Talk-Polywell.org

ScottL wrote:

TDPerk wrote:Their equipment is good for 6 sigma at the observed signal level.

I find that interesting consider the question of scaling and measurement came up in the video. An individual asked why they hadn't scaled up instead or presenting measurements on the very edge of their ability to detect. Heidi, in my opinion, seem to acknowledge this fact and pointed out that they do hope to scale it up in the future. I still think it is logical and reasonable to be cautiously optimistic and yet skeptical. I, personally, will wait for more positive results and maturation of experiments/device design.

I think I normally don't agree with you on things, but here I think you have the right of it.


Encouraging, but not convincing.

Recent (2017) Tajmar paper (PDF available):

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... TU_Dresden

Our intention is to develop an excellent research infrastructure to test new ideas and measure thrusts and/or artefacts with high confidence to determine if a concept works and if it does how to scale it up. At present, we are focusing on two possible revolutionary concepts: The EMDrive and the Mach-Effect Thruster.

To improve our testing capabilities, several cutting-edge thrust balances are under development to compare thrust measurements in different measurement setups to gain confidence and to identify experimental artefacts.

More RE the Tajmar paper.

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/10/m ... l#comments

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/10/m ... l#comments

A bump at NextBigFuture

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/11/m ... ravel.html

TDPerk wrote:A bump at NextBigFuture

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/11/m ... ravel.html

I read through what little actual words there were, watched a few of the videos, mind hasn't really changed. I did, however; read some of your responses TDPerk and I have to disagree with one. At one point a commentor says something along the lines of "prove it and build it". Of course I'm paraphrasing their comment, but you respond back (again paraphasing) "they did and it works." Except that is not the case. In the article, they state that yes others have attempted replication, but that Woodward believes given the replication attempts, it works. Not that it works. You can argue semantics there and I would understand, but a persons opinion can be pretty far from truth/fact. Also, while I don't mean to speak for individuals, I get the distinct feeling that those asking to prove it by building don't mean build something we cannot physically perceive. I think they mean build a miniature space craft using the tech or maybe a drone here on Earth. If that is indeed their meaning, then no, it hasn't been built. I'm neither for or against Woodward and his claims, but I would caution acceptance via ones word. Put another way, don't be the first to drink the koolaid, but instead observe for a bit.

ScottL wrote:Except that is not the case.

No sir, it has been replicated. And far more than merely once, twice, or thrice.

TDPerk wrote:

ScottL wrote:Except that is not the case.

No sir, it has been replicated. And far more than merely once, twice, or thrice.

Attempts at replication have occured, yes. I know of some that have failed and I know of some that report similar results to Dr. Woodward, however; I note that even Dr. Fern has acknowledge that their ability to measure their claimed thrust is on the very fringes of what their equipment is capable. I think it is fine to be cautiously optimistic, but personally, it has not been adequately replicated or shown to scale to date. That appears to be the opinion of the majority of the physics community as well. I remain cautiously optimistic, yet skeptical that the claims of thrust and scaling are true. I caution you only in hopes of preventing another rossi/parallel situation. It is easy to get sucked into something promising, but even harder to admit when one is wrong if it doesn't pan out.

Rodal & co are no Rossi
There's suckering and there's investigation

Betruger wrote:Rodal & co are no Rossi
There's suckering and there's investigation

I don't see enough evidence to start spouting off that it works and its a done deal. Obviously I think their approach is far better than the Rossi sage or the Shawyer laugh-about, but we still need adequate evidence.

Why write something you wouldn't say to their face? They're not "spouting"

Betruger wrote:Why write something you wouldn't say to their face? They're not "spouting"

I would say this to their face. TD's post sounds like he's definitively stating that it is a done deal. I disagree with that idea given the evidence thus far. I do think Woodward's approach is correct, but that does not mean the results are definitive by any means.

I can't speak for TD but I doubt you'd say it to Woodward, nevermind Rodal.

ScottL wrote:

Betruger wrote:Rodal & co are no Rossi
There's suckering and there's investigation

I don't see enough evidence to start spouting off that it works and its a done deal. Obviously I think their approach is far better than the Rossi sage or the Shawyer laugh-about, but we still need adequate evidence.

You have yet to demonstrate anything but pathological skepticism as backing up your assertion the existing evidence is not adequate.

Before you continue to so much as mention Rossi as being any sort of equivalent, I suggest you actually look at Woddward's, et al's, experimental protocols and the capabilities of their equipment.

Rossi claims are not on my map as worthy of consideration. Still there are some that hold out hope. Good luck to them and those chasing Big Foot.

I haven't done the investigation to pronounce on these Mach Effect tests. As I understand it, very low force measurements are required at this point to measure the net effects which are not in themselves beyond measurement and hence can be used to make pronouncements on the effect.

However, the forces are low enough to not be completely satisfactory to many. I stand on the sideline watching and waiting for scaling and those results before moving off the slow bench. My hat is off to those that have engaged in this investigation and one thing I am sure of agreement is the need to do some scaling of the devices... soon, time is wasting.

So, when are the scaling tests planned? I assume this is the next step?

TDPerk wrote:You have yet to demonstrate anything but pathological skepticism as backing up your assertion the existing evidence is not adequate.

Before you continue to so much as mention Rossi as being any sort of equivalent, I suggest you actually look at Woddward's, et al's, experimental protocols and the capabilities of their equipment.

I thought I was very clear in my posts, but I'll try again. I think Woodward's work is some of the best given the subject, however; there are 2 obstacles that will continue to leave me skeptical until they're addressed. The first, not every replication attempt has been successful. This in itself isn't that bad , because sometimes people make mistakes replicating and I accept that possibility. The second, Dr. Fern has acknowledged that their thrust measurements are on the absolute fringe of what their equipment can detect. She has acknowledged this a few times in the videos posted here and elsewhere. When you're working on the absolute fringe of our equipment ability, you're opening yourself to potential errors. That is not to say their measurements are errors, but I would like to see more evidence. My position is completely reasonable and not pathological at all.


Now, for your response quoted above. Instead of taking the time to read that I actually like Woodward's work, but want more evidence, you jumped to some conclusion that I've already dismissed the claim. I have not. I simply want more evidence than fringe measurements and hit or miss replications. I honestly think Woodward will deliver, whether positive or negative. So before you go trying to label a person, perhaps you should take a moment to read and understand what has been posted. Hell, my posts directed to you were cautionary in the sense that you were starting to sound like parallel. With the quote above, I could easily insert that into the LENR discussion and people would think it is from Parallel. You went from starting to sound like him so sounding exactly like him.