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 »

The output hasn't gone down. Tom was reporting about the work he did for his Master's degree. The force generation has been multiplied many fold since then and many more controls have been added. Tom's original experiment hasn't been run in more than a decade and indeed, he was not even able to measure the thrust. His original "shuttler" design is not in use and most of the experimental effort has been in developing measurement instruments and controls.
"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 »

kurt9 wrote:That was Tom Mahood and, yes indeed, he said the experimental results got smaller as more precise experiments were done. It would be enough to write off the concept, except that Woodward has done a more recent set of experiments to eliminate any potential errors and spurulous effects and yet the effect has remained. The magnitude does not fit with his equations and he is doing a new set of experiments to determine why.
If the math says "A" and experiments show "B," my usual rule-of-thumb is that the math is not reflective of reality. :(
Vae Victis

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

Post by djolds1 »

tomclarke wrote:If M-E exists, at any level, it has major consequences and practical applications.

Those who read Jim's experiments, notice that he is careful to control errors, and say therefore the effect must be real underestimate the problems.

For every effect controlled there will be another one (perhaps involving some extra phase shift, or unexpected nonlinearity) not considered. If people are interested and Jim's latest stuff is postable we could go nthrough it attempting to find the gaps.

All this stuff is relevant at very low output levels. At higher level you can rule out a lot of the second order stuff etc because it would be too small.

You can't do any of this analysis without very carefully going through all the details, so what I'm saying is my memory of when I last went through Jim's stuff. But the fact that over time, in spite of higher theoretical output experiments, the observed output has gone down must make experimental error here most likely even if the precise mechanism is not easy to tease out.
The quality of the work done by Jim Woodward and his collaborators has always impressed me. But that does not mean they will produce useful results. Technics that need multiple galactic masses to show results are not productive for anyone on this side of the Abrahamaic God.

For one, Tom Mahood pointed out the very real possibility of a damping effect in the article I referred to.
Vae Victis

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

Post by GIThruster »

I don't think there is a model that can be used for magnitude predictions. Andrew Palfreyman developed one about eight years ago, but it was "naive" in several ways, making estimates and generalizations instead of based upon specifics. Despite this, thrusts in the lab do not match "naive" prediction. Figuring out why is where the attention is going right now.

Although I agree with what Tom is writing, I've been through all the details of the experimental setup and that's why I'm satisfied. Tom could have been added to Jim's mailing list and analyzed the setup at any time over the last few years. He chose not to spend his time this way. IIRC, Tom even told Jim that he wanted to do a replication of the M-E work in London, but never got started. I'm sure if Tom wants to tease out all the details of Jim's current work, and even design an experiment of his own, Jim would be very cooperative.

I don't think though that we're going to see a constructive conversation here about those details. This isn't peer review. This is where people go to share their opinions no matter their level of ignorance. I happen to enjoy this forum, but I would never suggest anyone involved in real research spend their time in a place where the peanut gallery get to take free shots with no responsibility.

Keep in mind, the peer review system only works because the critics and commentators are as responsible as the person who's work is being criticized. Contrast that against blogs where people don't even share their real name and you can see the vast difference.
"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:I don't think there is a model that can be used for magnitude predictions. Andrew Palfreyman developed one about eight years ago, but it was "naive" in several ways, making estimates and generalizations instead of based upon specifics. Despite this, thrusts in the lab do not match "naive" prediction. Figuring out why is where the attention is going right now.

Although I agree with what Tom is writing, I've been through all the details of the experimental setup and that's why I'm satisfied. Tom could have been added to Jim's mailing list and analyzed the setup at any time over the last few years. He chose not to spend his time this way. IIRC, Tom even told Jim that he wanted to do a replication of the M-E work in London, but never got started. I'm sure if Tom wants to tease out all the details of Jim's current work, and even design an experiment of his own, Jim would be very cooperative.

I don't think though that we're going to see a constructive conversation here about those details. This isn't peer review. This is where people go to share their opinions no matter their level of ignorance. I happen to enjoy this forum, but I would never suggest anyone involved in real research spend their time in a place where the peanut gallery get to take free shots with no responsibility.

Keep in mind, the peer review system only works because the critics and commentators are as responsible as the person who's work is being criticized. Contrast that against blogs where people don't even share their real name and you can see the vast difference.
I've seen multiple claims that Woodward has redundantly checked and verified his latest results as positive. Links? Cites?
Vae Victis

kurt9
Posts: 588
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:14 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA

Post by kurt9 »

Woodward has released his experimental results to his email list.

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

Post by GIThruster »

That's correct. During his normal work season, which is about 8 months of the year, he posts weekly updates and descriptions of the work. The end-of-season 122 slide presentation was simply a composite of what he had already posted. Woodward photographs as well as takes direct data feeds and puts them into his ppt's for these distributions.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by tomclarke »

GIThruster wrote:I don't think there is a model that can be used for magnitude predictions. Andrew Palfreyman developed one about eight years ago, but it was "naive" in several ways, making estimates and generalizations instead of based upon specifics. Despite this, thrusts in the lab do not match "naive" prediction. Figuring out why is where the attention is going right now.

Although I agree with what Tom is writing, I've been through all the details of the experimental setup and that's why I'm satisfied. Tom could have been added to Jim's mailing list and analyzed the setup at any time over the last few years. He chose not to spend his time this way. IIRC, Tom even told Jim that he wanted to do a replication of the M-E work in London, but never got started. I'm sure if Tom wants to tease out all the details of Jim's current work, and even design an experiment of his own, Jim would be very cooperative.

I don't think though that we're going to see a constructive conversation here about those details. This isn't peer review. This is where people go to share their opinions no matter their level of ignorance. I happen to enjoy this forum, but I would never suggest anyone involved in real research spend their time in a place where the peanut gallery get to take free shots with no responsibility.

Keep in mind, the peer review system only works because the critics and commentators are as responsible as the person who's work is being criticized. Contrast that against blogs where people don't even share their real name and you can see the vast difference.
I ran the repl as a student project, with negative results but student was not good/fast enough to do comprehensive tests so not worth much. And sensitivity less than needed for Jim's latest results.

I'le look at anything, but prefer written papers rather than ppts. Written papers are more effort, but present info in manner which makes checking easier.

I doubt the M-E stuff experimental is easily publishable at the moment because effects too small - but it is still worth writing up is well as possible, to standard found in decent journals. Then it can be internet published if nothing else.

Tom

kurt9
Posts: 588
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:14 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA

Post by kurt9 »

Woodward and March are getting micro-Newton results out of their tests. I would be convinced this is real if they are able to demonstrate milli-Newton thrusts, say, around 10 milli-Newtons.

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

Post by GIThruster »

Jim publishes every year through STAIF and SPESIF. If someone with Tom's credentials wants copies of those papers, I'm sure Jim would supply them. It's important to note though, that neither of these are peer review journals. They're just professional conferences so the level of scrutiny is not nearly as high as with Jim's early theoretical work that was reviewed in places like Foundations of Physics. However, given Jim now has some help in the lab, I'm hoping we'll see more publishing in the future. Jim is a pretty prolific writer and always as transparent as he can be. He fully understands the benefits of "open science" and invites replications.

Good to note too, that there is a review process at Springer, which is a top shelf academic publishing house. The fact Jim is being published by them is noteworthy.

Paul March hasn't completed any lab work in 8 years, and the work he did back then was never provided with the proper scientific controls such as vacuum. There is no reason to treat those lab results as trustworthy in any way. Likewise the story on the web about Sonny White's "Q-Thruster" is just that--a story. Back when Paul did his MLT tests in 2004, Sonny told him the results were useless because he failed to provide the proper scientific controls. A few months ago, Sonny renamed the test articles from "MLT" to" Q-Thruster" so he can use those test results to do fundraising for his Eagleworks lab at JSC. Eagleworks is spreading the rumor that Sonny created a model, formed predictions, built a test article, ran tests and validated Sonny's model (which is completely unable to manage peer review scrutiny.) None of this story is true. Sonny's current model was created many years after those failed tests that never had the proper controls and which he himself condemned as useless. It's all slick nonsense to redirect funds to Sonny White's Eagleworks lab, and the worst thing is that there are plenty of people at NASA who know this is all a fraud. I know they know, because I confronted Sonny and Paul about this in a very large email distribution both before and after the latest posts popularizing these myths over at NBF. I also happen to know that Brian over at NBF knows the truth of all this because he too was copied to that email, before the latest misrepresentations he posted at NBF.

BTW, Paul's test results back in 2002-2004 generated mN thrusts, so you can see why people don't much like to note those tests did not include the proper scientific controls. I'm pointing out all these details because the time has come to draw attention to the very important distinctions between Paul's work most of a decade ago and Jim's work. When the hammer drops on these nonsense stories being published over at NBF, it will be vital that no one equates Jim's work with the stories coming out of Eagleworks, which in my opinion completely discredit themselves through their lack of candor. Please don't take any of these observations and objections as toward Paul March himself, who I still consider a friend. It's the Eagleworks PR that stinks like day old fish.

I should also note that there is interesting work happening or about to happen over at Eagleworks. Sonny has a good idea for a warp field interferometer that he thinks can detect a warp field. If he gets positive results from this, I'm sure he'll publish and there will be a great deal of skull sweat pondering the issue if it is really evidence of a warp field. That's the kind of research I love to see and it therefore makes me all the more concerned that Eagleworks is promoting this bogus story about having tested a "Q-Thruster" when in fact, they have yet to test anything in all these months of funding.
"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 »

tomclarke wrote:If M-E exists, at any level, it has major consequences and practical applications.

Those who read Jim's experiments, notice that he is careful to control errors, and say therefore the effect must be real underestimate the problems.

For every effect controlled there will be another one (perhaps involving some extra phase shift, or unexpected nonlinearity) not considered.
This is true, and this is why I've for more than half a decade been so completely impressed with the open science approach Jim has suffered through. The fact is that there have been many criticisms offered over the years in the spirit of discovery, and Jim has been very open to take them all into careful consideration. There have been some on Jim's list who for personal reasons actually take an adversarial role in discussion, and have at times emotionally elevated the discussion to the point some found it offensive. I have myself disagreed violently with Jim's take on an important subject and seen him stop and alter the course of experimentation in order to eliminate what could have been spurious forces.

It's not true to say that Jim could not be wrong. It is true to say that he has extremely qualified individuals looking over his shoulder all the time. These include PhD's from the best schools like Cambridge, Oxford and Penn State, who have invested hundreds of hours over the last few years investigating all the details of Jim's work and offering insights as to how it can be improved.

So just saying, it's no criticism of Tom to note he hasn't so invested his time, but it is noteworthy that others with Tom's skill set have, and to date they haven't identified any error sources Jim has not later accounted for.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

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

Post by GeeGee »

GIThruster wrote:Jim publishes every year through STAIF and SPESIF. If someone with Tom's credentials wants copies of those papers, I'm sure Jim would supply them. It's important to note though, that neither of these are peer review journals. They're just professional conferences so the level of scrutiny is not nearly as high as with Jim's early theoretical work that was reviewed in places like Foundations of Physics. However, given Jim now has some help in the lab, I'm hoping we'll see more publishing in the future. Jim is a pretty prolific writer and always as transparent as he can be. He fully understands the benefits of "open science" and invites replications.
I don't mean to trivialize Jim's excellent, top tier work and professionalism, but with the current budget and the small number of people working on this right now, I don't think significant progress is going to be made in the next couple of years at this rate.

However, if Jim could get published in a big name journal like Nature or Science, it would help this project tremendously. He could generate huge interest (along with tons more criticism, of course) and get this process of validating (or amplifying) this effect moving along faster.

Then again, Jim has said writing his book is the most important thing at this point. Since it is being published by Springer, it might generate the much needed interest.

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

Post by GIThruster »

I agree that a move back to peer reviewed journals may well be called for.

The trouble seems to me is that Jim is just one man, and I think now in his 70's. There's a serious concern what is the best use of his time. As he is the arch-typal experimentalist, his time in the lab is top priority. As he's also an academic with decades of teaching time, there's no doubt he has the skills necessary to communicate effectively to a broad audience.

What to do. . .what to do. . .?

I never make suggestions of this type. I think Jim knows how he wants to spend his time. I do think though, that these two current developments--the book finished and finally PhD level help in the lab, will have their own impacts and I'm hopeful to see what will come of this.
"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:BTW, Paul's test results back in 2002-2004 generated mN thrusts, so you can see why people don't much like to note those tests did not include the proper scientific controls. I'm pointing out all these details because the time has come to draw attention to the very important distinctions between Paul's work most of a decade ago and Jim's work.
Fair point. However, Jim Woodward's individual work has become very hard to track and review in recent years. I have requested access to his distribution list, but such limited distribution does raise very human doubts.
GIThruster wrote:When the hammer drops on these nonsense stories being published over at NBF, it will be vital that no one equates Jim's work with the stories coming out of Eagleworks, which in my opinion completely discredit themselves through their lack of candor. Please don't take any of these observations and objections as toward Paul March himself, who I still consider a friend. It's the Eagleworks PR that stinks like day old fish.
Que?

I don't follow the discussion threads at NBF very often.
GIThruster wrote:I should also note that there is interesting work happening or about to happen over at Eagleworks. Sonny has a good idea for a warp field interferometer that he thinks can detect a warp field. If he gets positive results from this, I'm sure he'll publish and there will be a great deal of skull sweat pondering the issue if it is really evidence of a warp field. That's the kind of research I love to see and it therefore makes me all the more concerned that Eagleworks is promoting this bogus story about having tested a "Q-Thruster" when in fact, they have yet to test anything in all these months of funding.
So Eagleworks is both discrediting itself and on the verge of establishing great things?

Que?

Links, cites or unpacking, please?
Vae Victis

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

Post by GIThruster »

Sorry I mistook this above as less than serious at first.

I'm happy to forward anyone's email address to Jim to be added to his list. Just send me a private note with your email and a couple sentences stating your interest and background. I've done this many times before.

The thing that stinks like day old fish is the dishonest claims that the test results are in accord with predictions made by Sonny's model, when in fact the model came years after the tests. There were therefore never any "predictions" but rather "postdictions".

I don't know if Eagleworks is on the verge of great things. As I have no confidence in ZPF and QVF models and theories, I find it unlikely Sonny will get a positive result. I do think it's possible his interferometer might be able to detect a warp field, but I think it's extremely unlikely he can generate one using his QVF model. I think though, that he could detect a warp signature if he were to try and generate one with an M-E device and Paul March knows enough M-E physics he could design such an experiment pretty easily.
Last edited by GIThruster on Mon Jun 18, 2012 5:20 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

Post Reply