Talk-Polywell.org

Where did you see the info about Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab?

And really, building multiple test articles is not necessary. I'm sure the kit can be shipped. It's limited primarily by whom has the test facilities to start. I was not aware Johns Hopkins had a thrust balance. Stennis and JPL do. Not sure about Glenn. Marshall has one but I don't think it has adequate resolution for thrusts like these.

GIThruster wrote: Where did you see the info about Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab?

At the very bottom of the article:

" The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory has also expressed an interest in performing a Cavendish Balance style test with the IV&V shipset."

Axil wrote:FYI:

This info release is relatively new and it might not have been discussed here before, so here’s some recent results from NASA…

http://www.libertariannews.org/wp-conte ... dyEtAl.pdf

Your link is the full NASA paper (from Eagleworks) everyone is talking about since the 30th of July (page 9 of this topic). Direct link specified August 5, page 12 of this topic. But thanks fro bringing back the direct link to those who didn't see the full paper yet.

GiThruster, Dr Rodal posted this on the EMDrive thread at NSF Forums

John, you wanted to have a sidebar on Woodard's derivation. If you still want to do this, are there any Woodward-derivation-experts on this thread that could answer questions regarding Woodward's derivation? Because if there are no people on this thread willing and able to answer Woodward-derivation-questions, it looks like such a thread would be a debate where one of the parties doesn't show up...

Solo dicendo...

AcesHigh wrote:GiThruster, Dr Rodal posted this on the EMDrive thread at NSF Forums

John, you wanted to have a sidebar on Woodard's derivation. If you still want to do this, are there any Woodward-derivation-experts on this thread that could answer questions regarding Woodward's derivation? Because if there are no people on this thread willing and able to answer Woodward-derivation-questions, it looks like such a thread would be a debate where one of the parties doesn't show up...

Solo dicendo...

I would just recommend the book. If Dr. Rodal wants to be placed on Woodward's general reading list where he can have a dialog on this issue, have him send me a note to this effect with a couple sentences of his background and interest and I'll forward this to Jim.

well, Dr Rodal is dismantling Mach Effect at NSF


GiThruster, maybe you would want to check out the arguments on this page

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index. ... =29276.975

Yes well, you'll have to forgive me that I can't read all what Dr. Rodal is posting. It's pretty obvious he is not familiar with the work. Neither was Brito when he decided to do an M-E experiment using a discarded design a year or two after it had been abandoned.

Rodal wrote:* When did such statements first appear in Woodward's publications?

* What magnitude acceleration is a large “bulk” acceleration according to Woodward?

This is almost asking the right question. It is not the magnitude of the bulk that qualifies it as "bulk" but rather, it is accelerating both ends of the electromechanical spring found in bulk matter. The MLT design used by Brito in the above only accelerated the mobile ion inside the BaTiO3 dielectric cage or lattice. What needs to happen is one accelerates the entire lattice because this includes then, both ends of these EM springs. Accelerating only the mobile ion does not accelerate the entire spring.

Nembo Buldrini's "bulk acceleration conjecture" that corrected the efforts in M-E research was back in early 2008 I believe. It was certainly before Brito's experiments. And again, this is why it is so foolish to do replications or validations of anyone's work without availing oneself to the current state of the art. (And really one hopes people wanting to criticize such work ought to be cognizant of the facts as well.)

I was actually the first to argue that as far as I understood the theory, not just the mobile ion needed to be accelerated, but the entire lattice. Nembo Buldrini then showed this is true from the math and all of the M-E work immediately changed. I was the first to abandon the Mach Lorentz Thruster (the design Brito used) and focus on the previous design, what is now known as the Mach Effect Thruster or MET.

There are two very important aspects to the Bulk Acceleration Conjecture. First is, since the entire active mass material lattice needs to move, it can't be sintered with compounds intended to repress electromechanical responses the way the MLT caps used were, and I presume the caps used by Brito. The lattice needs to accelerate and the magnitude of this acceleration determines both the magnitude of the Mach Effect generated (by the 1w acceleration) and the mass fluctuation rectification into force (by the 2w acceleration). So what it turns out is, the thrust generated from these 1/4 wave oscillator/resonators is quadratic with mechanical Q, and Brito's design had no Q to speak of. It was not a 1/4 wave resonator. If you don't use a reaction mass or acoustic mirror in your design, even given the shabby acceleration generated by ceramics sintered to repress piezo-action and electrostriction, you get 1/2 wave mechanical action which means acceleration in two opposite directions which then cancel each other as regards force generated.

So long story short is, the design used by Brito had been abandoned a year or two before he did his experiment for good reasons and ought not have worked according to theory. This has all been explained by me in several forums over the years, and if Dr. Rodal thinks he is qualified to remark about "moving the goalposts" or whatever, I would just suggest to him he do his homework first. He could for example read Jim's book.

http://www.amazon.com/Making-Starships- ... 1461456223

"well, Dr Rodal is dismantling Mach Effect at NSF"

Well no, he isn't. I've read Woodward's book, and a glance at his setup and the thread shows he has no idea how to test the theory.

Like GIT said, wrong caps, bad apparatus.

No chance of saying anything dispositive.

He wasted I don't know how many of his hours, and 15 minutes of mine.

So why does no one set him straight?

I don't personally feel the need to dispose of his arguments any more than I feel the need to argue against that Rider fellow who got everything abut IEC wrong.

Have you read Woodward's book?

I posted over there. I don't think he really cares about Woodward's work. He's only looking at it as it regards the claims at Eagleworks.

TDPerk wrote:Have you read Woodward's book?

Am I the one who's got the peanut gallery's attention?

Betruger wrote:

TDPerk wrote:Have you read Woodward's book?

Am I the one who's got the peanut gallery's attention?

no but if your interested in why Rodal and a few others on NSF are mistaken at least in their provided analysis the Book is a good starting point.


That said, as thrust er said above. Rodal's concern is with using ME as a justification for the thrust generated by the Cannae and Tapered Frustum devices. Problem is there isn't enough information in the papers. I genuinely appreciate what Rodal is attempting but at some point he is going to have to come to the conclusion that he doesn't have enough information to conclusively prove that either the devices can actually work or that they cant, along with an explanation of why thrust was being measured in the first place.

I really don't have time. I'm already seriously far from healthy amounts of sleep. I am enthusiastic about faulty mach effect criticism getting refuted as it should, though.

at some point he is going to have to come to the conclusion that he doesn't have enough information to conclusively prove that either the devices can actually work or that they cant, along with an explanation of why thrust was being measured in the first place.

What I half suspect is him, for whatever reason, giving up or running out of time to pour into his investigation. And then all he'll have to say - his effective conclusion will be "it led nowhere" / "it looked like a dead end as far as I could tell". He ought to be put on the right tracks while he's still got steam for it.

paulmarch wrote:

birchoff wrote:

GIThruster wrote:I would never pretend to speak for Paul, but I can relate to you what his positions have been in the past. Last I heard, he was still maintaining he believed that Sonny's QVF model and Jim's M-E model were opposite sides of the same coin, despite Jim, Sonny and myself keep arguing this cannot be true.

Why is it not possible for QVF and ME to be "opposite sides of the same coin"

Dr. Woodward maintains that the M-E's mass fluctuations occur in the "squishy" intermolecular chemical bonds of the dielectric and not in the rest mass of the ions in question. Next question is what are these squishy intermolecular chemical bonds made of? They are typically called covalent sharing of molecular electrons and/or an imbalance of ionic electric charges between the charged ions. Ok then what is in between the electrons and ions in these dielectric molecules that is affected by the M-E equation's transient gravity waves, or in other words what do the M-E's pressure transients in the cosmological gravitational field affect in between the molecules that for all practical purposes is a pure vacuum state. A vacuum state filled only with virtual photons of the electric fields and perhaps the virtual e/p pairs of the quantum vacuum. That is why I continue to say that Dr. White in only trying to answer what Woodward's M-E "gravity" pressure waves are effecting at the molecular and subatomic scales. A place that Dr. Woodward refuses to go to this date except perhaps in his musings on the ADM electron structure where the gravitational field is used to counter balance the electrostatic field forces, but once again ignoring the basic question of what either of these fields are composed of. That is supposed to be the realm of quantum gravity, but since no one has come up with an accepted answer for same, Dr. White is free to suggest his own.

Next, in regards to the Boeing SFE work that the Eagleworks Lab performed back in the spring of 2013, since it was and is covered by NDAs, all I can comment on is the already released Eagleworks 2013 newsletter that has been pointed to on this forum. I can however assure you that these results were run in a hard vacuum (~5x10^-6 Torr) and are categorically NOT ion wind or unbalanced electrostatic charges.

from Ron Stahl: "I am still on record that I don't trust the data coming from Eagle, but..."

I have to reassure Mr. Stahl that I have always reported and will continue to report the actual data that I recorded In our Eagleworks Lab reports and that Dr. White has never asked me to falsify any of this data we have presented. If you think otherwise that is your privilege, but it's not an accurate picture in any way.

Best,

Thanks Paul! Glad to see work is continuing, maybe we'll finally get some good replication efforts soon.