Mach Effect progress

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

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

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby Betruger » Tue Nov 21, 2017 8:49 pm

ScottL wrote: 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.

You argue this subtlety yet you can't see that using the words spouting and suckering is hyperbole and insult.
You can do anything you want with laws except make Americans obey them. | What I want to do is to look up S. . . . I call him the Schadenfreudean Man.

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

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby ScottL » Tue Nov 21, 2017 11:08 pm

Betruger wrote:
ScottL wrote: 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.

You argue this subtlety yet you can't see that using the words spouting and suckering is hyperbole and insult.


Since I only used spouting and you used suckering, I'll address my spouting comment. I wouldn't go around stating something definitively when the evidence is still on the fringes. That does not mean the evidence is wrong, but that additional work is required for proof. The burden of proof has not been met. While I recognize that some syntax can be misunderstood as rude, it does not in any way devalue the argument made.

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

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby Betruger » Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:03 pm

ScottL wrote:Since I only used spouting and you used suckering

ScottL wrote:It is easy to get sucked into something promising, but even harder to admit when one is wrong if it doesn't pan out.


ScottL wrote:go around stating something definitively

They don't "go around", they state things as formally as anyone else. They do not state it definitively.

Persistently wording things with pejoratives is not a habit of impartiality.
You can do anything you want with laws except make Americans obey them. | What I want to do is to look up S. . . . I call him the Schadenfreudean Man.

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

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby ScottL » Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:41 pm

Betruger wrote:
ScottL wrote:Since I only used spouting and you used suckering

ScottL wrote:It is easy to get sucked into something promising, but even harder to admit when one is wrong if it doesn't pan out.


ScottL wrote:go around stating something definitively

They don't "go around", they state things as formally as anyone else. They do not state it definitively.

Persistently wording things with pejoratives is not a habit of impartiality.


There is no requirement for me to be impartial, however; I've already stated my opinion about the subject, which seems to align heavily with the physics community's opinion. There is not enough evidence to come to the conclusion of accepting this effect as fact. There is ample evidence that concerted attempts are being made, but that they are still inadequate to date. I do not believe that there is any conning or subterfuge on the part of Woodward et al. With that being said, given the evidence is still inadequate, I question anyone that repeats the claims as fact as this is not the case. I remain cautiously optimistic that they will get to the bottom of it. I do not make a claim that they are right or wrong without further evidence.

Betruger wrote:Persistently wording things with pejoratives is not a habit of impartiality.


And yet, TDPerk has stated it. When I cautioned on stating that their results are definitive, he got defensive and called me a patho-skeptic. Since in the LENR thread, parallel loves to use this term when anyone disagrees with him, I pointed out he is starting to sound like parallel. The worst part about all of this is that I'm not against Woodward's work. I simply don't have an opinion on whether the claim is true or false. The evidence is inadequate to state one way or another. Furthermore, I find it odd you have attacked me for using pejoratives while not jabbing at TDPerk for adhom attacks. This discussion need not go further though, it is off topic, foolish, a waste of time, and has only resulted in my changing view of some persons opinions, ultimately introducing negative bias toward their future postings.

Carl White
Posts: 305
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 10:44 pm

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby Carl White » Mon Nov 27, 2017 7:43 pm

I don't believe there's enough evidence to conclusively state the effect is real, but it's disappointing that there isn't more interest from both those concerned with propulsion and those concerned purely with science.

painlord2k
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 7:35 pm
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby painlord2k » Sat Dec 16, 2017 9:39 pm

My suggestion would be to create some prize to be awarded to anyone able to build and show any device with such features.
Alternatively, a series of prizes would be created to get people getting one or more intermediate steps believed to be useful to get to a fully functional device.

E.G. A self-annealing / healing dielectric for capacitors able to endure the stress of high frequency vibrations

Men and apes are similar: ape see banana, ape find a way to get banana. Men see money, men find a way to get money.

We should have one or more organizations gathering funds for such prizes: Mach Effect thrusts, Polywell fusion devices, etc.

There is little a prize in the tens or more millions of USD can not achieve.

In future, with smart contracts, tokens and cryptos, it should be easy to gather enough funds and make them available. And return them to the sponsors if the prize is not warded in the allotted time frame.

raelik
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:10 pm

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby raelik » Sat Dec 23, 2017 7:47 pm

Betruger wrote:
ScottL wrote:Since I only used spouting and you used suckering

ScottL wrote:It is easy to get sucked into something promising, but even harder to admit when one is wrong if it doesn't pan out.


Persistently wording things with pejoratives is not a habit of impartiality.


Seems like this "argument" got started because someone read "sucked into" as "suckered into", which is not at all the same thing. Getting sucked into something does not imply ill intent, only that someone may have had an existing bias that led them to jump to an early positive conclusion. It is definitely too early to draw a definitive conclusion one way or the other with regards to the Mach effect and the results achieved so far, but it does have promise, and the work done so far has been done with rigorous attention to detail and possible sources of noise.

Maui
Posts: 553
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby Maui » Thu Feb 08, 2018 3:31 am

Update on SSI experiments from Heidi Fern:

https://youtu.be/B1KfN7y4y4I

http://ssi.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/ ... _fearn.pdf

I continue to be hopeful about his, but when asked about doing an orbital experiment, she suggests they don’t have near enough money to do that. I find it hard to believe sliver there’s no one that would fund that. Heck, I’d pitch into a kickstarter.

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

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby ScottL » Thu Feb 08, 2018 10:03 pm

Maui wrote:Update on SSI experiments from Heidi Fern:

https://youtu.be/B1KfN7y4y4I

http://ssi.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/ ... _fearn.pdf

I continue to be hopeful about his, but when asked about doing an orbital experiment, she suggests they don’t have near enough money to do that. I find it hard to believe sliver there’s no one that would fund that. Heck, I’d pitch into a kickstarter.



I'm not following the desire for an orbital experiment. I assume folks realize that doing this in space actually adds significant complexity including noise, interference, and errors that would then be outside of the scope of what we can account. Think of it this way, you spend all that money to get it in orbit to begin the test and you realize you didn't account for a type of shielding, solar radiation, momentum imparted at time of release, a wire that is poorly shielded, etc. You can't fix those things once in space, so now you're out the money, the experiment, and you've done damage to your reputation. All of this can be avoided by doing the experiments here on Earth where all variables can be reasonably accounted for within the scope of execution. It's one of the reasons we tested the Mars rovers here on Earth first before sending them on their way.

Maui
Posts: 553
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby Maui » Thu Feb 08, 2018 11:16 pm

Those are good points I didn't consider. From a scientific perspective, I think you are probably right.

I was mainly reacting to the sentiment I've seen from some where they don't seem willing to accept positive results that come from the lab while an orbital test would have a "seeing is believing" component to it.

It does seem to me most of what you just listed are easily compensated for tho:
* Have a control to compare against
* Measure acceleration, not initial velocity
* Have multiple test units in case of malfunction.

painlord2k
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 7:35 pm
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby painlord2k » Fri Feb 09, 2018 12:18 am

Here the pricing: http://spaceflight.com/schedule-pricing/#pricing
The MEGA prototype appears pretty small, so a CubeSat could hold a few of them.
Add some retractable solar panels to power them.
It should be doable inside a 10x10x30 cm volume for 300k$

My concern is, with 300K they could be able to afford to pay some expert in chemistry to develop some specific material for the MEGA.

A better solution would be to crowdfund a prize (maybe with the support of the X-Prize Foundation).
A 1 M$ prize would move around 30 M$ funding in projects to win it.
And would make a splash in the media.

My main concern is Woodward, Fearn, Boldrini, etc. are all academics. What we really need is an intrapreneur; a capitalist that see what is possible and WANT to get it done.

I know people here don't like Andrea Rossi and its claims about LENR and its e-cat. But to accelerate the development of a Mach Drive we need someone like him. Because there is a serious buck to do if someone develops a working Mach Drive and that motivate people a lot.

kunkmiester
Posts: 866
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby kunkmiester » Fri Feb 09, 2018 1:01 am

300k could probably build them a "sledgehammer" demonstration unit, with several ounces of thrust far beyond any doubt. A million? Quad thruster drone or something. Wormhole generator?

The big thing is to get it scaled better. Get it farther above the noise floor, amd it becomes more solid.

And/or design a garage workshop level thruster. Enough to shake a torsion balance.
Evil is evil, no matter how small

Maui
Posts: 553
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby Maui » Fri Feb 09, 2018 8:18 am

painlord2k wrote:My main concern is Woodward, Fearn, Boldrini, etc. are all academics. What we really need is an intrapreneur; a capitalist that see what is possible and WANT to get it done.

Hmm, like Elon? Hey, he has a rocket too. And plenty of money. And plenty of ways to put a working MEGA drive to use. Elon, Jim. Jim, Elon.

krenshala
Posts: 900
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:20 pm
Location: Austin, TX, NorAm, Sol III

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby krenshala » Fri Feb 09, 2018 1:56 pm

My understanding is that Elon Musk wants to invest in refining existing known good hardware that meets his personal goals, such as taking rockets and making them reusable. If someone developed and built a working, usable thruster - as opposed to a research build thats only really good on a test stand - he'd probably be interested.

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

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby ScottL » Fri Feb 09, 2018 7:02 pm

Maui wrote:It does seem to me most of what you just listed are easily compensated for tho:
* Have a control to compare against
* Measure acceleration, not initial velocity
* Have multiple test units in case of malfunction.


You can't really have a control in space without being there. The reason is that you can't control the effects each will observe. For instance, one might get hit with high solar radiation, while the other might not get hit by as much. You could replace solar radiation with any of the issues I mentioned above and many more. It's not an ideal environment for this type of experiment. Here on Earth, we can control or account for such effects, but in space, we're not there, so we can't.

Test here on Earth is like being able to remove children from a ball pit to ensure a stable state where-as space is like trying to run the experiment in a sea of child-like chaos.


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests