Mach Effect progress

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

No. Paul is an engineer with a BS. You would not want to ask him questions about GRT. He's an extremely accomplished engineer with the benefit of decades of professional service as an engineer, and more than a decade studying M-E theory, but that does not make him a proper authority in GRT.
Last edited by GIThruster on Mon Jan 21, 2013 7:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

Yes, but given his personal depth and experience in the topic, I would say he is one of the few that can speak with intelligent depth. I would also posit that his grasp of the relevant math is better than yours or anyone else posting on this around here, regardless of his BS. Experience and direct hands on delving are also a valid source of education.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

Yes that's all correct, but the question was concerning who is a proper authority figure as regards GRT and that's not someone who has never been trained in it, like Paul. He would be the first to agree questions on GRT should go to Jim. Paul is a proper source of authority for many sorts of M-E calculations, etc. He's not an authority on the maths that generate the theory. So far as I know (and he was after all my mentor for several years) he has no idea how to do any field equations, let alone know how to tell which issues are salient and which are not when asked a serious GRT question.

If you want to make an inductive argument that we should look to an authority figure on things like M-E physics, you have to go to a physicist who has been trained in GRT and who has spent the time over decades looking carefully at Mach's Principle. There are maybe a dozen such people alive in the world today and I can promise you, none of them are engineers.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

paulmarch
Posts: 155
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 7:06 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX USA

Post by paulmarch »

GIThruster wrote:Yes that's all correct, but the question was concerning who is a proper authority figure as regards GRT and that's not someone who has never been trained in it, like Paul. He would be the first to agree questions on GRT should go to Jim. Paul is a proper source of authority for many sorts of M-E calculations, etc. He's not an authority on the maths that generate the theory. So far as I know (and he was after all my mentor for several years) he has no idea how to do any field equations, let alone know how to tell which issues are salient and which are not when asked a serious GRT question.

If you want to make an inductive argument that we should look to an authority figure on things like M-E physics, you have to go to a physicist who has been trained in GRT and who has spent the time over decades looking carefully at Mach's Principle. There are maybe a dozen such people alive in the world today and I can promise you, none of them are engineers.
Folks:

I concur with Ron on this GRT expert business. I know just enough about the GRT field to be dangerous, so I try to refrain from making any comments on it unless I have firsthand knowledge on the particular topic at hand. Jim Woodward on the otherhand knows more about GRT than most "experts" in the field do, but he does bring his own Machian interpretations to the GRT game that are not widely shared in the GRT community. And IMO he still refuses to embrace some of the more important insights that QM and particle physics appear to bring to the origins of inertia topic as well. My advice to all is to read Woodward's book, then go read a few more GRT resources from folks like John A. Wheeler and Ignazio Ciufolini's whose "Gravitation and Inertia" book is widely respected in the GRT academic community. However in the end analysis, its experimental data that counts in this G/I business, and Jim Woodward has provided the rest of us the needed insights to go get it.

Best,
Paul March
Friendswood, TX

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

Paul,

A post will appear in the next few days, titled 'A final word on propellantless thrusters', or similar.

Cutting straight to the conclusion, which is a real spoiler of course, is that the energy such a thruster would need to expend to accelerate is proportional to its differential velocity wrt 'the Universe' against which it would thrust. That would also mean needing to dissipate energy where it 'accelerates' by slowing, wrt 'the Universe'.

Hopefully, you will examine that and might respond to it directly, and contradict it where it is in error.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

ladajo wrote:Yes, but given his personal depth and experience in the topic, I would say he is one of the few that can speak with intelligent depth. I would also posit that his grasp of the relevant math is better than yours or anyone else posting on this around here, regardless of his BS. Experience and direct hands on delving are also a valid source of education.
Agreed. I got from bench technician to aerospace engineer that way. Sans any kind of formal education in my field.

Interest goes a long way.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

paulmarch wrote:
GIThruster wrote:Yes that's all correct, but the question was concerning who is a proper authority figure as regards GRT and that's not someone who has never been trained in it, like Paul. He would be the first to agree questions on GRT should go to Jim. Paul is a proper source of authority for many sorts of M-E calculations, etc. He's not an authority on the maths that generate the theory. So far as I know (and he was after all my mentor for several years) he has no idea how to do any field equations, let alone know how to tell which issues are salient and which are not when asked a serious GRT question.

If you want to make an inductive argument that we should look to an authority figure on things like M-E physics, you have to go to a physicist who has been trained in GRT and who has spent the time over decades looking carefully at Mach's Principle. There are maybe a dozen such people alive in the world today and I can promise you, none of them are engineers.
Folks:

I concur with Ron on this GRT expert business. I know just enough about the GRT field to be dangerous, so I try to refrain from making any comments on it unless I have firsthand knowledge on the particular topic at hand. Jim Woodward on the otherhand knows more about GRT than most "experts" in the field do, but he does bring his own Machian interpretations to the GRT game that are not widely shared in the GRT community. And IMO he still refuses to embrace some of the more important insights that QM and particle physics appear to bring to the origins of inertia topic as well. My advice to all is to read Woodward's book, then go read a few more GRT resources from folks like John A. Wheeler and Ignazio Ciufolini's whose "Gravitation and Inertia" book is widely respected in the GRT academic community. However in the end analysis, its experimental data that counts in this G/I business, and Jim Woodward has provided the rest of us the needed insights to go get it.

Best,
I also agree with Ron's update and assessment. However, I would also point out that on the planet, Paul remains one of the few folks who can speak intelligently on the topic. I also defer to Paul's inherent self-deprication due to his character. Paul, do not sell yourself short here. I think you are pretty solidly grounded. And definately more than anyone around here.

I also think that you will be able to succinctly point out the flaws in Chris Bradley's logic once he posts it. My gut tells me it will be on the lines of reconciling the difference between infinite mass and local mass. But I am no expert, and therefore can not argue at your level. I think the last good go around I had that relates was educating Joey on GRT/SRT issue in relation to GPS Satellite mechanics.
As I recall we ended with an agreement that one truly needs to be out of a gravity well to actually get a good look at what is going on. I also retained some interest in further delving into the effects of accelleration/decelleration on mass outside of a gravity well.
I note also that I was recently reading up on the 4mm speed anomaly seen in Earth Slingshot space vehicles, and look forward to seeing some more work done on reconciling that in the next couple of years.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

AcesHigh
Posts: 655
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:59 am

Post by AcesHigh »

GIThruster wrote:
its useless to discuss anything if all appeal to authority is wrong
Part of what you don't understand, and perhaps the larger part, is that what you're quoting about inductive reasoning does not apply to deductive reasoning.

If you make an appeal to authority in a deductive syllogism, it is a fallacy. If you make an appeal to proper authority in an inductive argument, it is not a fallacy.
thanks GIT. I do like SOME of your posts. Not the ones about UFOs or religion however :lol: . Nor the ones when you lose your composure. When you are centered on what you do know, you make awesome informative posts that contribute a lot to the forum.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

I don't see much reason to post about religion or UFO's except in response to others. If atheists are free to rant here to their hearts' content on the thesis that makes them atheists, I see no reason folks can't answer them. On UFO's, I merely point out that the M-E evidence to date is in accord with the historic sightings. If you consider those sighting evidence, then they are evidence for M-E. If you don't know anything about UFO evidence, then that evidence doesn't much matter to you, now does it? Been there, Done that most of my life and I have to agree that if you've never studied it, you probably think it's all hogwash. I know I did.

If anyone here can find a supplier for PMN or CCTO nano-powder outside China, I'd much appreciate to learn about this. I found Ecertec in the UK but they aren't answering their email.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

For what its worth:
Experimental Null test of a Mach Effect Thruster
Heidi Fearn, James F. Woodward
http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.6178

DeltaV
Posts: 2245
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:05 am

Post by DeltaV »

Nice find! Thanks.

GeeGee
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 7:00 pm

Post by GeeGee »

NBF picked it up

http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/02/experi ... ffect.html

I wish people who say stuff like this:

"You're violating the first law of thermodynamics, the second law of thermodynamics or the principle of relativity in a big way, take your pick. Or your device doesn't work and its an experimental error.
If the device worked, relativity principle going out the window isn't that big of a deal, because who really cares if we have a preferred reference frame... but I'm not holding my breath on that one. My guess, experimental error magnified by wishful thinking (or something a little less nice.)
I'd love to have a reactionless drive, but follow the implications for physics about the existence of one and you're not going to be very convinced that they're possible."

Would either shut up or publish a rebuttal paper. I keep hearing this over and over, and yet no one has had the courage to follow proper scientific procedure. Woodward's ME conjecture is not just some half-baked crank theory he cooked up one night and posted on a brightly-colored geocites page. His papers have been in peer-reviewed physics journals for over a decade, and it deserves better treatment than blog posts from no-names on the internet pretending to be experts.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

GeeGee wrote:yet no one has had the courage to follow proper scientific procedure.
Does GeeGee think the mechanics analysis in viewtopic.php?t=4228 is 'scientific' enough for him?

After all, it does seem to show that a propellantless thruster is not necessarily a thermodynamic inconsistency (motor cars provide propellantless thrust, and seem to do it just fine without flouting any accepted thermodynamics).

That post seems to run contrary to, and disproves, certain claims in previous chrismb posts. But one cannot accept as 'scientific' those things one likes to hear, and dismiss those that one doesn't. Science should have no 'pride' that prefers to hold a position to all possibilities despite contrary evidences, than admit an error.
Last edited by chrismb on Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

So how long would it take to reach .1C for 500Kg @ 1.5uN push?

How much power would be expended?

You have 15 minutes, you may begin.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

chrismb wrote:The very essential notion of this, irrespective of any mathematical arguments that might arise in the paper, appears to be that the centre of mass of a closed system can be altered back and forth by the conversion of mass into energy. . .
GIThruster wrote:Not even close. M-E theory has no resemblance to this charge. Nowhere is there any mass-energy conversion. You're making these obviously and stupidly wrong statements about M-E theory because you don't understand it in the least. Again, pathetic.
James F. Woodward wrote:The Mach Effect Thruster (MET) is a device which utilizes fluctuations in the rest masses of accelerating objects (capacitor stacks,in which internal energy changes take place)
What chrismb alluded to may or may have not been what Woodward intended exactly, but it does not appear to have been an 'obviously and stupidly wrong statement'.

What does this internal energy change into, if not into a mass fluctuation?

Post Reply