2018 NIAC Symposium

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Skipjack
Posts: 5953
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

2018 NIAC Symposium

Postby Skipjack » Wed Sep 26, 2018 4:21 am

Lot's of interesting items at this years NIAC symposium.

Today Woodward presented the latest results of the Mach Effect Research.
Stephanie Thomas presented more work PSS and PPPL did on the FRC based Direct Fusion Drive.
Ryan Weed of Positron Dynamics presented some information on their Positron catalyzed fusion propulsion system.
Robert Adams showed more results of the Pulsed Fission Fusion propulsion concept.
I am also looking forward to John Slough's (of Helion and MSNW) presentation on Thursday.
And there are tons more interesting things today and in the days to come.

https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2018

TDPerk
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Northern Shen. Valley, VA
Contact:

Re: 2018 NIAC Symposium

Postby TDPerk » Wed Sep 26, 2018 7:53 pm

And Dr. James Woodward presented on the Mach Effect Thruster, which has recently been reported by Dr. Heidi Fearn to have an efficiency of 60mN/kW, placing it on a par with Hall Effect Trhusters.

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/09/m ... owatt.html
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria

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

Re: 2018 NIAC Symposium

Postby Maui » Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:14 pm

Heidi Fearn will be taking a working device to Dresden and will stay with them until they get it working. Dresden had problems with a previous device and published bad results.

Hmmm. Does this interfere with the concept of independent validation?

TDPerk
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Northern Shen. Valley, VA
Contact:

Re: 2018 NIAC Symposium

Postby TDPerk » Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:14 am

Maui wrote:
Heidi Fearn will be taking a working device to Dresden and will stay with them until they get it working. Dresden had problems with a previous device and published bad results.

Hmmm. Does this interfere with the concept of independent validation?


I think not after Tajmar cooked the last piece of hardware Woodward loaned to him.

And what's she gonna do? Witch it into working while everyone is watching?
molon labe

montani semper liberi

para fides paternae patria

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

Re: 2018 NIAC Symposium

Postby Maui » Thu Sep 27, 2018 2:44 am

I’m a software developer, not a scientist, but I think there’s a strong parallel with the “it works on my machine” phenomenon I’ve experience quite often. Frequently code written on my machine that works great for me ends up not working for a tester (or worse, a customer) because I didn’t account for an uncontrolled, unanticipated factor that influences the behavior of the code. If I step a tester thru such a test, in many cases the issue would not have been discovered because I was not aware my specific steps were coincidentally setting up the uncontrolled factor just so.

I certainly have had cases where desired behavior I assumed to be the result of the code I wrote was instead completely an accident coincidentally caused by something else entirely. Actually, Woodward himself talks here about how he accidentally stumbled into the frequency he needed. What if that was, if fact, the frequency that triggers some unanticipated factor in their test set up rather than his Mach effect theory?

I suppose it doesn’t affect the validity of a test, tho, to allow a tester to set up the test independently, then ensure that the controlled factors are configured correctly.

Anyhow, I listened to the short presentation and it sounded to me that the part about staying there until it worked might be a joke.

TDPerk
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Northern Shen. Valley, VA
Contact:

Re: 2018 NIAC Symposium

Postby TDPerk » Thu Sep 27, 2018 10:55 am

Maui wrote:I’m a software developer, not a scientist, but I think there’s a strong parallel with the “it works on my machine” phenomenon I’ve experience quite often. Frequently code written on my machine that works great for me ends up not working for a tester (or worse, a customer) because I didn’t account for an uncontrolled, unanticipated factor that influences the behavior of the code. If I step a tester thru such a test, in many cases the issue would not have been discovered because I was not aware my specific steps were coincidentally setting up the uncontrolled factor just so.

I certainly have had cases where desired behavior I assumed to be the result of the code I wrote was instead completely an accident coincidentally caused by something else entirely. Actually, Woodward himself talks here about how he accidentally stumbled into the frequency he needed. What if that was, if fact, the frequency that triggers some unanticipated factor in their test set up rather than his Mach effect theory?



Then the approx. 500 sampling rate of Tajmar's DAQ will find the aliasing. Nevertheless, it has worked for Woodward on different designs at approx. the correct frequency for differing designs.

I suppose it doesn’t affect the validity of a test, tho, to allow a tester to set up the test independently, then ensure that the controlled factors are configured correctly.

Anyhow, I listened to the short presentation and it sounded to me that the part about staying there until it worked might be a joke.


Might. There is also the fact Woodward and Fearn would both like the period of uncertainty to come to a close. Tajmat unambiguously finding for it's validity would go far towards that.
molon labe

montani semper liberi

para fides paternae patria

TDPerk
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Northern Shen. Valley, VA
Contact:

Re: 2018 NIAC Symposium

Postby TDPerk » Thu Sep 27, 2018 10:58 am

Maui wrote:I’m a software developer, not a scientist, but I think there’s a strong parallel with the “it works on my machine” phenomenon I’ve experience quite often. Frequently code written on my machine that works great for me ends up not working for a tester (or worse, a customer) because I didn’t account for an uncontrolled, unanticipated factor that influences the behavior of the code. If I step a tester thru such a test, in many cases the issue would not have been discovered because I was not aware my specific steps were coincidentally setting up the uncontrolled factor just so.

I certainly have had cases where desired behavior I assumed to be the result of the code I wrote was instead completely an accident coincidentally caused by something else entirely. Actually, Woodward himself talks here about how he accidentally stumbled into the frequency he needed. What if that was, if fact, the frequency that triggers some unanticipated factor in their test set up rather than his Mach effect theory?



Then the approx. 500 fold sampling rate of Tajmar's DAQ will find the aliasing. Nevertheless, it has worked for Woodward on different designs at approx. the correct frequency for differing designs.

I suppose it doesn’t affect the validity of a test, tho, to allow a tester to set up the test independently, then ensure that the controlled factors are configured correctly.

Anyhow, I listened to the short presentation and it sounded to me that the part about staying there until it worked might be a joke.


Might. There is also the fact Woodward and Fearn would both like the period of uncertainty to come to a close. Tajmar unambiguously finding for it's validity would go far towards that. The contrary result would also remove uncertainty...if Woodward and Fearn agree the correct protocols were followed.

If the validity of the concept is confirmed, then a period of intense materials science R&D needs to happen to produce better materials for it.

Of course, it should not be named dilithium. The temptation must be resisted. :lol:
Last edited by TDPerk on Thu Sep 27, 2018 2:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
molon labe

montani semper liberi

para fides paternae patria

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

Re: 2018 NIAC Symposium

Postby krenshala » Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:29 pm

It would be quite humorous if a man-made crystalline structure of paired lithium atoms turned out to be a key material for the Mach Effect device. :roll:

TDPerk
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Northern Shen. Valley, VA
Contact:

Re: 2018 NIAC Symposium

Postby TDPerk » Thu Sep 27, 2018 2:34 pm

krenshala wrote:It would be quite humorous if a man-made crystalline structure of paired lithium atoms turned out to be a key material for the Mach Effect device. :roll:


What's worse is that over 60 years ago, Vernor von Braun wrote a book about the settlement of Mars. The title of the Chief Executive of the Martian government was "the Elon".

Not a hell of a lot gives the heebie jeebiess...
molon labe

montani semper liberi

para fides paternae patria

alexjrgreen
Posts: 810
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: UK

Re: 2018 NIAC Symposium

Postby alexjrgreen » Thu Sep 27, 2018 3:24 pm

krenshala wrote:It would be quite humorous if a man-made crystalline structure of paired lithium atoms turned out to be a key material for the Mach Effect device. :roll:

Pairing in dense lithium
Ars artis est celare artem.


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests