Is there any chance that the effect does exist, but our understanding of it is fundamentally flawed in some way that yields incorrect experimental approaches? Just thinking out loud I guess... but feel free to comment if you like - you seem to have a pretty good handle on this stuff. DX

Well that the point of experminents isn't it. All theories should supply predictions that can be tested thru experiments!

Basically if a force is generated, a simple torque level experiments should be able to detect it. As with the Casmir effect we are talking about a force that in nanodynes and we are able to see it with no major effort.

The Woodward effect if it exist would have to be at this point smaller than the Casmir effect, at this point if it exist it is unusable.

I guess what I meant to say is that perhaps our understanding of how to CREATE the woodward effect experimentally is faulty.  Perhaps what we are doing is not what needs to be done to create the effect properly - our understanding of the effect is not complete...  possible?

Quote (TNGguy @ May 25 2009, 3:08 pm)

I guess what I meant to say is that perhaps our understanding of how to CREATE the woodward effect experimentally is faulty. ¿Perhaps what we are doing is not what needs to be done to create the effect properly - our understanding of the effect is not complete... ¿possible?

then it would not be the Woodward effect, since it pretty well describe how such a force would be generated and its effect.

If the effect is no greater than the margin of error due to the test rig, then in essence there is no detectable effect..

Why in the hell would a real live physicist be on here to talk about physics?

Quote (blankenship @ June 21 2009, 6:27 pm)

Why in the hell would a real live physicist be on here to talk about physics?

I know you're joking but you'd be amazed at what can be learned by answering questions people pose in forums like this. One of the best ways to solidify your understanding of physics is to help others learn it.

Quote (Pmb @ June 20 2009, 11:39 pm)

Quote (blankenship @ June 21 2009, 6:27 pm) Why in the hell would a real live physicist be on here to talk about physics? I know you're joking but you'd be amazed at what can be learned by answering questions people pose in forums like this. One of the best ways to solidify your understanding of physics is to help others learn it.

Not joking, amused.

Are you one?