EM Drive

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Nik
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 8:14 pm
Location: UK

0.1g to 0.1 c

Postby Nik » Fri Mar 11, 2011 9:35 pm

I'd settle for 0.1g to 0.1 c: That gives us the solar system !!

D'uh, I'd settle for an EM thruster fitted to ISS for orbit maintenance as proof of concept....

Like a solar sail, a microgravity boost's effects accumulate...

ltgbrown
Posts: 174
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 11:15 am
Location: Belgium

Postby ltgbrown » Fri Apr 01, 2011 2:10 am

GIThruster/Paul,

How are things going? Any progress?

Curious mind.
Famous last words, "Hey, watch this!"

IntLibber
Posts: 747
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:28 pm

Postby IntLibber » Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:45 am

chrismb wrote:Yes. It is indeed impossible. I've mentioned this chap before here. He has a piece of kit pluged into the wall. Same issue I have raised with "Mach effect" thrusters applies - the reaction force causing the motion is likely being borne by the electrons pushing back on the generator generating the electical power.

You need an electrical supply that is in the same inertial frame as the motive parts, to exclude this [simple] interpretation.


Thats not how the Mach Effect works. If you can't bother to read the papers and understand the maths, then save your comments for places where it doesnt matter, like your loo.

IntLibber
Posts: 747
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:28 pm

Re: 0.1g to 0.1 c

Postby IntLibber » Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:47 am

Nik wrote:I'd settle for 0.1g to 0.1 c: That gives us the solar system !!

D'uh, I'd settle for an EM thruster fitted to ISS for orbit maintenance as proof of concept....

Like a solar sail, a microgravity boost's effects accumulate...


0.1g to 0.1 c gives us interstellar trips in one lifetime. Then we just need some good hybernation technologies and we are good to go.

Giorgio
Posts: 2725
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Postby Giorgio » Sat Apr 02, 2011 2:43 pm

IntLibber wrote:Thats not how the Mach Effect works.


It didn't occur to me that the effect was proven as working.
As far as I know it is still a theoretical model with no repeatable experiment available.
There has been something new in the last months that I missed?


IntLibber wrote:If you can't bother to read the papers and understand the maths, then save your comments for places where it doesnt matter, like your loo.


I have read the papers and the the math. He adjusted the math to be feasible to his theory. This does not mean that his theory is wrong, but just that until he proves his math to be correct (with a proper experiment) no one should claim that it is right either.

Using math I can prove to you that 1 is equal to 2, but that does not mean that I can generate an experiment to prove it.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Postby chrismb » Sat Apr 02, 2011 3:10 pm

IntLibber wrote:Thats not how the Mach Effect works. If you can't bother to read the papers and understand the maths, then save your comments for places where it doesnt matter, like your loo.
Like Giorgio says. yeah, I know that's not how the Mach effect is supposed to work [you are saying you know it to work already!?!] but it is as non-sequitur as the italian guy who says "something is happening in my apparatus, therefore it must be what I claim it to be!!"

For heavens sake, mankind, have you really not gotten beyond this kind of 'superstitious' way of looking at things? Create a belief system and if there is any sort of match to reality [however tenuous, it seems] then it is considered duly demonstrated?

Giorgio
Posts: 2725
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Postby Giorgio » Sat Apr 02, 2011 3:49 pm

chrismb wrote:For heavens sake, mankind, have you really not gotten beyond this kind of 'superstitious' way of looking at things? Create a belief system and if there is any sort of match to reality [however tenuous, it seems] then it is considered duly demonstrated?


What do you expect from a race where religions influence every aspects of life?

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Postby KitemanSA » Sat Apr 02, 2011 6:01 pm

Giorgio wrote: Using math I can prove to you that 1 is equal to 2,
No, you can't. Though you can mis-use the symbols to fool the gullable perhaps. :wink:

Giorgio
Posts: 2725
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Postby Giorgio » Sat Apr 02, 2011 9:30 pm

KitemanSA wrote:No, you can't. Though you can mis-use the symbols to fool the gullable perhaps. :wink:


Ehehe, after all isn't that what most of these so called mathematical proofs are based on?

1 ) a = b
2 ) ab = b² [ multiply by b both sides ]
3 ) ab - a² = b² - a² [ subtract a² from both sides ]
4 ) a(b - a) = (b + a)(b - a) [ distributive law ]
5 ) a = b + a [ divide by (b - a) ]
6 ) [From point 1) we know tha a = b, so]
7 ) b = 2b
8 ) 1 = 2

Here is a pretty good link for everyone to enjoy ;)
http://www.cut-the-knot.org/proofs/index.shtml

hanelyp
Posts: 2255
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

Postby hanelyp » Sat Apr 02, 2011 10:20 pm

Code: Select all

5 ) a = b + a [ divide by (b - a) ]

Since a == b, (b-a) == 0, this is division by zero.

As for experimental demonstrations of the mach effect, unless conventional explanations are accounted for, mainstream physicists will find the work unconvincing.

mvanwink5
Posts: 1808
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:07 am
Location: N.C. Mountains

Postby mvanwink5 » Sun Apr 03, 2011 12:00 am

1. Energy can neither be created or destroyed.
2. The universe contains energy.
3. Somebody divided by zero somewhere to get us here.
Near term, cheap, dark horse fusion hits the air waves, GF - TED, LM - Announcement. The race is on.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Postby KitemanSA » Sun Apr 03, 2011 12:41 am

hanelyp wrote:

Code: Select all

5 ) a = b + a [ divide by (b - a) ]

Since a == b, (b-a) == 0, this is division by zero.
Dividing by zero is fine except when you divide ZERO by zero and then it is undefined. So step 5 doesn't exist and there is no proof. As I said, no you can't! :)

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Postby chrismb » Sun Apr 03, 2011 7:13 am

Axiom: a "puddle of water" is a contiguous body of liquid water lying on the ground in a depression.

Hypothesis: Adding 1(puddle of water) to 1(puddle of water) gives you 1(puddle of water).

....thought experiment done. hypothesis proved...

Divide both sides by the non-zero attribute (puddle of water) and you get 1+1=1.

Giorgio
Posts: 2725
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Postby Giorgio » Sun Apr 03, 2011 12:59 pm

KitemanSA wrote:
hanelyp wrote:

Code: Select all

5 ) a = b + a [ divide by (b - a) ]

Since a == b, (b-a) == 0, this is division by zero.
Dividing by zero is fine except when you divide ZERO by zero and then it is undefined. So step 5 doesn't exist and there is no proof. As I said, no you can't! :)


Of course you can't prove it, but you can show it :)
In the end all what you need to convince someone is to show that your logic is solid, without showing where the faults are. This was the main point of my digression ;)

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Postby ladajo » Sun Apr 03, 2011 2:22 pm

Sounds like politics to me.


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests