Talk-Polywell.org

birchoff wrote:Do you know @Aceshigh if the work showing Woodwards theory emerging from HN's theory will be published in a journal? I remmeber Woodward saying something about heidi publishing in a Physics Journal but that part wasnt too clear to me.

Not so sure Jim refers to this, but Heidi's last paper (about HN theory being non-divergent after all, not the one to be presented in July but the one before it) has been published in the Journal of Modern Physics this year :

• Fearn, H. (25 February 2015). "Mach's Principle, Action at a Distance and Cosmology". Journal of Modern Physics 06 (3): 260. arXiv:1412.5426. doi:10.4236/jmp.2015.63031

tokamac wrote:

birchoff wrote:Do you know @Aceshigh if the work showing Woodwards theory emerging from HN's theory will be published in a journal? I remmeber Woodward saying something about heidi publishing in a Physics Journal but that part wasnt too clear to me.

Not so sure Jim refers to this, but Heidi's last paper (about HN theory being non-divergent after all, not the one to be presented in July but the one before it) has been published in the Journal of Modern Physics this year :

• Fearn, H. (25 February 2015). "Mach's Principle, Action at a Distance and Cosmology". Journal of Modern Physics 06 (3): 260. arXiv:1412.5426. doi:10.4236/jmp.2015.63031

This is exactly the paper I was referring to. He gives a very nice historical perspective on how the paper finally got accepted to the arXiv server initially.

Live blogging from AIAA Tech Paper Presentation by Heidi Fern.

Unfortunatelly, seems like few people were there for the Mach Effect presentation... all eyes were on Tajmar's EM presentation that came after...

Same thing on NSF Forums, where I posted the live blogging below a few hours ago and nobody replied, while EM thread got a few pages of discussion after Tajmar's presentation...

Live Blogging of Heidi Fern's presentation on Mach Effect, by Dr Bagel Bites

36 minutes agoNext up, Mach Thruster with Heidi Fearn. /u/DrBagelBites
35 minutes agoThis is not a Dean drive, and it is not a thermal effect. /u/DrBagelBites
33 minutes agoBrass disk, pzt stack held togeether by stainless steel bolt with an aluminum cap. /u/DrBagelBites
33 minutes agoAll in a Faraday cage. /u/DrBagelBites
32 minutes agoUsing what seems like a torsion balance. /u/DrBagelBites
31 minutes agoUSC/ARC style thrust balance. /u/DrBagelBites
31 minutes agoTalking about calibration of device using the balance. /u/DrBagelBites
30 minutes agoFlexural bearings were used. /u/DrBagelBites
29 minutes ago
Showing graph of newtons v frequency.
Turn on, the torsion balance "swings" for a moment and then "swings" back /u/DrBagelBites
28 minutes agoOverlaid temperature in previous graph. Increasing in time as expected. /u/DrBagelBites
25 minutes agoWhy is it not a Dean drive? Dean drive relies on a sort of "ratcheting" effect. /u/DrBagelBites
23 minutes agoLearned that as it heats up, the resonant frequency changes. So, they tested by sweeping through a frequency range between two straight pulses at a single frequency. /u/DrBagelBites
22 minutes agoData was averaged. Forward-reverse thrust in order to cancel out some extraneous data. /u/DrBagelBites
21 minutes agoTwo accelerometers in each stack. /u/DrBagelBites
20 minutes agoBit of a spike mid-sweep. Thrust is still in noise. /u/DrBagelBites
19 minutes agoAt 180 V, there were multiple transient effects. /u/DrBagelBites
18 minutes ago
At 220-230 V, nothing really happened.
Pulse is happening transiently. /u/DrBagelBites
17 minutes agoShows temperature vs effect. Little to no correlation. So, temperature is not responsible. /u/DrBagelBites
14 minutes agoWhy did one device not show data and the other one did? V and V2 were in phase on the device with the effect. Not in phase on the other. /u/DrBagelBites
14 minutes agoAround 37 and 35 kHz /u/DrBagelBites
12 minutes agoDiscussing the Mach effect equation now. /u/DrBagelBites
12 minutes agoQuantifies the magnitude of the predicted mass fluctuations in accelerated objects. /u/DrBagelBites
11 minutes ago Plug for Making Starships and Stargates. /u/DrBagelBites
10 minutes ago Talking about Mach's Principle and action at a distance and cosmology. /u/DrBagelBites
9 minutes ago Take limit of smooth fluid approximation of the universe, and you get Einstein field equations. /u/DrBagelBites
8 minutes ago Mass equation from HN-theory. /u/DrBagelBites
8 minutes ago Thrust vs. voltage. Not linear, not quadratic, not quite cubic, fits V4 /u/DrBagelBites

Presentation cut short. Room is absolutely at capacity. /u/DrBagelBites

Is there any video of the presentation?

I don´t think the technical paper panels were filmed. The convention was pretty big, but only talks in the main auditorium seem to have been filmed.

AcesHigh wrote:I don´t think the technical paper panels were filmed. The convention was pretty big, but only talks in the main auditorium seem to have been filmed.

Such a shame, with the cheap technology we should be able and willing to record everything and make them available.

The Space Show radio program had an interview with Dr Heidi Fern, Mach Effect researcher...

http://thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=2545

"In the second segment, Robert Jacobson and I drove down to Cal St. Fullerton to see Dr. Woodward's lab and to talk with Dr. Heidi Fearn about their mach thruster work. The lab was very small & most the equipment was made by Dr. Woodward years ago. Heidi showed us a mach thruster and explained how to see the effect on the computer that measures the small amount of movement from the thruster. She explained it very well so while you won't be able to see what she is talking about, I believe you can easily follow along. We walked over to the vacuum cylinder which she explained, she then talked about the floating tables and why the need for them, plus we talked about scaling up mach thrusters. I asked her several questions about their out of the box work at Cal St. Fullerton, students, delivering papers, and her reception by her peers. You will find her responses to these questions to be very interesting. Later during the tour, she turned on the experiment and Robert and I could clearly see the computer recording the movement over the background noise. We have a cell phone picture of it which I will put on the blog for this show. Near the end of our 45 minute tour and discussion with Heidi, we asked her about funding and timelines. She suggested a timeline for going to Alpha Centauri which sounded way too soon to me but she explained why she thought it was plausible."

Dr. Heidi Fearn
Dr. Heidi Fearn is at California State University in Fullerton, CA. Her areas of special interest include Electromagnetism, Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics and Theoretical Physics. She works with Dr. Jim Woodward on research with Mach Thruster technology. You can see her most impressive CV with her list of publications and papers at http://physics.fullerton.edu/~heidi.

any news from GIT and the company he was starting to fund ME Thruster research?

or did he called the investors as imbeciles for having doubts about the concept?

Theory of a Mach Efect Thruster 2 is now out published in Journal of Modern Physics just like Part 1

Theory of a Mach Effect Thruster I

Theory of a Mach Effect Thruster II

from my first read it looks...

1. Woodward and Fearn now have a derivation of Woodward's force equation which he derived from GR equations using HN Theory.
a. Also derived the mass fluctuation equations from HN-Theory and transformed it to be more engineer friendly

2. Also seem to have a better justification for why the scaling will be w^3/w^4 instead of w^6. Compared to the gut feeling expectation discussed in Part 1

3. Also have a much clearer explaination for not only how the mass fluctuations manifest but how it is rectifed into a consistent force. Along with the requirements for making it happen.(Definately get the impression that they now have not only the theory down but also the engineering paramters).

4. Also included in their conclusion is that there are two successful replications. One is from Nembo Baldrin in Austria and the other is from someone in Canada. From what I can tell in the paper both replicators used MET's built by James Woodward, Headi Fearn, and Keith Watsner (JFW)

[edit]
I made a mistake I originally thought part 1 was the paper headi presented at the AIAA conference earlier this year. Where as Part 1 is beginning of what she promised at the end of her AIAA paper which is a complete derivation of Mach effects from HN Theory.

So do we have engineering to the point a non engineer can start shopping on Mouser to make his own? That's what I hear it's heading towards when you talk about engineering versus theory.

Short of getting my BS in EE(looking at an ME if I can ever get algebra and calculus to agree) my main interest would be a lower frequency fun thing than an actual experiment piece.

birchoff wrote:Theory of a Mach Efect Thruster 2 is now out published in Journal of Modern Physics just like Part 1

I am a big admirer of the work that Fearn and Woodward are doing and well Gary Hudson is an old idol of mine but I am afraid that publishing in JoMP was a mistake that might have hurt their effort more than helped. Lots of criticism from skeptics because that journal seemingly has a really bad reputation.

Skipjack wrote:

birchoff wrote:Theory of a Mach Efect Thruster 2 is now out published in Journal of Modern Physics just like Part 1

I am a big admirer of the work that Fearn and Woodward are doing and well Gary Hudson is an old idol of mine but I am afraid that publishing in JoMP was a mistake that might have hurt their effort more than helped. Lots of criticism from skeptics because that journal seemingly has a really bad reputation.

I thought about this for a bit. Since I also posted the same comment on the Mach Effect thread on NSF; and in the end I don't think it matters. From where I stand I dont think any of these papers even if they were in a "accepted" journal would change anyone's mind. At least not in a publicly visible way. What Woodward is claiming with Mach Effect is extraordinary to the status quo. and the status quo requires as its price to pay attention extraordinary proof. A viable theory is step one. Not an insignificant step but still the first step. The next step are solid experimental results that can be replicated and match the predictions made by the theory. Which means the next most important paper will be the replication (sounds more like validation tests since the devices they tested were created by JFW) results paper from Buldrini and the Canadian experimentalist that Fearn says have completed successful replications and have their papers currently under peer review. After that JFW will need to show a next gen version of their thruster that shows better thrust in agreement with theoretical prediction. Followed by replications.

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/11/ne ... ce-of.html

I believe the MET has already demonstrated better thrust by a factor of 6 or so at least.

I have never quite understood why the MET concept seems to be a backwater when it has a better theoretic basis, math which explains it and which agrees with current results.

TDPerk wrote:http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/11/ne ... ce-of.html

I believe the MET has already demonstrated better thrust by a factor of 6 or so at least.

I have never quite understood why the MET concept seems to be a backwater when it has a better theoretic basis, math which explains it and which agrees with current results.

I think it is the mechanical nature of it. I certainly prefer a device that does not rely on acoustical waves transiting differing materials.


But yes, the theoretical basis of the Mach Effect Thruster makes a lot more sense than do the various explanations we have heard for Shawyer's drive.

Diogenes wrote:

TDPerk wrote:http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/11/ne ... ce-of.html

I believe the MET has already demonstrated better thrust by a factor of 6 or so at least.

I have never quite understood why the MET concept seems to be a backwater when it has a better theoretic basis, math which explains it and which agrees with current results.

I think it is the mechanical nature of it. I certainly prefer a device that does not rely on acoustical waves transiting differing materials.


But yes, the theoretical basis of the Mach Effect Thruster makes a lot more sense than do the various explanations we have heard for Shawyer's drive.

Been following MET's for a bit but I am not sure that is actually true. Though I have focused more on the thrust figure and less on the thrust per kw figure. So you may actually be right about that. That said, the one thing that is an immediately obvious show stopper for MET's is that they dont have a very long run time. There is some serious material science that will need to be done around the current design. That said, from everything I have been seeing on NSF, we likely should be able to look forward to a world where Rockets meet obsolescence via one or two technologies