Martin Tajmar

ABOVE — Prof. Martin Tajmar is theorizing about using mini black holes to engineer Star Trek interstellar Warp Drive space propulsion technology at the Technische Universität Dresden, Germany. Since the largest astrophysical jets are produced by supermassive black holes in the centers of galaxies, then mini black holes could be expected to produce mini astrophysical jets that could be used for mini space propulsion.

Why not a Stargate?

No problem!

Then Martin Tajmar gave me,  Mike McCulloch,  a tour of his labs, in which he seems to be testing most of the anomalies I have heard of. I saw the equipment he used for the ‘Tajmar effect’ that I tried to explain in a paper in 2011 (see refs). It is still embedded in its concrete well. I held his small EmDrive. He also has a massive wind tunnel for more mundane aeronautical experiments. At one point Martin Tajmar said  “And here is my Stargate”. I looked through a window and saw a huge room in which he is building something that looks like the fictional stargate (it’s not).

 

Mike McCulloch dreamed up quantized inertia (QI) and based on it also Unruh radiation propulsion, so Martin Tajmar will have something to work with.

This is a summary of the visit I,  Mike McCulloch,  have just made to Prof. Martin Tajmar‘s esteemed Institute fuer Raumfahrttechnik at the Technische-Universitat-Dresden (TU-Dresden). I arrived on time at 10am. One of his students met me and took me to his office and then after a short chat, I gave a one-hour talk on quantised inertia (QI) to him & his research group of 30 or so. 

 

The most unexpected thing that Martin Tajmar said to me,  Mike McCulloch,  was in the evening while socialising (I had some delicious Saxische Sauerbraten and dumplings, and rather more than my usual amount of beer). He criticised most of the well-known lab anomalies as being debatable due to often sloppy technique, and yet showed some interest in an anomaly I thought had been wildly discredited: the paranormal Hutchison Effect.

 

We are also going to experiment with monochromatic Black Magic propulsion:

MickeyMouse

 

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
Date:  Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 3:52 PM
Subject:  AW:  Replication of the experiment ?

Hello,

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.

Best regards,

Martin Tajmar

dr-martin-tajmar-dresden-university-technology

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

Besucheradresse (Visitors):

Professur für Raumfahrtsysteme

Marschnerstrasse 32

01307 Dresden, Deutschland

Tel.: +49 351 463-38091

Fax: +49 351 463-38126

EMail: martin.tajmar@tu-dresden.de

Web: http://tu-dresden.de/ilr/rfs

 

WHAT  ELSE  IS  WRONG ?

Martin Tajmar :   Just imagine that an atomic clock is always inside the Faraday cage – no time difference has been measured here with incredible accuracy.

Dear Prof. Martin Tajmar, clocks do not measure time differences. Clocks measure time. In my experiment, the time difference is a result of subtracting the value of one recorded time measurement from the value of the other recorded time measurement that was obtained under specifically modified physical conditions. According to the present understanding, changes of these conditions should not have any influence on the phenomenon being tested. Therefore the existence of such time difference clearly indicates possibility of empirical discovery of a new physical phenomenon, which requires independent replications, and further experimentation.

I feel that this is the right place and the right time to mention what else is wrong. 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 on as the next best conjecture in propellantless space propulsion and gravity control?

image

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

gravitational effects can be produced other than by the accumulation of large masses.

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 changed his mind, and declared his experiment inconclusive.

At this point it is worth mentioning that alongside ESA, this European civilian experiment was co-funded by the U.S. Air Force.

Air_Force_Space_Command_Logo

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?

NASA employee in correspondence to me :

At NASA and elsewhere in the DoE and DoD government labs, PhDs can publish about basic physics theory or experiments that have no perceived direct application to weapons systems of the day or in the foreseeable future. So, Dr. Harold White  at Eagleworks Labs, who does have a high DoD security clearance, can still publish papers in the open publications, if they don’t come too close to the suppressed technology that the DoD is sitting on. And that is determined on a case by case basis. I thought at the time and still do that NASA was a public organization that should publish all data obtained via taxpayer funding, but sadly that was not being followed by a lot of labs at NASA used for dual military/civilian research. If that makes you feel you have been left out in the cold, join the rest of us who are not in the various DoD and DoE need-to-know stove pipe R&D programs that we have not been read into and never will be.

 

Therefore,  Prof. Martin Tajmar effectively 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 Star Trek interstellar Warp Drive, 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 in any economic way 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 mentioned conjectures, so at least from this perspective you are also welcome to try and experimentally falsify my MEAD propulsion concept, which will be simpler and less expensive:

tud-2

I am fascinated by the tireless energy and extreme dedication of Martin Tajmar in his search for new concepts and insights

——— Forwarded message ———
From:  Tino Schmiel <tino.schmiel@tu-dresden.de>
Date:  Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 4:02 PM

The day bows before the evening, the children rest, the sun flees, the scientists enjoy a glass of fine wine to close their day. Even so, I did not understand your motivation for your email [all of the above text of this page] to all of us. The world is full of fascinating and incredibly networked processes, which we give our limited mind access to through courageous assumptions and thus are only in a position to elicit interesting insights. Sometimes practical and useful – often entertaining only the human mind. – But in any case very worth discovering and experiencing. That is the raison d’être of the scientist. We modern minders use many tools whose developments are based on just such knowledge – knowledge gained by past scientists who could not guess what would once develop so helpfully from it. Just as complex and impenetrable are the reasons for our external communication. I am convinced that a majority of the addressees in your email will not penetrate the motivation of your message. In any case, I am fascinated by the tireless energy and extreme dedication of Martin Tajmar in his search for new concepts and insights, which he reveals to everyone. I am sure you are doing the same. Everyone on their turf. I wish you a good evening and a lot of pleasure with your discoveries,

Dr.-Ing.  Tino Schmiel,  Professur für Raumfahrtsysteme

tin-tino

Dear Prof.  Tino Schmiel,

Thank you very much for your kind reply.

Regretfully,  I did not understand your motivation for your email to me.

Did you take our correspondence for a turf war ?

I am very glad to learn that you are  “fascinated by the tireless energy and extreme dedication of Martin Tajmar in his search for new concepts and insights”.

However,  at the same time it makes me sad that with all his tireless energy and extreme dedication in his search for new concepts and insights, Prof. Martin Tajmar has not considered evaluating  my hypothesis with all its testable predictions  yet.

Better late  than never.

I remain optimistic.

champagne

Advertisements

3 Comments

  1. Please find below my comments on the EM drive and the Mach effect posted in an e-mail to the chair Greg Meholic of NFF FTP of AIAA on 6 July 2018

    Dear Greg,

    Good to learn that you took the NFFP TC chair. I hope that you are in good health and your family is doing well also.

    Concerning the physics of future flight, I have not changed my opinion:

    1. the EM drive cannot work, because it has no physical basis. You cannot tap the vacuum with a classical effect. Please remember my remark about the flying microwave oven or the flying coke can.

    2. The Woodward drive is equally nonphysical. The Higgs boson was detected on 4 July 2012, supposed to be giving mass to elementary particles. Hence Mach’s principle is no longer needed, nor is it valid anymore. It is a relic of the late 19th century. It also contradicts astrophysical observations.

    3. A different kind of electrodynamics will lead nowhere, e.g. Weber’s ED. This was before Maxwell and it is not even clear that it is Lorentz invariant.

    In any case, Maxwell’s ED does explain all known ED phenomena, so one cannot hope that with Weber’s ED one would be able to see a physical phenomenon, which is not in Maxwell’s equations. The best you can hope for is that Weber’s ED is as good as Maxwell’s theory, which I doubt.

    Maxwell’s equations, however, become nonphysical when you try to describe the interaction of an electron with its own electric field. The calculations lead to infinite self-acceleration.

    The electron must be considered as a single physical entity that by its own definition — single entity — cannot interact with itself. In Quantum physics you have the duality principle, that is, the electron either must be considered as a single particle or a wave, but not both at the same time.

    4. The only chance I see is that one can generate extreme gravitational fields that are outside GR. GR has been confirmed experimentally, but it does not necessarily describe all existing gravitational phenomena. We still think that there are theoretical reasons for the existence of these fields. Theoretical physics currently is a mess. The Standard Model of particle physics has been confirmed at all aspects by the LHC, although it does not include gravity. By contrast, Newton’s law recently has been confirmed experimentally down to the atomic scale, so that there is no room left for extra space dimensions, invalidating string theory and its derivatives, developed over more than four decades.

    5. Dark matter and dark energy are as elusive as ever. Neutrino physics is in shambles. Fermilab claims to have seen a sterile neutrino of 1 eV/c^2 that only couples via gravity to the other particles, but it oscillates. However, any energetic phenomenon would do the same. This doesn’t qualify a particle as a neutrino. But if there is a fourth neutrino, then there should be a fourth particle family, which is in clear conflict with the CERN OPAL experiment.

    6. We are currently writing an article about the possible existence of extreme gravity, that we intend to submit to a journal of theoretical physics.

    Propellantless propulsion is not a question of aerospace anymore, but goes to the fundamentals of present physics. All claims to have harnessed vacuum energy are without substance. The vacuum is extremely stable, as the existence of the Universe is showing us.

    These are a few thoughts that come to my mind for the AIAA meeting. I hope that you enjoyed the meeting and things are going well for you.

    I also hope to attend the next AIAA in 2019.

    Best wishes to you and all TC members,

    Jochem Hauser
    http://hpcc-space.de
    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/J_Haeuser

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  2. Ron Kita on Electrets and G-mod and granted patent US8901943. Note: there is a Dr MArtin Tajmar patent application a (Space) Drive using electrets. Application is in the W/O “device can be used to propel a spacecraft”. It is cited at the VERY end of the patent application.Respectfully, Ron Kita http://www.chiralex.com

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s