Talk-Polywell.org

alexjrgreen wrote:More theoretical support:

Negative-Mass Hydrodynamics in a Spin-Orbit–Coupled Bose-Einstein Condensate

Appears to be negative effective mass, not gravitational mass. No warp drive yet, but a cool effect all the same.

My first thought when I saw this was about gravity. It does not seem to make sense that it is 'reverse' acceleration, however no noted influence for gravity is talked about. A force is a force is a force...

???

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index ... msg1722952

Little drips of info.

I have yet to understand how Woodward and Fearn's work is so neglected when it is so well done and gives experimental results consistent with ME theory.

TDPerk wrote:https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index ... msg1722952

Little drips of info.

I have yet to understand how Woodward and Fearn's work is so neglected when it is so well done and gives expiremtnal results consistent with ME theory.

I agree. I know of nothing in the area of "propellentless drive" better founded in theory and with quite a background of experimentation.

Where is former frequent poster GIThruster? Anyone heard from him? Must say I miss the old boy; hope he is okay. If anyone could give us an update (other than Paul March himself) he could.

Heidi Fearn of SSI will be speaking about the Mach Effect work they have been doing with the NIAC grant they received in about 30 minutes from now.
https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017

Skipjack wrote:Heidi Fearn of SSI will be speaking about the Mach Effect work they have been doing with the NIAC grant they received in about 30 minutes from now.
https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017

Thanks for the link. For those interested, her talk begins at 48:15 in Day 3 Part 2.

Here is what I took from it. There was also a section about a mission to Proxima b Centauri but I'll leave that out.

Their team: Prof. Heidi Rearn (PI), Dr. Jose Rodal, Marshall Eubanks, Dr. Bruce Long, Paul March, Gary Hudson, Emeritus Prof. James F. Woodward (consultant)

They've adopted Dr. Rodal's suggestion to call it the "MEGA" drive (Mach Effect Gravity Assist).

Replications have been performed:

1. Technical University Dresden, Germany (Prof. Martin Tajmar) - conducted at 4 microTorr

2. University of Applied Sciences, Austria (N. Buldrini) - conducted at 2 microTorr

3. A third (unspecified).

New experiments indicate that:

1. Changing the mass of the brass "weight" on the end impacts the results. There is an optimal mass for the system.

2. Dr. Rodal performed a theoretical analysis and their new results (force vs voltage) fall in line with its predictions.

3. Theory predicts that the force generated should be proportional to the voltage to the fourth power. They've collected more data which seems to support this (showed a plotted graph consisting of four groups of data points, fitted curve indicates V^3.79). There's a limit to how much voltage they can apply without melting the PZT stack, so the data points only extend so far up the curve.

Are about to experiment with PIN-PMN-PT (lead indium niobate - lead magnesium niobate - lead titanate) which, being uniformly crystalline, they hope will offer a factor of ten improvement over the sintered PZT powder.

"Multiple possible approaches to increase thrust". End goal: 1N of thrust for each small device, to be used in arrays of 1000 or more.

They'd like to do a rotational test, i.e. spinning a microsatellite up and down by opposing drives.

WOW.

Sadly most people won't be convinced until you land a 747 in their front yard. Also sadly, that would be rather expensive.

kunkmiester wrote:Sadly most people won't be convinced until you land a 747 in their front yard. Also sadly, that would be rather expensive.

You can't really claim thrust that is on the edge of your equipment's ability to measure and call it a success. People should still be skeptical at this point. Whether optimistically skeptical, well that is up to the reader, but we should all remain skeptical. Until some form of undeniable evidence is brought forth, it is the logical and prudent position to take. That being said, I hope they do have something, but I'll wait until they have something more to show.

ScottL wrote:

kunkmiester wrote:Sadly most people won't be convinced until you land a 747 in their front yard. Also sadly, that would be rather expensive.

You can't really claim thrust that is on the edge of your equipment's ability to measure and call it a success. People should still be skeptical at this point. Whether optimistically skeptical, well that is up to the reader, but we should all remain skeptical. Until some form of undeniable evidence is brought forth, it is the logical and prudent position to take. That being said, I hope they do have something, but I'll wait until they have something more to show.

Their equipment is good for 6 sigma at the observed signal level.

Is that Rossiclown Sigmas, or real science sigma?

ladajo wrote:Is that Rossiclown Sigmas, or real science sigma?

Real. Haven't you paid attention?

I was only intending to make fun of Rossiclown's ongoing Sigma fantasy by contrasting it with an actual Sigma construct.

I guess my humor was lost.

TDPerk wrote:Their equipment is good for 6 sigma at the observed signal level.

I find that interesting consider the question of scaling and measurement came up in the video. An individual asked why they hadn't scaled up instead or presenting measurements on the very edge of their ability to detect. Heidi, in my opinion, seem to acknowledge this fact and pointed out that they do hope to scale it up in the future. I still think it is logical and reasonable to be cautiously optimistic and yet skeptical. I, personally, will wait for more positive results and maturation of experiments/device design.