Asymmetric capacitor in High Vacuum

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Hec031
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 1:08 pm

Post by Hec031 »

I can tell you that what they have asked of Woodward is exactly what they asked me to do. If my effect was not producing visible thrust they would not even give me the time of day.

Also keep in mind that NASA and other Agencies are not really looking for a giant leap forward, that's a myth. The main purpose of things like the Game Changing Technology department is to fund Academic research to foster the next generation of NASA scientists. I got this from one of the guys we've been talking about. Heard it with my own ears. This not a second hand account, I was there. LOL.

I can tell you that until Woodward's device is producing thrust in the milli-Newtons and that thrust is constant and sustainable they won't give his device any credibility. Even if he gets it to that level, that would just be the begging.

I had to do my experiments in both air and vacuum, with the same exact device. No changes allowed. I had to expose my device to a very high magnetic field both in air and vacuum. I had encapsulate it in a Mu-metal enclosure and a Faraday cage which it had to propel forward, so it was part of the device not something it move inside of. I had to demonstrate that it was not an interaction with the magnetic field of the earth. I had to demonstrate that it was not an interaction with it's own electric field or the electric field of the earth. The list goes on and on. Trust me higher thrust is just the begging.

Sonny White is more than qualified to deal with Woodward's theory and in fact so where most of the speakers at the 100 year starship conference on the subject matter of Faster than light propulsion. So I must disagree with you on the idea that there is no one qualified to deal with Dr. Woodward's theory. The problem is they want tangible results. In my experience they are simply looking for the Wow factor.

I'm just talking from experience.


Sincerely,

Hector

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Post by ScottL »

GIThruster wrote:I'm not sure how to answer your question. What would count as "qualifications"? Are you asking why you should believe my immediately previous answer?
What are your credentials I suppose is another way to phrase it.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

Hec031 wrote: Sonny White is more than qualified to deal with Woodward's theory and in fact so where most of the speakers at the 100 year starship conference. . .
That's completely false, Hector. I think your judgement is clouded by the fact your theory makes no sense. I happen to know first hand that Sonny has no comprehension of M-E theory because I've been in and out of conversations with him on it for more than half a decade, and I happen to know he hasn't got even the smallest inkling what M-E theory entails. His objections in email lists I have responded to in the past are conclusive evidence that Sonny had rejected M-E theory before he even understands what it was, and on grounds anyone reading the basic literature knows are false. Likewise, most of the people at 100 YSS don't know the first ting about Mach's Principle or even GRT. They can't be expected to judge something they can't comprehend.

And just to be plain about it Hector, this is the trouble I've always had with your work--there is no reason you should ever have done it. You didn't begin like a sensible person with theory, and from that design a device. Rather, you designed a device and said it produced thrust, and haven't a clue why that is. This is the same con game we see with Searl, with the Russian MEK, with dozens of ZPF and permanent magnet over-unity devices--people making these outrageous claims for devices they had no theoretical reason to build in the first place. Your current hand-waving toward theory is just an appeal to what's fashionable--a little dark energy to please certain ignorants and a little QVF/ZPF hand-waving to please the rest. Fact is, the business of advanced propulsion research has been dominated by the ZPFers for more than 15 years, so you can't really go wrong to explain a thruster or an over-unity generator if you hand-wave at ZPF.

That is, you can't go wrong unless your intention is to get at the truth. The truth is, all the QVF/ZPF nonsense was debunked more than a decade ago and none of its adherents have ever bothered to answer the standing objections. So while your hand-waving appeases people like Sonny, it doesn't actually make any sense.
Last edited by GIThruster on Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

What are your credentials I suppose is another way to phrase it.
What are my credentials for reporting to you what? NASA's official position? I have passed more than a dozen notes directly with NASA's point man on this subject and this is what he reported to me. This is indeed NASA's official position. Did you want to pretend I should have a degree to report here what NASA has said to me first hand? What degree should I have, Scott? Journalism?

But I detect a rebuke. You didn't actually have a point. You're making another personal attack. For some reason, you think an engineering degree makes you better suited to judge in ignorance, what I happen to know first hand.
Last edited by GIThruster on Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Post by ScottL »

GIThruster wrote:What are my credentials for reporting to you what? NASA's official position? I have passed more than a dozen notes directly with NASA's point man on this subject and this is what he reported to me. This is indeed NASA's official position. Did you want to pretend I should have a degree to report here what NASA has said to me first hand? What degree should I have, Scott? Journalism?

But I detect a rebuke. You didn't actually have a point. You're making another personal attack. For some reason, you think an engineering degree makes you better suited to judge in ignorance, what I happen to know first hand.
Don't jump to conclusions, you're getting ahead of yourself already. I'm asking so that I understand what qualifies you to speak for Jim Woodward. It's one thing if you're reporting on something you've heard as you said, it's another to report as an authority on another topic. I want to be sure of what I'm reading.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

I've been in regular, almost daily contact with Jim for more than 6 years. I consider him a good friend. I built him a dozen thrusters more than 5 years ago, so my physical involvement goes back that far. When I make a statement such as "there are only these few people able to judge Jim's theory", that's based upon what Jim has said to me in the past. If I don't know an answer to a question, I say so. If I can give an honest answer to a question here in the forum without breaking any confidences, I always do. I'm a member of the Woodward group and have been for 6 years. I have been representing Jim's work with his blessing, here and in other forums for about 5 years. Is that the kind of "credential" you're looking for?

Just for instance--the reason I know that Sonny White cannot judge Jim's theory is that we had an email exchange 3 years ago while Jim was on vacation, where I defended Jim's theory over many long posts. Sonny's contention was that Mach's Principle cannot be correct because it is really a classical rather than relativistic theory. This is completely incorrect and anyone who knows their Barbour and Pfister knows this:

http://www.amazon.com/Machs-Principle-N ... 995&sr=8-1
Last edited by GIThruster on Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Post by ScottL »

GIThruster wrote:I've been in regular, almost daily contact with Jim for more than 6 years. I consider him a good friend. I built him a dozen thrusters more than 5 years ago, so my physical involvement goes back that far. When I make a statement such as "there are only these few people able to judge Jim's theory", that's based upon what Jim has said to me in the past. If I don't know an answer to a question, I say so. If I can give an honest answer to a question here in the forum without breaking any confidences, I always do. I'm a member of the Woodward group and have been for 6 years. I have been representing Jim's work with his blessing, here and in other forums for about 5 years. Is that the kind of "credential" you're looking for?
Yes indeed. Thank you.

Hec031
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 1:08 pm

Post by Hec031 »

GIThruster,

You have the sequence of events incorrect on how my research began. I observed a phenomenon that everyone in the general scientific community ignored or assumed to be something conventional but they could not themselves explain conclusively and through experimentation improved it. If I'm a con I'm the worst at it since I've turned no profit from it.

I understand your mentality that you need a theory to prove a fact, but I simply don't share in this philosophy.

Time will tell which approach is correct, theory before fact, or fact before theory. If it works people will be happy to figure out why.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this point.


Sincerely,

Hector

Betruger
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Post by Betruger »

Hector don't discount the forum as a whole because of 1 user. The rest of us are still looking forward to whichever way your project pans out, and there's probably at least a few willing to give you constructive technical feedback if you ever ask.

Hec031
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 1:08 pm

Post by Hec031 »

Betruger,

No worries, I've been dealing with skeptics like GIThruster for 14 years, I'm simply trying to explain to the rest of you as well as him how things evolved to where they are.

Unlike Dr. Woodward my research is moving forward with all the right people, but it still has to cross a few more mile stones. The issues I'm dealing with at this point are almost entirely technical with very little politics.

When I was asked to transition my concept from Rack powered to on board power our experiments crossed into unknown territory. New problems arose that we never saw before. Every solution gave rise to a new problem and while we are getting closer it's been a challenge.

After this new device is operational and independently tested, we plan on creating an Atmosphere through High Vacuum rated version of the device. After that the plan is to re-package the technology for an orbital test. My efforts over the years have made such a test possible, if I pass the mile stone tests in between.

By that point you might see NASA get of the fence as well as the other parties that are eagerly watching our results. Trust me theory or no theory, at the end it's all about results. You either can or you can't deliver.


Sincerely,

Hector

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

Post by ladajo »

Hector,
Do you have any realistic timeframe on the battery powered device testing?

Thanks.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

EmField57
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 4:36 pm

Post by EmField57 »

This is a great thread. I know that lifter technology interest was quite high a number of years ago and then seemed to fade away.

Now about this technology operating in a vacuum, I was wondering if the OP had tried a design similar to this: http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/bbsv2/index.htm?

Because I think a design using a solid dielectric (like Styrofoam) will more efficiently operate in a vacuum.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

This is a great thread. I know that lifter technology interest was quite high a number of years ago and then seemed to fade away.
All BB tech was shown conclusively to be ion wind nonsense many years ago. It's extremely easy to show that BB "Lifters" are using ion wind, not just by putting them in vacuum, but by putting them in a box.

DC electrostatic thrusters with no theoretical support have been excluded from serious advanced propulsion concerns for years because things like Hector's thruster not only don't produce thrust in vacuum, but they make no sense when one looks at conservation theory. The few small abberations concerning Hector's work involved thruster devices stripping off plastic from the electrodes.

End of story.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

Hec031
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 1:08 pm

Post by Hec031 »

GIThruster,

The experts which include but are not limited to Sonny White all agree that Ion wind or Ion propulsion is not the thrust mechanism in my device. One of the experts that has come to this conclusion is the chief scientists of a national research center, the other wrote a book on the subject matter of Ion propulsion for space applications. Another is currently working on the next generation of Ion propulsion. Another is a leading expert on XIPS propulsion systems. Trust me this avenue of explanation is dead.

The focus has long ago shifted from Ion wind and Ion propulsion as a possible explanation to some kind of exotic Electrostatic Interaction, but even that possibility has been negated by many subsequent tests.

The device on the video is not, is not, not what we have been testing. The device on the video was a simple test to demonstrate that these kinds of devices do produce a force at pressures where Ion wind is not a viable explanation. What we have been testing has been Faraday caged and wrapped in Mu-metal so that it was part of the device and it still displaces just like the device on the video. The Faraday cage is part of the device and not just a chamber that the device would displace in. In this case the Faraday cage and the device move together.

Like I said before, we will have to agree to disagree.


Hector

EmField57
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 4:36 pm

Post by EmField57 »

....
Last edited by EmField57 on Fri Aug 10, 2012 12:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply