Talk-Polywell.org

Oh, I've made up my mind. I am totally ignorant about this and that is the way it will stay until something interesting happens!

I don't have time for EVERYTHING!

Giorgio, there are now 2+ pages of me answering Chris' questions and pointing him to the detailed papers published, despite that he knows how to find them for himself. Chris doesn't need a diagram of a thruster. He has a labeled PHOTOGRAPH of a thruster, with complete detail as to its construction.

Not for nothing, but I didn't make an issue of how fantastically STUPID it is to think an AC signal generates net inertial reaction force. Why should anyone want to nursemaid someone who makes these kinds of kindergarden mistakes, and when they're corrected simply go off on yet another rant?

GIThruster wrote: anyone want to nursemaid someone who makes these kinds of kindergarden mistakes...

... and....back we go to the 'oh, you know so little I don't have to answer any questions' routine. Your stock answer. Boring.

Just think about it, GIT; if you push water down a hose, the hose tries to push outwards on the convex side.

Now tell me, if you push the water the other way, does the hose then pull inwards on the concave side?

[Answer; no, it bloody doesn't! Don't be daft. Alternating flows have the same momentum reaction in both directions around a bend.]

The final question to ask yourself in this water analogy is - if hoses push outwards when they are under pressure, what is the water inside the hose pushing against that it gains its initial momentum with which it can perform this miraculous feat? Could it be.... ... ... the pump?!?

[Alternative answer, if you don't like simple realities; it's pushing against the rest of the universe through magic buttons!]

Becouse he asked for "Engineering Schematics" of how to build it and test it.
Not for a "PHOTOGRAPH".

Maybe from your philosophical point of view there is not much difference, but from an engineer point of view there is.

Incidentally, I spent some time a while back searching through USPTO patents, and there is nothing on this. (Give me a publication/patent number if you want to dispute this, otherwise don't attempt to make such a claim.)

However, that being said, I believe you are correct that US patent law also covers researching patented material and you must seek and obtain the IP holders' permission. This is uncommon amongst patent national laws, it is only applicable in the US as far as I know.

chrismb wrote:[Answer; no, it bloody doesn't! Don't be daft. Alternating flows have the same momentum reaction in both directions around a bend.]

Chris, in M-E work there are all sorts of protocols in place to ensure such spurious signals get found, including reversing the phase of a thruster to generate reverse thrust (in the case of the MLT), reversing the physical orientation of the thruster and use of dummy loads to show there is no contribution like what you're saying. This is why I'm saying over and over that this work is more than you guess, and you really don't guess very well.

chrismb wrote:Incidentally, I spent some time a while back searching through USPTO patents, and there is nothing on this. (Give me a publication/patent number if you want to dispute this, otherwise don't attempt to make such a claim.)

However, that being said, I believe you are correct that US patent law also covers researching patented material and you must seek and obtain the IP holders' permission. This is uncommon amongst patent national laws, it is only applicable in the US as far as I know.

Sorry Chris, look for the patents yourself. IIRC, you had found them several months ago so you might just read back in the two threads devoted to M-E. Jim's patents include a broad method patent that generally covers thrusters, so if you want to build a thruster, you really are supposed to ask. This is not so for the rotator, and in any instance it doesn't matter. Asking someone how to do an experiment no more leads to experimenter bias as asking for a candy bar makes one fat.

I am just SOO tired of arguing with you.

No. I found some on the other pathological-science episode you love, blacklight thingy. I'll take a bit more of a look, but you really have got this 'proof-disproof' thing all so confused. I can never disprove a patent doesn't exist, but you [if it were so] could so easily show that one does. I don't understand why you struggle so much with this kindergarten, 1st grade high-school, class 101, elementary class concept that the existence of a thing can be easily proven, but a non-existence can never be truly proven.

Again, just like in that case where all one has to do to test hydrino gas is to try to set light to it, the simplest of tests are the ones you seem to want to avoid.

I am just SOO tired of arguing with you.

I'm also very tired of you arguing with me.

Chris, I'm not in the business of providing whatever any adolescent, emotionally disturbed joker thinks he has a right to. You've shown you're quite able to do patent searches yourself, so stop asking me to do them for you.

GIThruster wrote:I'm not in the business of providing whatever any adolescent, emotionally disturbed joker thinks he has a right to.

I understand. Providing for yourself is clearly as much as you can manage.

GIThruster wrote:

chrismb wrote: ....somehow this simple request, for a full disclosure diagram, has strained the very limits of tolerable questions, in its proponents' eyes.

Make a sensible request, Chris. Which thruster design are you interested in and why can't you find what you're looking for posted over at NSF? Paul has posted up stuff like that many times, and many of the papers presented over the years have sufficient detail for you to do your own replication. I honestly can't see what the whining is all about.

It should be worthwhile to compile all of these. Even to me, searching thru that thread for particular documents is getting tedious. That thread's just too long, now.

Side note - For such a compilation I could only supply one of the two videos recently mentioned. The other had already expired by the time I found the link to it in the NSF thread.

Noted. I sent a missive to Paul.

GIThruster wrote:Noted. I sent a missive to Paul.

2000 Woodward and Mahood M-E Patent: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Pars ... PN/6347766

2010 M-E Proof of Principle report:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index. ... 20.new#new

paulmarch wrote: 2000 Woodward and Mahood M-E Patent: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Pars ... PN/6347766

Paul,

Why was this patent, U.S. 6,347,766, allowed to expire (which it did on 22nd March 2006), after all the effort made of getting it patented just 5 years earlier and whilst expensive work-in-progress was still ongoing?

paulmarch wrote: 2010 M-E Proof of Principle report:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index. ... 20.new#new

This link (in my browser, at least) goes to the last post of a 70 page thread. Can you be a bit more specific where one can look for this report, please?


[EDIT: I have spotted a pdf in thread;

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index. ... #msg676428

is this the link you intended?]

Paul,

The report I found above contains no data and states it is a 'Progress Report', and therefore isn't a 'Proof of Principle Report'.

A final report would properly contain the traditional sorts of data displays. But this is not a final report. Rather, it is a progress report.

Data would also be expected in a proof of principle report (as well as a final report), so if you could identify the correct link you were referring to, then I would be obliged.