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

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

Post by ScottL »

GIThruster wrote:Hector:

"Okay lets talk about NASA. The guys at Marshall as well as other NASA centers at the moment have a wait and see attitude towards my research. I can understand that since as Sonny and others have pointed out the reason for their skepticism stems from the fact that no theoretical path to date predicts that this kind of force effect should exist from a High Voltage phenomenon. "

That's not true. You're proposing something in complete accord with Sonny White's QVF model and you know it. It's because your nonsense is in accord with Sonny's crazy QVF model that you had a second go through NASA.

Sorry we can't expect you to be honest about this nonsense, Hector. I don't think we have much left to discuss, except I'd really like to know. . .

Years ago, supposed "scientists" at NASA, and they were not really that, they were engineers and technicians; these listened to all you had to say while stroking you with the possibility of funding, then turned around and filed for patent on your invention, despite neither they, nor you, have any idea whatsoever why your invention ought to produce thrust. NASA ass-raped you. They recently did the exact same thing to Widom and Larsen, and if WLT ever proves out (extremely unlikely) there's going to be a years long struggle between USG and the rightful owners of that technology, because NASA is corrupt, fraudulent and incompetent. They raped you, and they raped Widom and Larsen. They would have raped Jim Woodward if they'd had the chance, but they don't have anyone smart enough to pretend they understand Jim's physics.

What I want to know is, after having been so taken advantage all those years ago, why did you go back for another ass raping? Did you bring gel this time?
GIT,

Wow, just wow. Jump down his throat a bit more there GIT, I don't think he's choked to death yet. The post was so far beyond inappropriate and offensive, that I'm stunned it's from you. What is worse is that Hector responded calmly and collectedly versus your diatribe on rape. You've got some anger management problems there sir, that you should probably take care of before they take care of you.

Hector,

If you could keep us updated on your research and/or updated on any postings of papers, etc., some of us would appreciate it. I can't confirm I'd agree with your interprettation fo the results, but I do respect your methods and cautious view thus far.

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

Post by GIThruster »

Sorry Scott, but I don't think you're tracking at all. I asked Hector a few simple questions about which he did not respond. His contributions here in this thread have all be disingenuous. He's saying that NASA has a "wait and see" attitude but in fact, they've invested quite a lot of time investigating his claims over years and both times found nothing. Hector has no plausible theory, and when his devices are tested in the lab they produce no thrust. He gets lab time at NASA because he makes outrageous claims that are never substantiated. This shabby series of events is further complicated by NASA's inappropriate behavior when it comes to filing patents. There aren't any victims here. The actors are all villains.

Using the term "rape" may make you uncomfortable, but the subject IS uncomfortable. When someone asks someone else here in the forum, what's up with the experimental work and what is NASA's take, and they post a series of bold-faced lies, there's cause for some emotion. That does not mean however, that you ought to load it all into the use of the term "rape". Try to understand--using the term "rape" did not make the post emotional. The subject is emotional. The choice of the term was appropriate for the situation, even if it makes you feel uncomfortable. Lets face it, when NASA abuses it's position with promises of funding, gains as much intel as possible then turns around and files for patent, this is a vast injustice that ought to generate the emotions in all of us that go with injustice. Using the term "rape" is perfectly appropriate given the subject. This situation is all the more relevant since NASA has gone and done precisely the same thing to Lattice, Widom and Larsen and because Hector, after being so taken advantage of, went back for seconds.

Now just being honest Scott, you MUST find this an emotional subject. Injustice makes all decent men emotional. So is your complaint that I used emotional words for an emotional subject, or that you weren't personally prepared for an emotional subject?
"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:Sorry Scott, but I don't think you're tracking at all. I asked Hector a few simple questions about which he did not respond. His contributions here in this thread have all be disingenuous. He's saying that NASA has a "wait and see" attitude but in fact, they've invested quite a lot of time investigating his claims over years and both times found nothing. Hector has no plausible theory, and when his devices are tested in the lab they produce no thrust. He gets lab time at NASA because he makes outrageous claims that are never substantiated. This shabby series of events is further complicated by NASA's inappropriate behavior when it comes to filing patents. There aren't any victims here. The actors are all villains.

Using the term "rape" may make you uncomfortable, but the subject IS uncomfortable. When someone asks someone else here in the forum, what's up with the experimental work and what is NASA's take, and they post a series of bold-faced lies, there's cause for some emotion. That does not mean however, that you ought to load it all into the use of the term "rape". Try to understand--using the term "rape" did not make the post emotional. The subject is emotional. The choice of the term was appropriate for the situation, even if it makes you feel uncomfortable. Lets face it, when NASA abuses it's position with promises of funding, gains as much intel as possible then turns around and files for patent, this is a vast injustice that ought to generate the emotions in all of us that go with injustice. Using the term "rape" is perfectly appropriate given the subject. This situation is all the more relevant since NASA has gone and done precisely the same thing to Lattice, Widom and Larsen and because Hector, after being so taken advantage of, went back for seconds.

Now just being honest Scott, you MUST find this an emotional subject. Injustice makes all decent men emotional. So is your complaint that I used emotional words for an emotional subject, or that you weren't personally prepared for an emotional subject?
You appropriated a term to fit your meaning. In your own words you used an EMOTIONAL word for a LOGICAL situation. Science is without emotion, scientists on the other-hand are not. This is a failure on your part to apply a meaning to give greater weight than is necessary. Where I'm from (midwest) you use these terms always in the appropriate context, or you take a thumping literally. To summarize, your response was 100% emotional and offensive.

So Hector has a theory or result that agrees with someone at NASA, so what? He utilized these link twice, so what? NASA views his results as spurious at best. You go on to paint him as a possible victim of NASA only to belittle him further. This is the classic "it's the victims fault" result. It's the same darn argument as saying "well if that woman didn't wear that revealing dress, she wouldn't have been raped" which is perposterous. Only pathetic human beings attempt to equate idea theft to the traumatic experience of actual rape. Go see a counselor and read up on some narratives of rape, then try to equate it back to what NASA has done and tell me your actions aren't offensive.

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

Post by GIThruster »

Sorry Scott, we're not going to agree that you even understand my post. The nonsense about making the victim out to be guilty is just nonsense. You should understand my posts on this subject in just the way they're presented and knock off with projecting other stuff on. I'm not taking any responsibility for the stuff you're shoveling.

As to your demands that the term "rape" never be used in its figurative sense--sorry. You don't get to make the rules for how people use our language. You need to do some growing up. Maybe half an hour with a tradesman in a bar would do you some good. Then you'd be reminded that this is how people actually speak and stop criticizing the vast bulk of humanity for not being just like you. Telling people they need therapy because they use emotional language just demonstrates you're out of touch with most of humanity.
"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:Sorry Scott, we're not going to agree that you even understand my post. The nonsense about making the victim out to be guilty is just nonsense. You should understand my posts on this subject in just the way they're presented and knock off with projecting other stuff on. I'm not taking any responsibility for the stuff you're shoveling.
This....
GIThruster wrote:Years ago, supposed "scientists" at NASA, and they were not really that, they were engineers and technicians; these listened to all you had to say while stroking you with the possibility of funding, then turned around and filed for patent on your invention, despite neither they, nor you, have any idea whatsoever why your invention ought to produce thrust. NASA ass-raped you. They recently did the exact same thing to Widom and Larsen, and if WLT ever proves out (extremely unlikely) there's going to be a years long struggle between USG and the rightful owners of that technology, because NASA is corrupt, fraudulent and incompetent. They raped you, and they raped Widom and Larsen. They would have raped Jim Woodward if they'd had the chance, but they don't have anyone smart enough to pretend they understand Jim's physics.

What I want to know is, after having been so taken advantage all those years ago, why did you go back for another ass raping? Did you bring gel this time?
You're making him a victim of NASA then asking why he is asking for more abuse. Blame the victim if ever I saw it, assuming he is a victim, if not then the remark doesn't make much sense.
GIThruster wrote: As to your demands that the term "rape" never be used in its figurative sense--sorry. You don't get to make the rules for how people use our language. You need to do some growing up. Maybe half an hour with a tradesman in a bar would do you some good. Then you'd be reminded that this is how people actually speak and stop criticizing the vast bulk of humanity for not being just like you. Telling people they need therapy because they use emotional language just demonstrates you're out of touch with most of humanity.
I'm not controlling the english language, I"m asking for cognescence of usage. You can purport to be educated followed by such a diatribe of weak comparison. You can't have yoru cake and eat it too. You talk a lot, but you also get banned a lot for rubbing everyone the wrong way, not just me. Maybe you're wrong in your presentation or at a minimum rough around the edges.

As for the tradesman remark I'm not sure how to take that or what you mean to imply. Clarify, if you will.[/quote]

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

Post by GIThruster »

As for the tradesman remark I'm not sure how to take that or what you mean to imply. Clarify, if you will
Blue collar workers in general, use language in much more corse forms than do white collar workers. In a bar with a plumber or a carpenter, if one were to use the term "rape" in its figurative sense, that would be perfectly well understood in its context. What you are objecting to, is just exactly this kind of use of language. You are vastly over-reacting to it and recommending therapy. You're projecting a pattern from an instance. You're basically whining about someone using emotional language to represent an emotional situation. You sound like a scandinavian reproaching a mediterrainian for their emotions. You're acting like a bigot.

Fact is fact, Scott. When you ask someone a question and they write you an obvious lie in response, you have to be denying your feelings to emote something other than outrage. When you witness a vast injustice, institutionalized by government, the only authentic response is outrage. Yet you're quibbling over figurative language in such an instance.

Have you considered that you're emotionally constipated and ought to be getting therapy? And doesn't it anger you to have someone write that here in the forum? I can tell you, it makes me angry when someone jumps to all these crazy conclusions you have and starts telling me I need therapy.
You're making him a victim of NASA then asking why he is asking for more abuse. Blame the victim if ever I saw it. . .

Not in the least. I blamed Hector only for lying to me. I asked him why he went back for more because it seemed obvious everyone would understand--he went back for more because NASA waves promises of grant monies around and courts such people, only to then take what they can and violate the trust given. You really need to read for more comprehension.
"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 »

Okay let me see if I can add some details about my past and present relationship with NASA.

First the past. My relationship with NASA started many years ago with Whitt Brantley and Dr. David Nover. You might remember them. At the time I was simply trying to use their Super G Gravity meter to see if there was any measurable gravitational force present from a Lifter style device. They where kind enough to give us access for a few hours to their Gravity meter. We got no funding for this work or the subsequent trip about a year later.

On the second trip I met Dr. Jonathan Campbell and Dr. Walter Hammond. Dr. Campbell came to use with a request for a rotary device which we created and which he witnessed here in Florida. Video on this visit exist and is in my possession of us and the MSFC OIG office. Dr. Campbell proceeded to develop his own Asymmetric Capacitor Device with the help of Transdimentional Technologies Inc, in Huntsville Alabama via a sole source contract for ~50K.

About this time we met with the NRO and Dr. Campbell was consulted by them on the issue. We received a negative review and no funding was provided by them.

At around this time we where also working with Dr. John Rusek from Purdue University. They in co-operation with us performed the first vacuum test of our kind of Asymmetric capacitor under high vacuum conditions. Still have the video.

All this was done with zero funding from any government agency. So all this was done from funding out of our pocket and by simply asking for help.

In 2003 after the above events another NASA scientist showed interest in our claims and funded our access and travel cost to the LEEIF facility for 4 days of testing. That was our first real vacuum test and results led us down a new path of development on a later date.

In more recent history our new work attracted the interest of a project manager from another agency who funded a very small vacuum test effort, the results of which where put in a report as our deliverable.

Since then these new test and results have gotten the attention of such individuals as Sonny White and others, but they are completely skeptical of our results and they have a wait and see attitude. The current effort is being supported by in house funding and some minor financial and technical support by a private entity.

So as you can see my relationship with NASA and others has been mostly non funded and the only access I've gotten to equipment and personnel has been minor and mostly unofficial. If you want access to equipment or facilities from NASA you need to ask nicely and be prepared to pay for it out of your own pocket, especially when you are testing extraordinary claims that they can't endorse or support under any solicitation.

Also I have submitted an Executive summary to the Game Changing Technology Office at NASA and I have the nice rejection letter from them to prove that they do not support, endorse or believe in my research.

I hope this clears up some of the facts. I can't tell you everything that has happened or is happening, but this is 100% the truth of how the last 14 years of my research has evolved.

Rejection is part of this kind or research.


Sincerely,

Hector

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

Post by ScottL »

I'm not bothered by what you say because I believe it to be ramblings. The fact that you've been repeatedly banned by several science-related sites for personal attacks emboldens my belief. In my experience only the weak minded, incompetent, and the insecure resort to the way you attacked Hector. I'm not fond of the "liar, liar, pants on fire" argument you've made or your association with sexual acts. You lack empathy.

The fact is you illicited an emotional response to a logical answer put cordially forth by Hector to your questions. He did not lie, he simply stated what was said to him. We know what is said and what is actually done can be vastly different, but I believe he was told what he was told, even if he knows better. I also believe researchers like himself are put in peculiar situations because if they do "rock the boat" by lashing out, they guarantee themselves permanent obscurity. From my stand point he's protecting himself and his research.

So in summary, Hector keeps the peace with his response, guaranteeing him at least some chance of reusing NASA's facilities. You attack him for taking said stance and not electing the noble route of disappearing into obscurity. You ammount what Nasa has done to what is commonly known to be a extremely violent sexual act forced on a victim, and then ask him why.

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

Post by Hec031 »

ScottL is correct. You can't burn your bridges and you have to play by the unwritten rules of the government game to move ahead.

If you are hostile towards NASA because they don't automatically buy into your research, you will burn that bridge and that will be the end of that.

I'm not lying about my relationship with NASA and it's individuals and trust me they are all individual with their own opinions, they just happen to work for the same agency. You have to talk to them one at a time and convince them one at a time.

Sonny is not the most senior scientific mind that I'm dealing with at NASA, but they all have a wait and see attitude and until we do something really spectacular they will not support my research. I will bet dollars to doughnuts that the same holds true for anyone else trying to demonstrate any form of propellantless propulsion concept.

If you don't believe me ask Dr. Woodward about his experience with NASA. I can't imagine that his experience is much different than mind. Hell at least Sonny and Millis seem to like his concept which is more than I can say about my work. LOL.


Sincerely,

Hector

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

Post by GIThruster »

ScottL wrote:I'm not bothered by what you say because I believe it to be ramblings. The fact that you've been repeatedly banned by several science-related sites for personal attacks emboldens my belief.
In more than 25 years of blogging, I have been banned once, by a single group, for a single post. So again, you're misrepresenting and over-reacting and overstating. I'd recommend a cup of tea and check your heart rate. You're acting ridiculously. And just saying true Scott, if the only way you can justify your rants is with such an extreme personal attack, that ought to be sufficient evidence you're acting inappropriately.

I have explained the context of why I used the language I did and no reasonable person would doubt that the word "rape" has a figurative meaning. Sorry, your application for position of Language Police is denied.
"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 »

Hec031 wrote:If you don't believe me ask Dr. Woodward about his experience with NASA. I can't imagine that his experience is much different than mind.
It's completely different, Hector. NASA's standing position with Woodward is that because they have no one able to investigate Jim's physics, they are asking for higher thrust. That's a pretty pathetic position, not just because they're not trying to understand the peer reviewed theory, but because their answer is to ask for more thrust. NASA's official position as regards Woodward's work is completely irrational. A rational response might be to throw up one's hands and admit they can't find the proper physicist, but it would also be to go out and find the physicist. It wouldn't be to demand higher thrusts.

I agree about bridge burning. I am not however looking to put my own theory or thruster to the test. I can afford to be critical of what my tax dollars are paying for, and as events unfold this last year, the news is getting worse all the time. Were I to even begin to recount the number of outrageous incidents, I'm sure Scott would have a fit and start complaining about that being emotionally upsetting as well. Wouldn't even matter what manner of language I used.
"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:
Hec031 wrote:If you don't believe me ask Dr. Woodward about his experience with NASA. I can't imagine that his experience is much different than mind.
It's completely different, Hector. NASA's standing position with Woodward is that because they have no one able to investigate Jim's physics, they are asking for higher thrust. That's a pretty pathetic position, not just because they're not trying to understand the peer reviewed theory, but because their answer is to ask for more thrust. NASA's official position as regards Woodward's work is completely irrational. A rational response might be to throw up one's hands and admit they can't find the proper physicist, but it would also be to go out and find the physicist. It wouldn't be to demand higher thrusts.

I agree about bridge burning. I am not however looking to put my own theory or thruster to the test. I can afford to be critical of what my tax dollars are paying for, and as events unfold this last year, the news is getting worse all the time. Were I to even begin to recount the number of outrageous incidents, I'm sure Scott would have a fit and start complaining about that being emotionally upsetting as well. Wouldn't even matter what manner of language I used.
So which physicists are qualified to write a rebuttal of Woodward's work? I've completed a rather rigorous amount of math and physics during my obaining of an engineering degree and can't dispute the math, so what are your qualifications on stating the worthiness of a physicist? I don't have a pony in Woodward's race, so while I believe his research methodology is sound, I won't say as to the conclusions.

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

Post by GIThruster »

Scott, the only people able to grapple with Woodward's physics are those that are tried field theorists, meaning they studied and teach relativity rather than the bulk of physicists whom tend to study the Standard Model, QM and perhaps String theory. Physicists that are authentically "field theorists" are perhaps <10% globally. Out of these, you want a theorist that is familiar with Mach's Principle. That narrows the group considerably further. From this you can select through those that say they're capable and you'll get a still smaller list. Most of these are known as "mathematical physicists".

If NASA went to the trouble to find a point man to head up an investigation of M-E theory, they could most certainly find someone. They just don't happen to have someone aboard as they did with investigating Widom-Larsen Theory, etc. Note you most certainly are not talking about a masters level engineer to do this work, like NASA appointed for the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics project--Marc Millis. You need an authentic physicist.

If NASA actually had a problem finding such a person, they could easily ask Jim who he'd recommend. Or they could ask me. Brice Cassentti has for example, told me he's quite capable of doing an appraisal, but it takes months of hard work and people don't do that for free. Brice pulls down top dollar doing this sort of thing for DoD, so there's no reason he'd work for NASA, unless they were paying him.

Apart from all that. . .what NASA does have onboard are engineers galore, and many of them are top men. There are many dozens or hundreds that given the opportunity could at least review the complex experimental setup: the instrumentation, the grounding, the protocols, methods, scientific controls and test results. Where's the excuse for them not doing this? I dunno. But while they're not doing what they should be doing, they're busy filing patents on WLT technology and that ought to be infuriating to anyone who knows the situation. Like Hector's "theory", and Sonny White's QVF model, WTL is not peer reviewed and has not earned the right to expensive investigation. Woodward has, IMHO.
"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 »

That was a riveting story, and I'm willing to accept it as fact, but.... what are your qualifications? Why should I trust you on this topic? I trust Woodward, but he's not making claims at this point, you are for him.

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

Post by GIThruster »

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

Post Reply