I like the X Prize idea. That's exactly what I would do if I could.
The question is how do you convince enough people to donate to your cause via crowdfunding when the underlying science isn't even established?
Quote from: JordanLeDoux on 05/01/2015 07:20 AMI haven't been following these threads closely until recently, but I'm really curious if anyone here has examined whether or not Modified inertia from Hubble scale Casimir effects (MiHsC), which is a theory I just came across today, makes any sense at all. I never got far enough in math to really evaluate this level of physics on my own, but the "crackpot" alarms in my head didn't sound as I was reading about it.The basics of it are, any object moving to the right will create an event horizon somewhere to left beyond which information cannot be observed. Like other event horizons, this will result in radiation (similar to Hawking radiation) called Unruh radiation. The wavelengths for this radiation are at normal accelerations on the order of light years.But if you have something like a tube with light inside and reflective surfaces, the photons (because of their speed) will generate Unruh wavelength that are the exact resonant frequency of the tube.In a uniform tube, this does nothing, but in a cone shaped tube, it would bias the direction of force toward the narrow end.Again, this isn't my theory, it is proposed by a physicist at Plymouth U in the UK, but it seemed... reasonable.The theory evidently also has the nice benefit of explaining the effects of dark matter and dark energy without any special tuning, and it explains how inertia works in general from what I was reading.Does any of that make sense or sound plausible?EDIT: I ask mainly because a device like the EmDrive is one of the only testable predictions that you could make with this theory given the technology we have now.Hi Jordan,Good summary. I have tested MiHsC on the emdrive & the results are encouraging / not conclusive, see my paper:http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2015/PP-40-15.PDFBest wishes,Mike
I haven't been following these threads closely until recently, but I'm really curious if anyone here has examined whether or not Modified inertia from Hubble scale Casimir effects (MiHsC), which is a theory I just came across today, makes any sense at all. I never got far enough in math to really evaluate this level of physics on my own, but the "crackpot" alarms in my head didn't sound as I was reading about it.The basics of it are, any object moving to the right will create an event horizon somewhere to left beyond which information cannot be observed. Like other event horizons, this will result in radiation (similar to Hawking radiation) called Unruh radiation. The wavelengths for this radiation are at normal accelerations on the order of light years.But if you have something like a tube with light inside and reflective surfaces, the photons (because of their speed) will generate Unruh wavelength that are the exact resonant frequency of the tube.In a uniform tube, this does nothing, but in a cone shaped tube, it would bias the direction of force toward the narrow end.Again, this isn't my theory, it is proposed by a physicist at Plymouth U in the UK, but it seemed... reasonable.The theory evidently also has the nice benefit of explaining the effects of dark matter and dark energy without any special tuning, and it explains how inertia works in general from what I was reading.Does any of that make sense or sound plausible?EDIT: I ask mainly because a device like the EmDrive is one of the only testable predictions that you could make with this theory given the technology we have now.
So let's assume the EM drive works as described and Alpha Centauri can be reached in approximately 130 earth years accounting for acceleration, cruising and deceleration. Can anyone calculate the approximate time dilation spent? (i.e. the theory of relativity that shows time slowing down relative to earth time and stops at light speed.) Obviously gravitational effects on time dilation would probably be impossible to factor in. If time were slowed down enough would it allow reaching Alpha Centauri in a generation or two? Assuming one didn't die of radiation poisoning, a spec of dust piercing a hole through them at that speed, or outright insanity.
The speeds discussed in the Alpha Centauri mission proposal are sufficiently low that relativity effects are negligible.
a) the force measurements of the EM-drive, They are inconsistent. For example, with the EM Drive re-oriented, rotated by 180 degrees so that it points in the opposite direction, the measurements differ significantly. Need to have consistent measurements replicated at several labs (NASA Glenn, JPL, John Hopkins have been mentioned) for the evidence to be conclusive. Also, even if the data would be consistent, and the EM Drive can be used for space propulsion, that would not be conclusive evidence that its operation is due to a degradable and mutable quantum vacuum as there are several other explanations being explored.
There are plenty of things in science that don't have an explanation for using modern understanding but that we find applications for -- the placebo effect, for example -- but I highly doubt anyone would have accepted as science any research into confirming the placebo effect if it hadn't been done in a completely academic setting.Even if an independent group succeeds in replicating and isolating the phenomenon, it might take another Harold White to convince a reputable institution to take it seriously again -- and there aren't that many Harold Whites.Ultimately the only reason people (myself included) are taking this seriously at all right now is because the experiments confirming the phenomenon were done at NASA. Once the major objections to the existence of a new phenomenon have been weeded out, I think people at more institutions will naturally begin to attempt to replicate and advance the experiments.Crowdfunding might or might not work financially, but I don't think it'd be safe reputation-wise until everything can be ruled out that might potentially say the observations were all some kind of mistake. People will become even more skeptical than they are, and they'll begin to wonder if the crowdfunding money was the real motivation for the project all along.I personally have nothing against crypto, but I do worry that working on what many consider to be alternative science using what most consider to be alternative currency would just bring the alternativeness of the project over the edge and turn a lot of people off. I also don't think there are any political impediments to the project. No one is trying to shut it down or hide it or anything (at least for now), so half of the value of crypto is moot.Lastly, the research is slow-going, but it's not stalled. I'm as eager as anyone -- naysayer or not -- to see more come out of this, but the phrase "don't fix what isn't broken" comes to mind.
Sorry to be against the tide but: doesn't Xprize reward a team among others in competition, after some goal has been achieved? Eagleworks' team doesn't need to be motivated. They don't need to be rewarded after they reach, say, a 1N milestone. Repeatable 1 newton of thrust and they will already have NASA and the whole world backing them, X-Prize or not. A lower goal, less impressive (millinewtons) and layman people won't even bother to donate. That would not make them dreaming. Anyway, the issue is not within the goal itself.The real problem is funding. Eagleworks needs money for equipments to run better experiments. They need money before they can reach any ambitious goal, and specifically they need money in order to reach that ambitious goal.Or maybe there is something in X-Prize type funding that I do not know?
Sorry to be against the tide but: doesn't Xprize reward a team among others in competition, after some goal has been achieved? Eagleworks' team doesn't need to be motivated. They don't need to be rewarded after they reach, say, a 1N milestone. Repeatable 1 newton of thrust and they will already have NASA and the whole world backing them.
QuoteThere are plenty of things in science that don't have an explanation for using modern understanding but that we find applications for -- the placebo effect, for example -- but I highly doubt anyone would have accepted as science any research into confirming the placebo effect if it hadn't been done in a completely academic setting.Even if an independent group succeeds in replicating and isolating the phenomenon, it might take another Harold White to convince a reputable institution to take it seriously again -- and there aren't that many Harold Whites.Ultimately the only reason people (myself included) are taking this seriously at all right now is because the experiments confirming the phenomenon were done at NASA. Once the major objections to the existence of a new phenomenon have been weeded out, I think people at more institutions will naturally begin to attempt to replicate and advance the experiments.Crowdfunding might or might not work financially, but I don't think it'd be safe reputation-wise until everything can be ruled out that might potentially say the observations were all some kind of mistake. People will become even more skeptical than they are, and they'll begin to wonder if the crowdfunding money was the real motivation for the project all along.I personally have nothing against crypto, but I do worry that working on what many consider to be alternative science using what most consider to be alternative currency would just bring the alternativeness of the project over the edge and turn a lot of people off. I also don't think there are any political impediments to the project. No one is trying to shut it down or hide it or anything (at least for now), so half of the value of crypto is moot.Lastly, the research is slow-going, but it's not stalled. I'm as eager as anyone -- naysayer or not -- to see more come out of this, but the phrase "don't fix what isn't broken" comes to mind.Your point on crowdcrypto as being a doubling-down on "edge" is well taken. At the same time, the cure to that problem is simple: provide unimpeachable evidence that the phenomenon is real. A multi newton thrust is more proof than an ocean of equations, simulations or presentations. Intriguingly, I find that the concern that "but I don't think it'd be safe reputation-wise until everything can be ruled out that might potentially say the observations were all some kind of mistake. People will become even more skeptical than they are, and they'll begin to wonder if the crowdfunding money was the real motivation for the project all along." is one of the more compelling reasons why a more entrepreneurial approach might be necessary. When reputations and motivations are inhibiting efforts to get direct access to truth, something is broken. Let me reverse the discussion: assuming that material resources could be raised to fund R&D, what *harm* would it do to the effort? Presumably the deep harm would be if the "private" R&D were irresponsible - lots of hype and little discipline; and this irresponsibility tarnished the entire concept making it impossible for responsible folks to try it on. Certainly a risk. Implies that the X-prize approach would be the most appropriate.
Quote from: john smith 19 on 05/01/2015 07:01 PMQuote from: jknuble on 05/01/2015 06:33 PM While your cavity and ours arn't exactly the same one could say the situations are quite similar. The NASA Eagleworks system operated at 935MHz at (?)W, Roger Shawyer 2.45GHz at 850W, and Dr Yang at (?)MHz at 2.5KW (apologize if these missing values have been published, I didn't immediately see them). Welcome to the thread and the site.Eagleworks studies were done around 100W power level. However they did comment that it needed an HDPE insert in the cavities to make it work.No, actually Eagleworks' RF power amplifiers has now power ranges of up to 125 W, but they used powers ranging from a few watts to 17W in experiments conducted in ambient air (see the original full paper) then up to 50W in a hard vacuum (5×10−6 torr) but with a failing (arcing) RF amp, as stated in this post by Paul March aka Star-Drive.
Quote from: jknuble on 05/01/2015 06:33 PM While your cavity and ours arn't exactly the same one could say the situations are quite similar. The NASA Eagleworks system operated at 935MHz at (?)W, Roger Shawyer 2.45GHz at 850W, and Dr Yang at (?)MHz at 2.5KW (apologize if these missing values have been published, I didn't immediately see them). Welcome to the thread and the site.Eagleworks studies were done around 100W power level. However they did comment that it needed an HDPE insert in the cavities to make it work.
While your cavity and ours arn't exactly the same one could say the situations are quite similar. The NASA Eagleworks system operated at 935MHz at (?)W, Roger Shawyer 2.45GHz at 850W, and Dr Yang at (?)MHz at 2.5KW (apologize if these missing values have been published, I didn't immediately see them).
Quote from: Rodal on 05/01/2015 06:11 PMa) the force measurements of the EM-drive, They are inconsistent. For example, with the EM Drive re-oriented, rotated by 180 degrees so that it points in the opposite direction, the measurements differ significantly. Need to have consistent measurements replicated at several labs (NASA Glenn, JPL, John Hopkins have been mentioned) for the evidence to be conclusive. Also, even if the data would be consistent, and the EM Drive can be used for space propulsion, that would not be conclusive evidence that its operation is due to a degradable and mutable quantum vacuum as there are several other explanations being explored.Propellant: The Earth's magnetic field?
Quote from: flux_capacitor on 05/01/2015 07:47 PMSorry to be against the tide but: doesn't Xprize reward a team among others in competition, after some goal has been achieved? Eagleworks' team doesn't need to be motivated. They don't need to be rewarded after they reach, say, a 1N milestone. Repeatable 1 newton of thrust and they will already have NASA and the whole world backing them.If a team engineers a device with 1N of thrust, then the entire world would be skeptical of them...and they might have a very difficult time getting contracts simply because people won't take them seriously. In order to take them seriously, they would need to divulge all the details of their experiments and subject it to public scrutiny -- but if they do this, they completely lose their competitive advantage. If it turns out to be valid, then larger companies like Boeing etc would immediately jump in and beat them out of the market.Thus, by creating an XPrize like goal, that becomes a financial objective thats easier to shoot for and will encourage more teams to take on the time and risk of development.NASA teams cannot accept direct contributions, and the NASA Eagleworks team is not necessarily the best suited team to solve this problem -- and their theories of how it works might be completely wrong, even if it does work.
And now we have a pretty good video, objective (even including Sean Carroll from CalTech, and Alcubierre stating that he thinks his warp-drive concept is not practically feasible for centuries) about the NSF article on the EM Drive !http://www.newsy.com/47123/ There is some hope for the media, as these guys got this "right", fair and balanced, respecting science and yet keeping up some hope and they put the video together in a short amount of time