The Impossible Thruster Works

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

The Impossible Thruster Works

Post by MSimon »

http://pgtruspace.wordpress.com/2014/10 ... -thruster/

Image

NASA confirms ‘impossible’ thruster actually works, could revolutionize space travel
By Drew Prindle — August 1, 2014

http://www.emdrive.com/

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20140006052
The idea was first confirmed by a group of Chinese scientists back in 2009. They built their own version of Shawyer’s thruster and were able to produce 720 milinewtons of force — but even then, nobody really believed it.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/ ... ce-travel/
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

AcesHigh
Posts: 652
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:59 am

Re: The Impossible Thruster Works

Post by AcesHigh »

M Simon, you should read the long em drive thread at NSF Forums. There are some quite complex discussion going on there, with some physics phds taking part, and they are agreeing there is something going on there.

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

Re: The Impossible Thruster Works

Post by Betruger »

You could arbitrarily start at Dr Rodal's first post.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index. ... msg1252386
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.

kunkmiester
Posts: 880
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:51 pm
Contact:

Re: The Impossible Thruster Works

Post by kunkmiester »

Clarke's quote(paraphrase): "when an elderly scientist says something is possible, he is most likely correct. If he says something is impossible, he is most likely very wrong."

I have a microwave that's getting retired, wonder where to get the info on designing a cavity for that?
Evil is evil, no matter how small

AcesHigh
Posts: 652
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:59 am

Re: The Impossible Thruster Works

Post by AcesHigh »

well, they didn´t just say it was right or wrong.

they analized, speculated, read papers, disserted about them, over some 100 pages at least.

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

Re: The Impossible Thruster Works

Post by GIThruster »

It's just wasted time. For many dozens of pages they've been focused on McCulloch's MiHsC theory, and they already know that theory contradicts EEP and GR. It's wrong. This Dr. McCulloch has a bachelors in physics and his PhD in Oceanography. He's never published in a gravity physics journal or forum. He posts this stuff up where he can, but no peer is gonna look at it because it contradicts Einstein start to finish.

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

birchoff
Posts: 200
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2014 7:11 pm

Re: The Impossible Thruster Works

Post by birchoff »

GIThruster wrote:It's just wasted time. For many dozens of pages they've been focused on McCulloch's MiHsC theory, and they already know that theory contradicts EEP and GR. It's wrong. This Dr. McCulloch has a bachelors in physics and his PhD in Oceanography. He's never published in a gravity physics journal or forum. He posts this stuff up where he can, but no peer is gonna look at it because it contradicts Einstein start to finish.

Waste of time, IMHO.
Its only a waste of time if you already accept as immutable fact that the results from the paper are incorrect. Personally I think theorizing about something without enough data and specifics is the equivalent of brute force searching, which I am loathed to do. I would rather just "hurry up and wait" for more data and encourage EagleWorks to get more specific about the details of their current and future experiments.

93143
Posts: 1131
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 7:51 pm

Re: The Impossible Thruster Works

Post by 93143 »

I'm intrigued by the apparent close correlation of McCulloch's predictions with the reported results. (Even if he's wrong, he could, like Shawyer, be right by accident.) Unfortunately I don't have the time to keep up with the thread...

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

Re: The Impossible Thruster Works

Post by Betruger »

AcesHigh wrote:well, they didn´t just say it was right or wrong.

they analized
With a y :)
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.

AcesHigh
Posts: 652
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:59 am

Re: The Impossible Thruster Works

Post by AcesHigh »

english language :roll: :roll:

:mrgreen:

does the y or i even make a difference in the sound?

the blame tough really goes for mixing greek and latin... analyse comes from greek analuein (unloose) while anal comes from latin anus. The kind of confusion mixing the two languages (really, in all our western european languages that happen) create... like homo (equal/same) and homo (man)

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

Re: The Impossible Thruster Works

Post by GIThruster »

birchoff wrote:
GIThruster wrote:It's just wasted time. For many dozens of pages they've been focused on McCulloch's MiHsC theory, and they already know that theory contradicts EEP and GR. It's wrong. This Dr. McCulloch has a bachelors in physics and his PhD in Oceanography. He's never published in a gravity physics journal or forum. He posts this stuff up where he can, but no peer is gonna look at it because it contradicts Einstein start to finish.

Waste of time, IMHO.
Its only a waste of time if you already accept as immutable fact that the results from the paper are incorrect.
No, it could be the results at Eagle are correct but still, unless you're willing to through out all we believe about spacetime, you must insist that EEP and GR are true, so McCulloch is wrong. And I would just note, this crazy tendency for people to make up these models outside their field of expertise and pretend those who are educated in the field must all be wrong is just the same old, same old tired and worn. Making up a model no one has thought of before is easy when you disregard everything everyone who knows the field knows, but then there's no reason to suppose you've even stumbled blindly onto the truth. This is why I think this is all a waste of time. Note they are not spending time with this contradictory model of gravity instead of nothing. They are spending their time on it instead of spending time on M-E theory, which would have been a wise investment of their time.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

birchoff
Posts: 200
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2014 7:11 pm

Re: The Impossible Thruster Works

Post by birchoff »

GIThruster wrote:
birchoff wrote:
GIThruster wrote:It's just wasted time. For many dozens of pages they've been focused on McCulloch's MiHsC theory, and they already know that theory contradicts EEP and GR. It's wrong. This Dr. McCulloch has a bachelors in physics and his PhD in Oceanography. He's never published in a gravity physics journal or forum. He posts this stuff up where he can, but no peer is gonna look at it because it contradicts Einstein start to finish.

Waste of time, IMHO.
Its only a waste of time if you already accept as immutable fact that the results from the paper are incorrect.
No, it could be the results at Eagle are correct but still, unless you're willing to through out all we believe about spacetime, you must insist that EEP and GR are true, so McCulloch is wrong. And I would just note, this crazy tendency for people to make up these models outside their field of expertise and pretend those who are educated in the field must all be wrong is just the same old, same old tired and worn. Making up a model no one has thought of before is easy when you disregard everything everyone who knows the field knows, but then there's no reason to suppose you've even stumbled blindly onto the truth. This is why I think this is all a waste of time. Note they are not spending time with this contradictory model of gravity instead of nothing. They are spending their time on it instead of spending time on M-E theory, which would have been a wise investment of their time.
Personally I see no reason to throw out all that is held dear in order to explore some new idea you see replicated in nature (yes I am assuming the lab tests are correct). That said, you do eventually take on the responsibility of explaining what the previous theories got wrong that the new theory now gets right. This particular responsibility is very burdensome and keeps us from "coloring outside the lines" so to speak. As for what Rodal and friends are doing on NSF. My take is they are looking for ways to explain the results from the lab test. They mulled over using M-E theory to explain it but Ron Stahl pointed out that it was highly unlikely. So they moved on. Rodal's focus is on the Eagle works test, so unless there is a Woodward acceptable manner that allows M-E theory to explain the Eagle results they are not wasting their time. Now we may all disagree with their goal (I know I do, I stopped posting after it became clear that more information was needed and would not come till the next paper drop from the test campaign they should be ramping up to begin now) but its their time and hard disk space is cheap. Also if you wanted a discussion of M-E theory it would be better served on Woodwards mailing list not on NSF, since my take is that there are not many people versed in M-E theory who could meaningfully contribute to that discussion [I would pay money to be a fly on the wall of such a discussion, as M-E theory is facinating to me].

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

Re: The Impossible Thruster Works

Post by GIThruster »

birchoff wrote:They mulled over using M-E theory to explain it but Ron Stahl pointed out that it was highly unlikely.
Well I hope thats not how I was universally taken. My expressed point was that certainly M-E theory does explain what was observed if the dielectric is placed in such a way that it can move in one direction (as opposed to two equal and opposite displacements), but the conference paper doesn't tell us those kinds of details.
Personally I see no reason to throw out all that is held dear in order to explore some new idea you see replicated in nature. . .
The point is, that this model of McCulloch's requires that gravitational and inertial mass are different and EEP and GR requires they cannot ever be. McCulloch does not understand GR or he would never have proposed such silly stuff. He's obviously wrong and Dr. Rodal is wasting his time.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

Giorgio
Posts: 2735
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Re: The Impossible Thruster Works

Post by Giorgio »

AcesHigh wrote:english language :roll: :roll:

:mrgreen:

does the y or i even make a difference in the sound?
Of course, the first one has a low pitch tone typical of deep thoughts and meditation, the other one involves an acute sound of excitement or pain, according one's own personal sexual tastes.
:mrgreen: :mrgreen:
A society of dogmas is a dead society.

AcesHigh
Posts: 652
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:59 am

Re: The Impossible Thruster Works

Post by AcesHigh »

Giorgio wrote:
AcesHigh wrote:english language :roll: :roll:

:mrgreen:

does the y or i even make a difference in the sound?
Of course, the first one has a low pitch tone typical of deep thoughts and meditation, the other one involves an acute sound of excitement or pain, according one's own personal sexual tastes.
:mrgreen: :mrgreen:
You are Italian and a fellow romance language speaker. You will agree with me that English vowels make less sense than Rossi's ECAT and their sounds as hard to replicate :)

Post Reply