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 »

GIThruster wrote:
djolds1 wrote:Pharis Williams' approach seems to offer ease of testing with its inductive coupling of electromagnetic and gravitational fields, but I suspect his gravitational rotor test-stand device is inappropriate for directed effects.
Pharis told me that there are no direct applications of his work for propulsion, but rather for other useful things.
One of his 2009 SPESIF papers says precisely the opposite - violation of conservation of charge in 5D via convergence or divergence of electric charge to change the gravitational mass density versus the inertial mass density. Tho yes, propulsion and overt gravitic manipulation have been far from his central focus.
GIThruster wrote:Just what those other useful things are we'll have to wait and see.
His headline claims would seem to be his compact reactor (based on his variant atomic model), his "alternate communications method," and he claims to have built a neutrino generator (aka a non-transverse photon in his approach).
GIThruster wrote:His work has full funding over at Northrup Grumman, though he would likely not call it that since he himself is not getting paid. That's what happens when you fail to file for patent.
Hoping on patent wealth for work as fundamental as Jim Woodward's or Pharis' is probably a false dream. How much money did Whittle or Ohain end up with? Fame, yes. Wealth, not so much. At the extreme end consider Tesla - cheated out of his rightful share by the bankers. The patents (and principles) on breakthroughs like these will be jumped everywhere and rapidly. OTOH, Pharis' latest paper reports success on the NorGrum experiments:

http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/a ... s_6696.pdf

Page 6, Left Column, Section 3.6.
Vae Victis

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

Post by GIThruster »

Yes well, every patent issue needs be taken individually when it comes to whether it will generate wealth. What I'm saying as regards Williams is that though he started his own company, he is not receiving research funds from N-G because he did not file for patent. If he had, and N-G wanted to pursue his 5D research, they would need his permission, even for pure research and would thus likely pay him, even if they also paid their own people. When I met the 2 senior engineers at N-G pursuing this work at STAIF '07, they didn't even mention Pharris in their presentation.

This work noted by Dennis Shure is in addition to what N-G was doing 5 years ago.

Just saying, if you don't protect yourself through patent, it's easy for people interested in your work to do whatever they like. Contrast that to Woodward's very specific device patents, and his general method patents and you can see that anyone who wants to do M-E research is supposed to get Jim's permission.

Just in general appraisal of Pharris' work though, I think it's important to note that he developed his theory while doing a masters in physics. His undergrad was in engineering. He's not trained as a theoretical physicist and so far as I know, since he created his theory in 1976, he has never published on it in a single peer review journal. When I read his papers and note him pretending to correct Einstein, I get a very strong sense that he has a vastly inflated view of his theory and himself.

IMHO, if someone wants to correct Einstein, they better have a really convincing argument and Pharris doesn't seem to.
"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:Yes well, every patent issue needs be taken individually when it comes to whether it will generate wealth. What I'm saying as regards Williams is that though he started his own company, he is not receiving research funds from N-G because he did not file for patent. If he had, and N-G wanted to pursue his 5D research, they would need his permission, even for pure research and would thus likely pay him, even if they also paid their own people. When I met the 2 senior engineers at N-G pursuing this work at STAIF '07, they didn't even mention Pharris in their presentation.
Do you recall names, papers, etc?
GIThruster wrote:This work noted by Dennis Shure is in addition to what N-G was doing 5 years ago.
Ouch.
GIThruster wrote:Just saying, if you don't protect yourself through patent, it's easy for people interested in your work to do whatever they like. Contrast that to Woodward's very specific device patents, and his general method patents and you can see that anyone who wants to do M-E research is supposed to get Jim's permission.
Good points.
GIThruster wrote:Just in general appraisal of Pharris' work though, I think it's important to note that he developed his theory while doing a masters in physics. His undergrad was in engineering. He's not trained as a theoretical physicist and so far as I know, since he created his theory in 1976, he has never published on it in a single peer review journal. When I read his papers and note him pretending to correct Einstein, I get a very strong sense that he has a vastly inflated view of his theory and himself.

IMHO, if someone wants to correct Einstein, they better have a really convincing argument and Pharris doesn't seem to.
Time to move to PM perhaps. Critiques? Formal credentials do not concern me overmuch - note just the patent clerk you mention.
Last edited by djolds1 on Sat Jul 14, 2012 1:54 am, edited 2 times in total.
Vae Victis

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

Post by djolds1 »

GIThruster wrote:Back in 2006 I was hired by an aerospace startup that shall remain...

(Snippus Dei)

...but if a propulsion scheme hasn't been built at all, I don't consider it "emergent". You might dicker about what to call it, but in my estimation, there is not enough to look at to make an educated judgement if nothing has been built. All of Jack Sarfatti's work falls into this category by design.
Good methodology.
GIThruster wrote:My judgement 6 years ago was that out of the dozens of propulsion schemes I looked into, only Woodward's M-E tech met the standards I have. Months after I delivered that white paper and later joined the Woodward group, I found out that Lockheed Martin had done precisely the same study and come to precisely the same conclusion. As they sent a team of physicists to do their study, I found myself in good company.
Agreed that on the basis of plausible theory, math, and hardware, Jim Woodward's work on "reactionless" propulsion & related quasi-gravitational effects is the most credible out there. That said, any good theory should pass the parsimony test, and Jim Woodward's fails that just as badly as the rest of contemporary cosmology & theoretical physics. I think there's a tendency these days to see complexity where it does not exist, and so I keep my eyes open for the approaches that are "simple enough, but no simpler." Then I judge for ease of testing. Propulsion is my passion, but not my only criterion.
GIThruster wrote:BTW, I was amongst the first to call out the EHT people for their mal-apropriation of Tajmar's test results, done only AFTER Martin had run his experiment without the superconducting ring and had the same results. That was fraud on the part of the EHT people and it is years old now. I'm surprised anyone still takes them seriously.

Then again, I'm surprised anyone still builds Searl replications. . .
The EHT duo strike me as free energy types who got lucky with the 2004 AIAA award.
Vae Victis

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

Post by GIThruster »

djolds1 wrote:Time to move to PM perhaps. Critiques? Formal credentials do not concern me overmuch - note just the patent clerk you mention.
No really I don't have any criticisms to make except for the one I made. I like Pharris, but he is mainly an engineer and I don't think he's qualified to correct Einstein. He's had more than 35 years to make his case in the peer review journals and has not done so, and as far as I can see the reason is because he has not been trained in GR.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

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

Post by GIThruster »

djolds1 wrote:. . .Jim Woodward's work on "reactionless" propulsion & related quasi-gravitational effects is the most credible out there. That said, any good theory should pass the parsimony test, and Jim Woodward's fails that just as badly as the rest of contemporary cosmology & theoretical physics. I think there's a tendency these days to see complexity where it does not exist, and so I keep my eyes open for the approaches that are "simple enough, but no simpler."
You'll have to explain why you think Woodward's work fails parsimony. I think it's a common error to believe Mach's Principle is an unnecessary indulgence rather than a necessary insight. Woodward has made some very strong arguments that M-P is intrinsic to GR and I've yet to see a counterargument that obtains. Lets suppose for a moment that Woodward is correct and M-P really is necessary to understanding these things. Would you still say his work fails parsimony?
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

williatw
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Post by williatw »

djolds1 wrote:The EHT duo strike me as free energy types who got lucky with the 2004 AIAA award.
"Got lucky" is probably an understatement...my understanding was that they were a part of the organization that gave them the award.

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

Post by djolds1 »

williatw wrote:
djolds1 wrote:The EHT duo strike me as free energy types who got lucky with the 2004 AIAA award.
"Got lucky" is probably an understatement...my understanding was that they were a part of the organization that gave them the award.
AIAA is an organization of dreamer aerospace engineers. Not as prestigious as SPESIF or STAIF, but not loons. They do try to somewhat winnow for quality, and they had other possibles in 2004. I'll hold to "lucky."
Vae Victis

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

Post by GIThruster »

Oh, I'd say AIAA is much more prestigious than SPESIF or STAIF ever was. Remember the last two are merely conferences while AIAA has an actual membership. They likewise have a publishing arm all their own, and pretty sure many times the numbers of STAIF or SPESIF.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

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

Post by MSimon »

What always amused me about Tesla is that any first year EE has a better understanding of circuit Q than he had. Chasing his "free energy" schemes is a waste of time. I can't figure out how he missed it. But he did.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

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

Post by djolds1 »

MSimon wrote:What always amused me about Tesla is that any first year EE has a better understanding of circuit Q than he had. Chasing his "free energy" schemes is a waste of time. I can't figure out how he missed it. But he did.
Tesla? I was referring to him being cheated out of his work on AC. Teslatech is amusing steampunk, nothing more.
Vae Victis

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

Post by AcesHigh »

MSimon wrote:What always amused me about Tesla is that any first year EE has a better understanding of circuit Q than he had. Chasing his "free energy" schemes is a waste of time. I can't figure out how he missed it. But he did.
I think nobody hit the mark 100% of the time. Nikolas had its faults, but he was also a genius and I guess nobody can deny his enourmous contributions to the field.

It seems Tesla never completed university, and in fact left early on. (Wikipedia entry says he had some nervous breakdown). He was definitly intelligent (could perform integral calculus in his mind as a teen), but that doesnt mean he was a physics expert, so maybe he didn´t fully (or chose not to) comprehend some of the principles of conservation of energy?

Either way, it seems he was influenced by Ernst Mach, so Tesla becomes on-topic since the thread is about Mach-Effect :lol:

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

Post by AcesHigh »

djolds1 wrote:
MSimon wrote:What always amused me about Tesla is that any first year EE has a better understanding of circuit Q than he had. Chasing his "free energy" schemes is a waste of time. I can't figure out how he missed it. But he did.
Tesla? I was referring to him being cheated out of his work on AC. Teslatech is amusing steampunk, nothing more.
was he talking about Teslatech? MSimon wrote "HE". I thought he was talking about Nikolas Tesla... if Simon was talking about Teslatech he would write "they", wouldnt he?

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

Post by MSimon »

AcesHigh wrote:
djolds1 wrote:
MSimon wrote:What always amused me about Tesla is that any first year EE has a better understanding of circuit Q than he had. Chasing his "free energy" schemes is a waste of time. I can't figure out how he missed it. But he did.
Tesla? I was referring to him being cheated out of his work on AC. Teslatech is amusing steampunk, nothing more.
was he talking about Teslatech? MSimon wrote "HE". I thought he was talking about Nikolas Tesla... if Simon was talking about Teslatech he would write "they", wouldnt he?
Correct.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

kunkmiester
Posts: 892
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:51 pm
Contact:

Post by kunkmiester »

Tesla didn't have the principle of conservation of energy. Almost all of his work was done using aether theories, even after the electron. He didn't use it or relativity until no one would take him seriously otherwise, and some of the reading I've done indicates even then he was simply using his own work, then rewording it so the mainstream physicists and engineers could understand.

The electron was discovered in the 1890s, and wasn't mainstream until much later. Tesla--and all the other 19th century workers like Mach and Faraday and Ohm et al--used aether in his basic theories, and the differences between these and modern theories must be understood to understand the works properly. Somewhat frustrating since there's a lack of good books reconciling the two viewpoints.
Evil is evil, no matter how small

Post Reply