Mach Effect progress

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Diogenes
Posts: 6945
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm
Location: Ft. Sill Oklahoma

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby Diogenes » Sat Apr 07, 2018 4:14 pm

ScottL wrote:To further explain my position which you quoted, I have not seen (read/heard) of any compelling evidence to date. The primary evidence that sparked the interest 2 years ago came from China. A Professor Yang had published data eluding to high thrust and a possible pseudo-confirmation of Shawyers (agreed, his explanation isn't correct). The problem with that data is that Professor Yang redid the experiment about a year later with a negative result and a new explanation. Per Professor Yang, having moved the power source onto the device instead of feeding it along the pendulum arm, previous measurements of "thrust" disappeared. Outside of Professor Yang's work, I really haven't seen evidence that I would consider compelling for the EMDrive. What I have seen are ample amounts of arm-chair scientists posting pet theories and wailing against the physics establishment. Until I see some reputable replication and publication, I exercise my right to remain skeptical. This is one facet of science i would love to be wrong about though.



All well and good, but if the Phenomena Shawyer reported with the Satellites is real, I would think it could be confirmed by others in the industry. Anybody know anyone involved in satellite station keeping of this sort? (High powered communications satellites.)

Experiment beats theory every day of the week.

If Shawyer hasn't made it up, other people ought to be able to confirm the phenomena.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

painlord2k
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 7:35 pm
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby painlord2k » Sat Apr 07, 2018 5:15 pm

paperburn1 wrote:Sometime I thing we are taking the wrong approach with these things. :) Maybe we should cover it with bright flashing LEDs, shiny bells and have it spat co2 or steam at random intervals from various orifices and keep it in a big blue box then maybe we will get millions in funding


The right approach is pretty simple and it is always the same:

Set an X-Prize with a lot of money for the first three group sending a micro satellite up without any rocket engine to move it.
Then they must move the satellite from from orbit to a lower orbit and keep it stationary where it could not possibly do so without engines (low orbit).

kunkmiester
Posts: 864
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby kunkmiester » Sat Apr 07, 2018 5:37 pm

Diogenes wrote:
ScottL wrote:To further explain my position which you quoted, I have not seen (read/heard) of any compelling evidence to date. The primary evidence that sparked the interest 2 years ago came from China. A Professor Yang had published data eluding to high thrust and a possible pseudo-confirmation of Shawyers (agreed, his explanation isn't correct). The problem with that data is that Professor Yang redid the experiment about a year later with a negative result and a new explanation. Per Professor Yang, having moved the power source onto the device instead of feeding it along the pendulum arm, previous measurements of "thrust" disappeared. Outside of Professor Yang's work, I really haven't seen evidence that I would consider compelling for the EMDrive. What I have seen are ample amounts of arm-chair scientists posting pet theories and wailing against the physics establishment. Until I see some reputable replication and publication, I exercise my right to remain skeptical. This is one facet of science i would love to be wrong about though.



All well and good, but if the Phenomena Shawyer reported with the Satellites is real, I would think it could be confirmed by others in the industry. Anybody know anyone involved in satellite station keeping of this sort? (High powered communications satellites.)

Experiment beats theory every day of the week.

If Shawyer hasn't made it up, other people ought to be able to confirm the phenomena.

I've mentioned this before, a paper auditing sats from his company and others should be easy, possibly even undergrad level work. The big challenge is getting data from potentially secretive corporations and/or for classified government satellites. Once I get into college again and start hobnobbing with professors inintend to see if any have students that would be up for this and a few other shenanigans.
Evil is evil, no matter how small

Diogenes
Posts: 6945
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm
Location: Ft. Sill Oklahoma

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby Diogenes » Tue Apr 10, 2018 3:56 am

Awesome! God speed!
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

TDPerk
Posts: 955
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Northern Shen. Valley, VA
Contact:

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby TDPerk » Fri Jun 29, 2018 1:56 pm

" But for an unknown reason (do they fully understand what they are doing ?) Tajmar and his team didn't use the mandatory stepup/isolation transformer: Therefore they operated the device at the wrong frequency, one that could never trigger any thrust signature!

Even worse: as the Dresden team saw nothing conclusive, they increased the voltage for too long and the temperature in the PZT stacks, so they also managed to toast the initially good-working device before returning it to Woodward in California four months later. " <-- flux_capacitor

A bizarre but seemingly confirmed error by Tajmar and team.

Taken from the non-L2 section of NASASpaceFlight.com

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index ... 31037.1420

There is no possible way Tajmar's recent work could have confirmed or disproved Woodward's work, and the effort damaged the example device Woodward loaned to them!
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria

williatw
Posts: 1694
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby williatw » Fri Jun 29, 2018 5:30 pm

TDPerk wrote:There is no possible way Tajmar's recent work could have confirmed or disproved Woodward's work, and the effort damaged the example device Woodward loaned to them!



Does this suggest the likely possibility that Tajmar's recent negative/inconclusive work testing the EmDrive is also likely to be questioned? Hoping...

Maui
Posts: 542
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby Maui » Sat Jun 30, 2018 6:37 pm

That's the claim from the thread TDPerk linked to:
BTW same kind of casualness in their EmDrive testing, as already reported on these boards in the dedicated thread, for example here and there.

...

Part of the reason that Tajmar's group published on two different drives was an attempt to show how good his new expensive equipment would perform. So really this was not about testing the two different drives but new equipment testing as well as a new universal experimental setup that was not so universal.

The experimental setup was to test the emDrive. The wrong type of balance was used.

Magnetic dampening has artifacts that may contribute to false negatives or false positives.

The result appeared to be make out the emDrive as a magnetic compass.

IMHO the tests were not valid and the experiment was not valid.


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests