Mach Effect progress

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Mach Effect progress

Post by Diogenes »

ScottL wrote:To further explain my position which you quoted, I have not seen (read/heard) of any compelling evidence to date. The primary evidence that sparked the interest 2 years ago came from China. A Professor Yang had published data eluding to high thrust and a possible pseudo-confirmation of Shawyers (agreed, his explanation isn't correct). The problem with that data is that Professor Yang redid the experiment about a year later with a negative result and a new explanation. Per Professor Yang, having moved the power source onto the device instead of feeding it along the pendulum arm, previous measurements of "thrust" disappeared. Outside of Professor Yang's work, I really haven't seen evidence that I would consider compelling for the EMDrive. What I have seen are ample amounts of arm-chair scientists posting pet theories and wailing against the physics establishment. Until I see some reputable replication and publication, I exercise my right to remain skeptical. This is one facet of science i would love to be wrong about though.

All well and good, but if the Phenomena Shawyer reported with the Satellites is real, I would think it could be confirmed by others in the industry. Anybody know anyone involved in satellite station keeping of this sort? (High powered communications satellites.)

Experiment beats theory every day of the week.

If Shawyer hasn't made it up, other people ought to be able to confirm the phenomena.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

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

Re: Mach Effect progress

Post by painlord2k »

paperburn1 wrote:Sometime I thing we are taking the wrong approach with these things. :) Maybe we should cover it with bright flashing LEDs, shiny bells and have it spat co2 or steam at random intervals from various orifices and keep it in a big blue box then maybe we will get millions in funding


The right approach is pretty simple and it is always the same:

Set an X-Prize with a lot of money for the first three group sending a micro satellite up without any rocket engine to move it.
Then they must move the satellite from from orbit to a lower orbit and keep it stationary where it could not possibly do so without engines (low orbit).

kunkmiester
Posts: 887
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Mach Effect progress

Post by kunkmiester »

Diogenes wrote:
ScottL wrote:To further explain my position which you quoted, I have not seen (read/heard) of any compelling evidence to date. The primary evidence that sparked the interest 2 years ago came from China. A Professor Yang had published data eluding to high thrust and a possible pseudo-confirmation of Shawyers (agreed, his explanation isn't correct). The problem with that data is that Professor Yang redid the experiment about a year later with a negative result and a new explanation. Per Professor Yang, having moved the power source onto the device instead of feeding it along the pendulum arm, previous measurements of "thrust" disappeared. Outside of Professor Yang's work, I really haven't seen evidence that I would consider compelling for the EMDrive. What I have seen are ample amounts of arm-chair scientists posting pet theories and wailing against the physics establishment. Until I see some reputable replication and publication, I exercise my right to remain skeptical. This is one facet of science i would love to be wrong about though.

All well and good, but if the Phenomena Shawyer reported with the Satellites is real, I would think it could be confirmed by others in the industry. Anybody know anyone involved in satellite station keeping of this sort? (High powered communications satellites.)

Experiment beats theory every day of the week.

If Shawyer hasn't made it up, other people ought to be able to confirm the phenomena.
I've mentioned this before, a paper auditing sats from his company and others should be easy, possibly even undergrad level work. The big challenge is getting data from potentially secretive corporations and/or for classified government satellites. Once I get into college again and start hobnobbing with professors inintend to see if any have students that would be up for this and a few other shenanigans.
Evil is evil, no matter how small

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Mach Effect progress

Post by Diogenes »

Awesome! God speed!
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

TDPerk
Posts: 976
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Northern Shen. Valley, VA
Contact:

Re: Mach Effect progress

Post by TDPerk »

" But for an unknown reason (do they fully understand what they are doing ?) Tajmar and his team didn't use the mandatory stepup/isolation transformer: Therefore they operated the device at the wrong frequency, one that could never trigger any thrust signature!

Even worse: as the Dresden team saw nothing conclusive, they increased the voltage for too long and the temperature in the PZT stacks, so they also managed to toast the initially good-working device before returning it to Woodward in California four months later. " <-- flux_capacitor

A bizarre but seemingly confirmed error by Tajmar and team.

Taken from the non-L2 section of NASASpaceFlight.com

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index ... 31037.1420

There is no possible way Tajmar's recent work could have confirmed or disproved Woodward's work, and the effort damaged the example device Woodward loaned to them!
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria

williatw
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Mach Effect progress

Post by williatw »

TDPerk wrote:There is no possible way Tajmar's recent work could have confirmed or disproved Woodward's work, and the effort damaged the example device Woodward loaned to them!

Does this suggest the likely possibility that Tajmar's recent negative/inconclusive work testing the EmDrive is also likely to be questioned? Hoping...

Maui
Posts: 577
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Mach Effect progress

Post by Maui »

That's the claim from the thread TDPerk linked to:
BTW same kind of casualness in their EmDrive testing, as already reported on these boards in the dedicated thread, for example here and there.

...

Part of the reason that Tajmar's group published on two different drives was an attempt to show how good his new expensive equipment would perform. So really this was not about testing the two different drives but new equipment testing as well as a new universal experimental setup that was not so universal.

The experimental setup was to test the emDrive. The wrong type of balance was used.

Magnetic dampening has artifacts that may contribute to false negatives or false positives.

The result appeared to be make out the emDrive as a magnetic compass.

IMHO the tests were not valid and the experiment was not valid.

TDPerk
Posts: 976
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Northern Shen. Valley, VA
Contact:

Re: Mach Effect progress

Post by TDPerk »

For your enjoyment, I'd like to introduce you to Monomorphic, a gentlemen who seems to like recreating Dean Drives while claiming he is saying something about Mach Effect Thrusters.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpv9Pr ... Q-KtBmRXTQ
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria

TDPerk
Posts: 976
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Northern Shen. Valley, VA
Contact:

Re: Mach Effect progress

Post by TDPerk »

Is there a summary anywhere of who has duplicated Woodward's results with respect to finding anomalous thrust explicable by Mach Effect affirming results? I know there has been such, about 6 if I remember, but am trying to put together a list.
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria

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

Re: Mach Effect progress

Post by ScottL »

TDPerk wrote:Is there a summary anywhere of who has duplicated Woodward's results with respect to finding anomalous thrust explicable by Mach Effect affirming results? I know there has been such, about 6 if I remember, but am trying to put together a list.
I don't believe there is a list, nor a strong contingent of replication. As far as I know, the closest to replication was Paul March prior to joining EagleWorks. I know of an attempt made out of I think it was the University of Washington, however; they ended up with a null result, but their design was significantly different than Woodward. Per my prior posts, I'm not a fan, but rather a (now) large skeptic of Shawyer's EMDrive and White's attempts at replication. With regard to Woodward, I haven't come to a conclusion yet, however; I do not trust anything coming from EagleWorks in regard to Mach Effect. It vary well could be that Woodward's work isn't getting enough eyes, but I think that is the result or lack thereof of the EMDrive and it's pushing of the MET out of view. Some in the physics community have a bad taste in their mouth after the EMDrive. I suspect it could be a bit before the MET gets a good look.

Betruger
Posts: 2311
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Re: Mach Effect progress

Post by Betruger »

The people at NSF know about this board and can read what's said here. ...
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

Post by ScottL »

Betruger wrote:The people at NSF know about this board and can read what's said here. ...
Is this in response to something in this thread? Talk-Polywell is public from a read perspective and I'd assume many know about this board. I hope so at least.

TDPerk
Posts: 976
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Northern Shen. Valley, VA
Contact:

Re: Mach Effect progress

Post by TDPerk »

Betruger wrote:The people at NSF know about this board and can read what's said here. ...
And ? ...
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria

Carl White
Posts: 334
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 10:44 pm

Re: Mach Effect progress

Post by Carl White »

Some recent/upcoming activity:

1. Paper by Dr. José J. A. Rodal which suggests the effect cannot be practical for space travel:

A Machian wave effect in conformal, scalar–tensor gravitational theory

https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 019-2547-9 (first online 15 May 2019)

2. New experimental results of the Mach Effect Gravitational Assist (MEGA) drive:

https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2019-4285 (August 2019, AIAA Propulsion and Energy 2019 Forum)
We thank Dr. Martin Tajmar for his hospitality on 7-14th January 2019 when H. Fearn was visiting TU
Dresden and helping with the setup the Fullerton electronics for the experiment. Also for hosting Fearn
again during July 2-7, 2019.
So it sounds like they've been working together on the sensitive test measurements.

3. Lots of Paul March posts regarding the Mach Effect:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index ... ic=48855.0

4. The NIAC 2019 Symposium agenda has been posted.

Professor Woodward's presentation is Thursday, September 26 at 3:30 PM in Huntsville, AL.

https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2019

Carl White
Posts: 334
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 10:44 pm

Re: Mach Effect progress

Post by Carl White »

https://www.wired.com/story/mach-effect ... ar-travel/

This article is mostly a history of Professor Woodward's steps throughout life to get to the point of research he and Hal Fearn are at now. But it does contain some new information:
Then last spring, Woodward realized the way they had mounted the thruster was damping the harmonized vibrations that are the key to producing thrust. So he built a new kind of mount that positions the stack of piezoelectric disks in the center of two rods riding on ball bushings.

The results were apparent immediately. The MEGA drive started regularly producing tens of micronewtons of thrust and before long it was producing more than 100 micronewtons, orders of magnitude larger than anything Woodward had ever built before. “I never thought I would see the day that I would be saying this to anyone,” Woodward says. “I figured we'd still be struggling along in the 1- to 5-micronewton range.” For the first time, the pair could see the MEGA thruster lurch forward with their own eyes. Sure, it was only scooting a half millimeter, but at least it was visible.
and..
With ample new data in hand, they’re now focused on getting their device into the hands of other researchers so they can independently replicate their results. Mike McDonald, an aerospace engineer at the Naval Research Laboratory in Maryland, will be among the first to do so. He leads an internal program for independently testing advanced propulsion systems, which has previously shot down promising results from the EmDrive. Like any good experimentalist , he’s skeptical—but it’s an optimistic sort of skepticism. “I'd say there's between a 1-in-10 and 1-in-10,000,000 chance that it’s real, and probably toward the higher end of that spectrum,” says McDonald. “But imagine that one chance; that would be amazing. That's why we do high-risk, high-reward work. That’s why we do science.”

McDonald is waiting for his lab to resume normal operation next year, once the pandemic eases, to begin testing. He says the first step will involve simply replicating Woodward’s experiments and seeing if he observes the same signal. Then he’ll begin weeding out possible sources of false positives, such as vibration or the thermal expansion of components.
What would a cost comparison look like between, say, the time and resources Martin Tajmar and his lab spent on testing, and simply building a cube sat that could definitively demonstrate whether on not the effect works by virtue of being out in space. Maybe beg a place on one of Elon Musk's Starlink launches.

Post Reply