
The Mach Effect Thruster - GravInertialGuy
While skimming the web looking for interest in Mach Effect physics and related gravinertial technology investment, I came upon your web site here:<p>https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=17096175<p>Though I&#x27;m thrilled that anyone associated with YCombinator would own such an interest, the level of comprehension of the related issues seemed somewhat uninformed.<p>If I can aid anyone at YCombinator in understanding how ME physics works, what theoretical and empirical support is to be found, and why investors should take this breakthrough in science seriously, I would like to be of help.<p>If this issue is of interest, please feel free to write me through LinkedIn and to peruse any of our publicly available information docs, such as are found here:<p>https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.linkedin.com&#x2F;in&#x2F;ron-stahl-b9b678b0&#x2F;detail&#x2F;recent-activity&#x2F;posts&#x2F;<p>Ron Stahl | LinkedIn
www.linkedin.com
Check out professional insights posted by Ron Stahl, CEO, Quantum Space Products<p>Of special note are the essays on Pathological Science and the Conservation Principle, which directly address the questions brought up in the discussion linked above.  If anyone at YCombinator has an interest and wants to see a short video pitch concerning how Quantum Space Products is bringing this disruptive technology to market within the next two years, please let me know and I&#x27;ll be thrilled to share that with them as well as make myself available for detailed discussion.  We&#x27;re offering a unique risk mitigation strategy that we think most investors will find appealing.
======
GravInertialGuy
There was a note above stating that Martin Tajmar's Magnetic coupling
investigation of the EM Resonator was the only peer reviewed paper on the
broader subject, and I just wanted to make note that this is not true.
Woodward's theory papers have been peer reviewed since the 90's, and Fern's
papers have been reviewed much more recently. It is the crank Quantum Vacuum
nonsense that no one will admit for review, not Mach Effect physics.

[https://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/](https://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/)

[https://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/IAC2013.pdf](https://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/IAC2013.pdf)

[https://physics.fullerton.edu/~heidi/JSE13.pdf](https://physics.fullerton.edu/~heidi/JSE13.pdf)

[https://physics.fullerton.edu/~heidi/JSE14.pdf](https://physics.fullerton.edu/~heidi/JSE14.pdf)

[https://physics.fullerton.edu/~heidi/JMP-
Mach0.pdf](https://physics.fullerton.edu/~heidi/JMP-Mach0.pdf)

[https://physics.fullerton.edu/~heidi/JMP-
MachI.pdf](https://physics.fullerton.edu/~heidi/JMP-MachI.pdf)

[https://physics.fullerton.edu/~heidi/JMP-
MachII.pdf](https://physics.fullerton.edu/~heidi/JMP-MachII.pdf)

------
GravInertialGuy
There have been working prototypes of primitive METs for many years. Martin
Tajmar who published the paper concerning magnetic coupling was responding to
the EM Resonator work at NASA JSC's "Eagleworks" lab, not to the work at Cal
State Fullerton. If you will read more carefully, Tajmar is one of the three
replicating labs that have reported positive findings using the MET. I've
known Martin for more than a decade and I can say he does good work.

NASA just awarded the MET research phase 2 NIAC funding.

[https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2017_Phase_...](https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2017_Phase_I_Phase_II/Mach_Effects_for_In_Space_Propulsion_Interstellar_Mission)

If you will read the articles attached to my profile linked above, you will
see that yes indeed, the EM Resonator does propose to violate the Conservation
Principle, and should therefore be taken as pathological science. However, the
Mach Effect Thruster does not propose to violate conservation.

Woodward is often six orders magnitude above his noise floor in his
experiments. By contrast, the Eagleworks lab testing the EM Resonator was
never able to get out of their noise floor.

~~~
gus_massa
What is the Thrust/Energy ratio?

Let's suppose that I only have time to read on article. Which one is the best
technical article?

~~~
GravInertialGuy
The most consistent thrust efficiency coming from the four labs that have
gotten positive results is E-8N/W though there have been tests with
significantly higher results.

If you’re concerned with an answer to the Conservation Principle issue, I
recommend that article. If you’re concerned with the broader issue of what
makes good science, I recommend the one on Pathological Science.

------
GravInertialGuy
Our advantage in this work is to make use of the scaling laws that govern Mach
Effect Thruster efficiency. The force generated divided by the electrical
power necessary to run the device, scales linearly with frequency, quartically
(to the forth power) with Voltage and linearly with both the 1w and 2w
mechanical Qs of the device. QSPs unique advantage is we have access to
proprietary materials and designs that enable us to scale the thrust
efficiency to much higher values.

The risk mitigation strategy is to provide another product line that does not
rely upon Mach Effect physics, and by bringing that technology to market
first, even if the thruster were to disappoint, we can provide exponential
ROI.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kMm2OkNx00&feature=youtu.be](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kMm2OkNx00&feature=youtu.be)

------
gus_massa
Do you have a working prototype?

Since the HN post you linked is about an article were a group measured a
similar device and concluded that the most probable cause is the magnetic
force of the wires, and since this device breaks the currently accepted laws
of physics (like the local conservation of momentum and energy) and since the
only peer review article that claims to measure the effect is very dubious
because the force is so small and close to the noise level that they have to
use an they use a "aggressive slope-filtering level" method (whatever it
means) ... the question is

Do you have a working prototype? Can you post the results of an independent
measurement?

Also, what does the following sentence mean?

> _We 're offering a unique risk mitigation strategy that we think most
> investors will find appealing._

it looks like a huge red flag for me.

~~~
GravInertialGuy
Just wanted to be clear so you have an answer to your questions above.

QSP is a startup. We have been completely self-funded until very recently.
We’ve just taken the lease at Kennedy Space Center and the lab is not yet
open. Once it is open, our first work will be to bring the first antenna line
to market. We’re hoping to fly our first demo antenna on orbit before the end
of 2018, and with the interest already expressed by concerns such as Boeing,
Lockheed Martin and Pumpkin, we intend to enter that market very quickly.

This is what mitigates the risk behind developing a Mach Effect Thruster.
Almost all the materials and processes necessary to building our first
antennas are steps along the path to building the thrusters, so gathering the
low hanging fruit in radar and communications is not really out of the way in
developing a commercial grade thruster.

That all said, Woodward has been publishing lab results regularly for many
years, and the three replicating labs in Austria, Germany and Canada have all
made their results public as well. The peer review papers on Mach Effect
Theory have been reviewed for more than twenty years and the Fullerton lab
results are presented at conferences regularly. NASA has already had The
Aerospace Corp do their government funded evaluation and granted NIAC phase 1
funding as result. The results of that grant are publicly available and now
NASA is providing the Fullerton team Phase 2 NIAC funding.

If this doesn’t answer your questions please feel free to press me on any
points you like. Most of this is in our video pitch linked above.

------
db48x
Scam.

