CHAIR OF SPACE SYSTEMS — UNIV.-PROF. DR. TECHN. MARTIN TAJMAR
After successfully performing my Faraday cage experiment in August 2017, knowing of his long-term, ongoing experimental interest in propellantless space propulsion and gravity control, I wrote to Prof. Martin Tajmar with my detailed experimental research report, inquiring about his interest in replicating it.
——— Forwarded message ———
From: Martin Tajmar <email@example.com>
Date: Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 3:52 PM
Subject: AW: Replication of the experiment ?
Just imagine that an atomic clock is always inside the Faraday cage – no time difference has been measured here with incredible accuracy. So your conjecture must be wrong.
Univ.-Prof. Dr. Martin Tajmar
Institutsdirektor, Institut für Luft- und Raumfahrttechnik
Leiter der Professur für Raumfahrtsysteme / Head of Space Systems Chair
|Postadresse (Postal Address):
Technische Universität Dresden
Institut für Luft- und Raumfahrttechnik
01062 Dresden, Deutschland
Professur für Raumfahrtsysteme
Tel.: +49 351 463-38091
Fax: +49 351 463-38126
WHAT ELSE IS WRONG ?
I feel that this is the right place and the right time to mention what else is wrong, too. According to Prof. Martin Tajmar, the Biefeld-Brown effect is also wrong, because it is a misinterpretation of corona wind phenomena:
Who would dare to disagree with Prof. Martin Tajmar when he declares with complete scientific authority that something must be wrong? He must be right.
Well, it just happens that almost everyone disagrees with him, including NASA: It is a well established fact in the literature, that a force, or thrust, may be generated by capacitor charged to a high potential [the Biefeld-Brown effect]. Although there are different theories regarding the basis for this phenomenon, there is no dispute that a force, or thrust, is generated by capacitors under such high voltages.
In popular opinion, the Biefeld-Brown effect is associated with capacitors. No capacitors, no Biefeld-Brown effect. What is important about asymmetric capacitors is that they provide for inhomogeneous electric charge density distribution. Therefore, we could replace an asymmetric capacitor with an equivalent of two electrets, and our device would perform just as well. But would you say that such device still relies upon the Biefeld-Brown effect?
Unless you never heard of the Biefeld-Brown effect, you could say no. But, what if you were Prof. Martin Tajmar, who first invalidated the Biefeld-Brown effect as a misinterpretation of corona wind phenomena, only to substitute electrets for capacitors and pass it off as the next best conjecture in propellantless space propulsion and gravity control?
What else is wrong? According to Prof. Martin Tajmar, one of his own largest and most important experiments was also wrong.
Over the course of few years, Prof. Martin Tajmar’s European team of physicists had performed a long series of experiments. The funding was provided primarily by the European Space Agency.
Physicists close to the experiment, including Prof. Martin Tajmar, and even ESA itself, were satisfied that the experiment produced intended results, i.e. that for the first time
Official statements have been issued and published :
Dr. Tajmar was quoted as saying that these results, while preliminary, were nonetheless rigorously reviewed before publication, “We ran more than 250 experiments, improved the facility over 3 years and discussed the validity of the results for 8 months before making this announcement. Now we are confident about the measurement.” Dr. Tajmar previously commented on this continuing research study during a video-interview with American Antigravity at STAIF 2006.
But why would a mainstream scientist, like Prof. Martin Tajmar, like to talk to something like AMERICAN ANTIGRAVITY ?! And then, Prof. Martin Tajmar suddenly changed his mind, and declared his experiment a failure.
At this point it is worth mentioning that alongside ESA, this European civilian experiment was co-funded by the U.S. Air Force.
Ask yourself this: Why would the U.S. Military spend money on European civilian projects? Has it ever happened before, or after? It would be understandable to see a joint civilian space project between:
- NASA and ESA;
- NASA and the U.S. Air Force;
- ESA and some European Air Force.
But would you really expect to see a civilian space project co-funded by NASA and the German Air Force? Ask yourself this: Why would the European Military spend money on American civilian projects? Has it ever happened? Therefore, Prof. Martin Tajmar essentially tells me this:
Trust me, your experiment is a failure, and your conjecture must be wrong. Otherwise NASA, or ESA, will be replicating your results, and at the end of it, the U.S. Air Force will help you realize what I already told you from my own experience, that your experiment is a failure, and that your conjecture must be wrong. Got it?
Dear Prof. Martin Tajmar, yes, I got it. And, sadly, I doubt that you are seriously concerned with Developing Revolutionary Propulsion at TU Dresden.
But if you really are, then please don’t waste your time and other people’s money neither on the EmDrive nor on the Mach Effect Gravity Assist drive, because like with all the other electromagnetic thrusters, the thrust generated by such devices has always been minimal and thus of very limited practical utility, the Woodward effect being the most infantile and useless of them all. Also, I will be happy to explain to you how all these tiny thrusts cannot possibly be amplified either. The following constitute complete explanation of EmDrive‘s physical principles of operation :
No doubt, there is always some scientific benefit in experimentally falsifying the above two conjectures, so at least from this perspective you are also welcome to try experimentally falsify my MEAD propulsion concept, which will be simpler and less expensive than any of the two above: