Mach Effect progress

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Post by djolds1 »

mrflora wrote:I'm trying to write a story about Dr. A. W. Doowmij (he's Dutch, you see) and his assistant Mot Dooham. They have discovered an incredible new space drive and they're going to have amazing adventures on alien planets with fantastic creatures, etc., but I cannot get beyond that point. Can anyone help me out?

Regards,
M.R.F.
What attitude are you trying to capture? Scientific adventurers of wonder? Journeymen in Utopia? Little guys in the established universe? Other?
Vae Victis

93143
Posts: 1142
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 7:51 pm

Post by 93143 »

mrflora wrote:Dr. A. W. Doowmij (he's Dutch, you see) and his assistant Mot Dooham
...I see what you did there...

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

Post by ladajo »

Ahh, it takes a backward mind to understand these things...
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)

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

Post by paulmarch »

AcesHigh wrote:maybe someone should leave a note to Paul March so he can come here and show his point of view?
AcesHigh:

In God we trust, all others bring hard data, including Mr. Stahl.

BTW, I have nothing but the utmost respect and admiration for what Dr. Woodward has tried to do with his Mach-Effect research over the last ~25 years in both his related theoretical and experimental activities. However I'm still of the opinion, (and yes I do get to have one), that Jim does not have the final answer in how to build impulse and warp-field drives, as the 3-order of magnitude mismatch between his own theoretical M-E thrust predictions and recent and related shuttler experimental data will attest. And then there is the not so small M-E theoretical problem of relying on Wheeler-Feynman radiation reaction like forces, AKA the gravitational action at a distance solution to the M-E's momentum conservation problem. A solution I might point out that most mainstream physicists take violent exception to as I've found out the hard way over the last 14 years. However, that is a verification fight that Dr. Woodward and/or Dr. John Cramer will have to experimentally prove beyond a reasonable level of doubt to the physics community before they can declare victory for their side.

Now does this make Dr. Harold (Sonny) White’s, (“Sonny” is Dr. White’s nickname.), Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation (QVF) vacuum densification conjecture any more accurate than Woodward’s M-E conjecture. Maybe, maybe not for we are only starting down the experimental verification path for this line research. However it does appear to me that my “dodgy” STAIF-2006 MLT-2004 and Mach-2MHz test data does support it more than it does the M-E conjecture or at least the linearized M-E model created by my STAIF-2006 co-author Andrew Palfreyman. There is also IMO one other thing going for the QVF conjecture and that is at its heart the QVF thruster momentum conservation is based on inside the SRT light cone interactions with the local quantum vacuum environment, even though the cosmological QVF field it interacts with is derived globally from all the rest of the mass/energy in the causally connected universe just like Woodward’s M-E conjecture uses interactions with the cosmologically derived gravitational field. I find that to be a very interesting “coincidence”. This is also why I’ve said in the past and continue to say now that the M-E and the QVF versions of these conjectures could be mirror images of each other seen through the GRT/Machian and QM viewing glasses respectively. Others may disagree and that is their privilege and duty to do so.

Meanwhile back to testing.

Best,
Paul March
Friendswood, TX

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

Post by GIThruster »

That's pathetic, Paul.

In who's world is it okay to misrepresent the lab work to the level you have with renaming the experimental items and claiming they provide validation for Sonny's shabby, un-reviewed work?

How many years did Sony himself say your work was not credible for lack of scientific controls, before he decided to endorse it and say it is evidence of his model? Was it 7 years? Was it 8?

I can't say how sad and distraught this nonsense makes me, and now that it seems a part of the institution of NASA, I'd have to be a lesser man to not point out this is fraud.

Get yourself clear before the hammer falls on these false claims.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

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

Post by AcesHigh »

please, remain polite, and bring me my propellantless spaceship ASAP! Want to see the rings of Saturn close-up before I die. :)

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

Post by AcesHigh »

GIThruster wrote: I can't say how sad and distraught this nonsense makes me, and now that it seems a part of the institution of NASA, I'd have to be a lesser man to not point out this is fraud.
let people pursue other lines of work, even if you dont believe them. The worse thing that can happen is that they may fail.

Any propellantless propulsion scheme (except solar sails and the like) is already discredited by a large part of the physics community. So I dont think if Paul´s line fails, it will be a blow to Woodward´s work. And vice-versa.

paperburn1
Posts: 2484
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Post by paperburn1 »

AcesHigh wrote:please, remain polite, and bring me my propellantless spaceship ASAP! Want to see the rings of Saturn close-up before I die. :)
or single stage to orbit on the cheap with pollywell and we will just brut force it out to the rings and back.

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

Post by GIThruster »

AcesHigh wrote: let people pursue other lines of work, even if you dont believe them. The worse thing that can happen is that they may fail.
I don't need to be parented by you or anyone else.

The issue here has nothing to do with what you're suggesting. The work at Eagleworks has no impact whatsoever on the work on M-E. Paul hasn't done any M-E work in 8 years and its not as if the funds Sonny's scam is using would go to M-E research if they hadn't been redirected to support the Eagleworks' lab. The issue has nothing to do with competition between ideas. It has do to with deceiving others in order to gain support for a dubious research program and the fact that people willing to so commit fraud are not trustworthy. You simply cannot believe anything they claim after the fact.

I saw this very same thing happen with some nonsense Searl/MEC replication work some years ago. There are simple ways to identify fraud and once a group places itself in that category, they need to be ignored. The devastating thing here is that the institution of NASA is now implicated.

Scientists, in order to be worthy of the name; need to abide by certain professional ethics. Renaming 8 year old experiments and failing to report they lacked necessary scientific controls to be credible, in order to raise money for your lab, is completely outside those ethics.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Post by djolds1 »

GIThruster wrote:That's pathetic, Paul.

In who's world is it okay to misrepresent the lab work to the level you have with renaming the experimental items and claiming they provide validation for Sonny's shabby, un-reviewed work?

How many years did Sony himself say your work was not credible for lack of scientific controls, before he decided to endorse it and say it is evidence of his model? Was it 7 years? Was it 8?

I can't say how sad and distraught this nonsense makes me, and now that it seems a part of the institution of NASA, I'd have to be a lesser man to not point out this is fraud.

Get yourself clear before the hammer falls on these false claims.
WHOAH! :shock:

So much for civility.

GIT, if your accusations are not proven correct to at least 99.9%, you just nuked your credibility. And I do not mean this harshly. This post was over-the-top EXTREME.
Vae Victis

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

Post by DeltaV »

99.9% is only 3.290527σ.

I thought was the new engineering "standard".

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

Post by GIThruster »

djolds, there is no possibility that I am wrong in what I've been reporting here. These are observations, not judgements. I was copied to posts by Sonny complaining about Paul's lack of controls years ago, and Paul has mentioned this himself several times over the years, including in this forum. There is no possibility I can be wrong in reporting these observations. The posts on the web at places like NBF have photographs provided by Paul of his work on the MLT, as does the official NASA pdf from Eagleworks found here:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 024705.pdf

The "existing Quantum Vacuum Plasma Thruster" referenced in the next to last line on page 1 is an MLT Paul built. On page 6, there is a photograph of the MLT Paul built back about 2004, now being called a "Q-Thruster". Note in the top paragraph reference to "historical test results have yielded thrust levels of between 1000-4000 micro-Newtons". These are exactly the same test results that Sonny urged Paul were most likely spurious and should not share because he did not provide controls like vacuum to the tests. Although Paul and Sonny have both over the years said again and again that these test results are not credible, here they are in this paper, represented as the baseline argument for pursuing Sonny's QVF work.

What is it you think I could possibly be wrong about? The only judgement on my part is to call this "fraud". It is fraud. If you disagree with me, then do so, but the facts are precisely as I've stated them.

No, I do not believe this is fraud that has risen to the point of criminal violation of the law, unless of course Sonny used this particular deception to gather funds for his lab. I can't know what was in the mind of some specific administrator or administrative body when they decided to fund Sonny's work at JSC, just as I can't make any claims as to what they were thinking when they decided to de-fund the VASIMR work at JSC. All I can tell you is, that this kind of wholesale misrepresentation of the facts is a violation of professional ethics, and that no one should in my opinion, trust any lab results that comes from Eagleworks, because the members there have discredited themselves in the academic and professional community.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

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

Post by AcesHigh »

maybe Sonny changed his mind? The fact they both seem to know the lack of controls means the results are not trustworthy doesnt mean they are saying those results ARE trustworthy, just that they may point in a direction they believe its worth investing at and investigating.

Are they in any time saying those results are PROOF the effect is real or anything like that?

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

Post by GIThruster »

Read the paper for yourself. It's short.

When someone takes test results they have excellent reasons to doubt, and writes "Historical test results have yielded thrust levels of between 1000-4000 micro-Newtons, specific force performance of 0.1N/kW, and an equivalent specific impulse of ~1x1012 seconds." with no caveats or explanations, they have very handily misrepresented the situation.

If one did this sort of thing to normal investors, I'm pretty sure that earns a go to jail card. Depends upon the state or country, obviously.
Last edited by GIThruster on Fri Jun 22, 2012 12:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

303
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:18 am

Post by 303 »

defrauding of NASA, deliberate misrepresentation, thats spme serious allegations, this thread suddenly got a lot more interesting

perhaps NASA know its probably bullshit, but worth a long shot, or even worth pursuing to find out if its worth pursuing

i await announcement of new thruster sold to mystery colonel of unnamed military force

Post Reply