Author Topic: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application  (Read 665977 times)

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1440 on: 07/11/2011 01:27 AM »
That's a big blow to the M-E conjecture, no doubt. However, Hector Brito's self-contained device did produce thrust, so I'm interested in the data of this new experiment.

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1441 on: 07/11/2011 01:43 AM »
The trouble is that Carl Sagan was spouting nonsense.  Why should the standard of evidence be lowered for claims that people don't find "extraordinary"?

If a certain level of evidence is good enough to be admitted in support of an accepted theory, it should be good enough to be admitted in support of an unpopular one.

was Sagan talking of how he thought things should be, or about how things ARE (maybe he did not agree with it, but was making an observation of how society/scientific community acts)

Has this question been asked elsewhere... E.G. At "Physics Forum"?   I have no idea if (and if so which ones) any internet neighbourhoods or real world groups would give unfair answers.  But it seems worthwhile to sample the answers from more than just our forum here.

Physics Forum does not accepts ME theory. They wont even accept the threads to discuss it. They will close any threads because its not mainstream physics. They said they require the theory to have been published in a peer reviewed paper. I contacted Paul March and asked him for a peer reviewed paper on the subject, and Paul March sent me a link, which I sent to a moderator from Physics Forum. They did not accept that either. Since I have zero knowledge about peer reviewed papers, etc, I could not go further in the discussion with the moderator.
« Last Edit: 07/11/2011 01:47 AM by aceshigh »

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1442 on: 07/11/2011 03:44 AM »
That's a big blow to the M-E conjecture, no doubt. However, Hector Brito's self-contained device did produce thrust, so I'm interested in the data of this new experiment.

GeeGee:

I'll append Duncan's full positing related to his null MLT Coke-Can experiment that he performed about 4 years ago.

Palfreyman: "Right now, I have no explanation for the null results that occurred with the attempts by myself, Duncan and John."

Cumming: "I have a simple explanation for my own null results.  As you recall, I built a self contained, battery powered MLT thruster, placed it on a sensitive balance, and switched it on (using a light beam). No thrust was observed, with a sensitivity of 0.01 milligrams.

The explanation is obvious - my thruster didn't work!  Maybe I built it wrong, perhaps others were lucky in their selection of components, particularly the capacitors.  But the point is, just because MY thruster doesn't work, that does not mean that YOUR thruster doesn't work.  I would definitely call this a null result rather than an inconclusive result, since the thrust predicted by Jim's engineering equation was some four orders of magnitude higher than the sensitivity of the balance.  But I don't think it is necessarily bad news for other experimenters.  The list of known differences between the thruster that I constructed and the thrusters that they constructed is a long one - and there are doubtless many unknown differences as well."

BTW, Hector Brito has no explanation for why his ion-lifter like thruster produces the thrust profile it does while in 3x10^-6 Torr vacuum conditions and ~40kV-dc applied to it.  Hector knows its works under these condtions, but he offers no clue as to why it should. 

Best,

Paul M.
Star-Drive

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1443 on: 07/11/2011 03:55 AM »
The trouble is that Carl Sagan was spouting nonsense.  Why should the standard of evidence be lowered for claims that people don't find "extraordinary"?

If a certain level of evidence is good enough to be admitted in support of an accepted theory, it should be good enough to be admitted in support of an unpopular one.

was Sagan talking of how he thought things should be, or about how things ARE (maybe he did not agree with it, but was making an observation of how society/scientific community acts)

Has this question been asked elsewhere... E.G. At "Physics Forum"?   I have no idea if (and if so which ones) any internet neighbourhoods or real world groups would give unfair answers.  But it seems worthwhile to sample the answers from more than just our forum here.

Physics Forum does not accepts ME theory. They wont even accept the threads to discuss it. They will close any threads because its not mainstream physics. They said they require the theory to have been published in a peer reviewed paper. I contacted Paul March and asked him for a peer reviewed paper on the subject, and Paul March sent me a link, which I sent to a moderator from Physics Forum. They did not accept that either. Since I have zero knowledge about peer reviewed papers, etc, I could not go further in the discussion with the moderator.

Aceshigh:

"Physics Forum does not accepts ME theory. They wont even accept the threads to discuss it. They will close any threads because its not mainstream physics. They said they require the theory to have been published in a peer reviewed paper."

Did the Physics Forum moderator state what where acceptable peer reviewed journals for publication and what were not?  Last time I looked the "Foundations of Physics" Journal where Woodard has published a fair number of his M-E related papers was considered to be at least a grade B peer reveiwed journal by most.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Physics

Best, Paul M.
Star-Drive

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1444 on: 07/11/2011 04:29 AM »
At last, some actual yay/nay evidence!

Nay. Can't wait to see the data. That's the first clear yay /nay evidence I've seen either way, and given he's on the email list it's clear he's not open to the same "didn't do it right" charge the Oak Ridge experiment was labeled with.

Cuddyihy:

The known to me M-E experimental "score" is that we have on the positive side Woodward's twenty years of experiments, Mahood's 1999 thesis and my own 2004 and 2005 experiments showing micro-Newton to milli-Newton thrust levels using PZT stacks and MLTs.  On the inconclusive or negative side we have Andrew Palfreyman's null 1998 quartz oscillator stack attempt, the Oak Ridge Lab's inconclusive PZT like stack attempt in 2000, John Strader's null linear MLT in 2002, John Cramer's 2004 inconclusive Machian Guitar experiment, Nebo Buldrini's curious/inconclusive Cap only results in 2006 using Woodward's own Mach-6 test article, and Duncan Cumming's null self contained "Coke-Can" attempt in 2007.  Each inconclusive and null result was examined and the lessons learned from each were integrated into Woodward's next round of M-E based experiments.  Sometimes you get lucky and sometimes you miss the mark, but at least the M-E theory has provided us some guidance as to where to go next with increasingly positive results along the way. 

Edit: Clarified test results and added a forgotten test.

BTW, this is what REsearch is all about...

Best,

Paul M.
« Last Edit: 07/11/2011 03:10 PM by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1445 on: 07/11/2011 04:37 AM »
That's a big blow to the M-E conjecture, no doubt. However, Hector Brito's self-contained device did produce thrust, so I'm interested in the data of this new experiment.

GeeGee:

I'll append Duncan's full positing related to his null MLT Coke-Can experiment that he performed about 4 years ago.


I'm a bit confused...sfuerst said Duncan emailed everyone on Woodward's list yesterday, claiming his battery-powered device didn't work. It sounded like he was referring to a more recent experiment.

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1446 on: 07/11/2011 05:20 AM »

Did the Physics Forum moderator state what where acceptable peer reviewed journals for publication and what were not?  Last time I looked the "Foundations of Physics" Journal where Woodard has published a fair number of his M-E related papers was considered to be at least a grade B peer reveiwed journal by most.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Physics

Best, Paul M.

I think aceshigh is referring to this thread.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=259842

The thread has a critical tone which is pretty understandable, but the moderator's claim is what bothered me:

"This topic may be reopened in the unlikely event that it is published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal."

He didn't even bother to check.
« Last Edit: 07/11/2011 05:20 AM by GeeGee »

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1447 on: 07/11/2011 01:28 PM »
Aceshigh:

"Physics Forum does not accepts ME theory. They wont even accept the threads to discuss it. They will close any threads because its not mainstream physics. They said they require the theory to have been published in a peer reviewed paper."

Did the Physics Forum moderator state what where acceptable peer reviewed journals for publication and what were not?  Last time I looked the "Foundations of Physics" Journal where Woodard has published a fair number of his M-E related papers was considered to be at least a grade B peer reveiwed journal by most.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Physics

Best, Paul M.

I checked my private messages on that forum

Quote from: AcesHigh
You said that "This topic may be reopened once it has been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal"

I want to know if this counts as a peer-reviewed journal. Thanks

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=APCPCS000813000001001321000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes&ref=no

the link above it was you who provided me, Paul

the moderator answered me:
Quote from: Redbelly98
No, presenting at a conference is not part of the peer-review process.



its an important physics forum, but I am in no mood to push the issue forward, because I dont know enough about physics or eve about the peer review process, to argue with that or other moderators. If any of you think you can prove them ME should be allowed to have a thread on that forum, feel free to do so.
« Last Edit: 07/11/2011 01:35 PM by aceshigh »

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1448 on: 07/11/2011 03:32 PM »
That's a big blow to the M-E conjecture, no doubt. However, Hector Brito's self-contained device did produce thrust, so I'm interested in the data of this new experiment.

GeeGee:

I'll append Duncan's full positing related to his null MLT Coke-Can experiment that he performed about 4 years ago.


I'm a bit confused...sfuerst said Duncan emailed everyone on Woodward's list yesterday, claiming his battery-powered device didn't work. It sounded like he was referring to a more recent experiment.

GeeGee:

I appended Duncan's actual related comments from Woodward's Distribution over the weekend in my previous 3:44 AM NSF post without modification.  If you want to see Duncan's entire e-mail I'll be glad to send it to you.  As to when Duncan's "Coke-Can" experiment was performed, it was in the ~2007 time frame, and I'm not aware of any other M-E related tests that Duncan has performed since then.  However I do need to dig out Duncan's ~2007 unpublished report at home to get the exact date for you. 

BTW, our post analysis of Duncan's Coke-Can test indicated that his null results was most likley due to not having the MLT B-field coil potted, which greatly increased its internal wire vibration losses, but primarily not having the required compliant connection between the MLT torroidal cap ring/B-field coil assembly and its associated reaction mass. 

Best,

Paul M.
« Last Edit: 07/11/2011 03:33 PM by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1449 on: 07/11/2011 03:40 PM »
Aceshigh:

"Physics Forum does not accepts ME theory. They wont even accept the threads to discuss it. They will close any threads because its not mainstream physics. They said they require the theory to have been published in a peer reviewed paper."

Did the Physics Forum moderator state what where acceptable peer reviewed journals for publication and what were not?  Last time I looked the "Foundations of Physics" Journal where Woodard has published a fair number of his M-E related papers was considered to be at least a grade B peer reveiwed journal by most.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Physics

Best, Paul M.

I checked my private messages on that forum

Quote from: AcesHigh
You said that "This topic may be reopened once it has been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal"

I want to know if this counts as a peer-reviewed journal. Thanks

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=APCPCS000813000001001321000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes&ref=no

the link above it was you who provided me, Paul

the moderator answered me:
Quote from: Redbelly98
No, presenting at a conference is not part of the peer-review process.



its an important physics forum, but I am in no mood to push the issue forward, because I dont know enough about physics or eve about the peer review process, to argue with that or other moderators. If any of you think you can prove them ME should be allowed to have a thread on that forum, feel free to do so.

AcesHigh:

I'm not asking you to fight our battles for us.  I was just curious as to what the Physics Forum moderator was looking for.  So peer reviewed conferences, even if sponsored by the American Institute of Physics (AIP) does not count in the physics mainstream's eyes, check. 

Live and learn.  However that still leaves Woodward's "Foundations of Physics" Journal published M-E related papers.

Best,

Paul M.
Star-Drive

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1450 on: 07/11/2011 03:50 PM »
Quote
As previously said I'm a newb to GRT/SRT, but I always thought that equations of motion don't "describe" inertia; they rather require a priori, a particular understanding of inertia,that every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

In Newtonian physics, that is correct.  In that context, it is quite mysterious why inertial mass and gravitational mass have any connection since gravity is just one force amongst many.

GR is different.  It models the behaviour of all mass/energy in the universe in a self-consistent manner.  It handles the effects of every other force by modelling their stress-energy content.  By using calculus of variations on the Einstein equation, the effects of inertia neatly pop out due to conservation of stress-energy.


Steve:

"By using calculus of variations on the Einstein equation, the effects of inertia neatly pop out due to conservation of stress-energy."

The effects of inertia may be demonstrated by this approach, but it still doesn't tell us WHY this is so, nor HOW inertia is expressed in the local frame.  However, I'm now going to ask you to take this disscussion up directly with Dr. Woodward, for as an Electrical Engineer, I'm fast getting out of my area of expertise here.

Best,

Paul M.
Star-Drive

Offline kurt9

  • Member
  • Posts: 31
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1451 on: 07/11/2011 04:22 PM »
Guys, if you want to set up a separate discussion thread for M-E, perhaps you should consider the PhysForum discussion site:

http://www.physforum.com

This is where the Heim Theory was discussed. So, there is no fuss about peer review and the like.

Offline D_Dom

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 456
  • Liked: 154
  • Likes Given: 105
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1452 on: 07/11/2011 04:32 PM »
I think NSF is a good forum for this topic, no need for a separate discussion. The peer review questions are part and parcel of expanding this technology into higher TRL acceptance.
Space is not merely a matter of life or death, it is considerably more important than that!

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1453 on: 07/11/2011 05:19 PM »
Guys, if you want to set up a separate discussion thread for M-E, perhaps you should consider the PhysForum discussion site:

http://www.physforum.com

This is where the Heim Theory was discussed. So, there is no fuss about peer review and the like.

physforum.com used to be linked to http://www.physorg.com/

some of your posts on the news at physorg were directly linked to threads at physforum, and the forum also had a link on physorg mainpage.

now it seems they have split... "now" being about two years ago, that is... in fact, they link now to physicsforum.

« Last Edit: 07/11/2011 05:23 PM by aceshigh »

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1454 on: 07/11/2011 08:16 PM »



its an important physics forum, but I am in no mood to push the issue forward, because I dont know enough about physics or eve about the peer review process, to argue with that or other moderators. If any of you think you can prove them ME should be allowed to have a thread on that forum, feel free to do so.

You should have linked them to the FOP (Foundation of Physics) papers. He is correct that conference papers are not really subjected to the rigorous peer-review process.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/?Author=James+F.+Woodward&sort=p_OnlineDate&sortorder=desc

There are at least five peer-reviewed papers directly relating to mach effects authored by Woodward.


Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1455 on: 07/11/2011 08:26 PM »


GeeGee:

I appended Duncan's actual related comments from Woodward's Distribution over the weekend in my previous 3:44 AM NSF post without modification.  If you want to see Duncan's entire e-mail I'll be glad to send it to you.  As to when Duncan's "Coke-Can" experiment was performed, it was in the ~2007 time frame, and I'm not aware of any other M-E related tests that Duncan has performed since then.  However I do need to dig out Duncan's ~2007 unpublished report at home to get the exact date for you. 

That's alright. I suppose it was just the way sfuerst worded his post. It sounded like he was referring to a more recent experiment performed by Duncan that failed.

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1456 on: 07/11/2011 10:27 PM »

BTW, Hector Brito has no explanation for why his ion-lifter like thruster produces the thrust profile it does while in 3x10^-6 Torr vacuum conditions and ~40kV-dc applied to it.  Hector knows its works under these condtions, but he offers no clue as to why it should. 

Best,

Paul M.

I am referring to Hector Brito's 1996 self-contained MLT-like device (based on a different physical model).

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1457 on: 07/12/2011 01:31 AM »



its an important physics forum, but I am in no mood to push the issue forward, because I dont know enough about physics or eve about the peer review process, to argue with that or other moderators. If any of you think you can prove them ME should be allowed to have a thread on that forum, feel free to do so.

You should have linked them to the FOP (Foundation of Physics) papers. He is correct that conference papers are not really subjected to the rigorous peer-review process.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/?Author=James+F.+Woodward&sort=p_OnlineDate&sortorder=desc

There are at least five peer-reviewed papers directly relating to mach effects authored by Woodward.



there is always time to do that. Private message the guy and give him the links, and ask him to reopen the thread.

Offline Cinder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 562
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1458 on: 07/12/2011 02:03 AM »
Considering how friendly they are now to the idea of allowing and discussing the topic, it might be worth waiting a little later when experiments/replications have progressed up one more notch in credibility to skeptics. 
The pork must flow.

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1459 on: 07/12/2011 06:14 PM »
Paul,

Did Dr. Woodward ever respond to you about sfuerst's comments?

Tags: