Author Topic: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application  (Read 690783 times)

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Liked: 292
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1380 on: 07/08/2011 01:49 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.
« Last Edit: 07/08/2011 01:53 AM by 93143 »

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 877
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1381 on: 07/08/2011 04:37 AM »

We keep trying, but I need a data point.  What kind of M-E data set will be required to tear you away from being "skeptical" and make you a believer in the M-E?  In other words, do we really need to float a self-contined, battery powered M-E test article into the confernce room under R-C control, while keeping it floating for XXX minutes to make you a believer?  Or can some subset of this M-E thruster performance level suffice? 

So are we now talking about the need for proof of the M-E input power to output thrust scaling rules being observed, and/or, do we need to increase thrust levels to 10 micro-Newton, 100 micro-Newton, 1.0 milli-Newton, 10 milli-Newton, or even more, and what selection critera are you using for your choices?  Or does the M-E unit really have to be a battery powered, self contained system hovering over your hand for an hour or two to put all qualms aside?? 

Best,

Paul M.

Demonstration of scaling rules into the milli-Newton range (say, 1 milli-Newton or so) would convince me.

It's about the scaling compared to the noise and other factors that seem like distractors.

It's not clear to me, for instance, why the runs are done as a frequency sweep -- it seems like a distractor. Why not do the runs at a rectified constant frequency where the stack is most resonant? Wouldn't that provide the clearest "thrust" signal?

Why does the thrust noise trace trend up over the course of a run in a major way?

If the unaveraged thrust signal was about 50 times what it currently is compared to the noise, there really wouldn't be any question.

The new .pdfs are much more convincing with regard to spurious causes, but, as is constantly pointed out, it really is an extraordinary claim, so "arguably just over six sigma" doesn't really cut it.

Cuddihy:

"It's not clear to me, for instance, why the runs are done as a frequency sweep -- it seems like a distractor. Why not do the runs at a rectified constant frequency where the stack is most resonant? Wouldn't that provide the clearest "thrust" signal?"

The problem with the constant drive frequency approach, which Woodward followed in some of his 2002 IIT test series, see attached report, is that the mechanical resonant frequency shifts with increasing PZT-Stack temperature.  Since these EDO EC-65 PZT-Stack caps have a Dissipation Factor (DF) of over 2.0% and a thermal conductivity of only about 1/300 that of copper, they heat up very fast when dissipating the couple of hundreds of RF Watts driving them.  So it turns out that frequency sweeping the stack over the noted 9-second runs will at least show where the stack was resonant and producing the peak thrust results without depoling it due to exceeding its Curie temperature.   And it appears that the peak thrust frequency is offset from the electrical and mechanical resonant frequencies of the stack due to the electrostrictive nonlinearities in the PZT material itself and the Carvin amplifierís output verses frequency response.  A better solution would be to design a variable frequency negative feedback loop tied to the PZT Stack temperature that would automatically keep the drive frequency at or near the PZT-Stack resonant frequency with a tunable offset of XXX Hz.  Care to design us one?

"Why does the thrust noise trace trend up over the course of a run in a major way?"

I think that is due to thermal drift in the ARC-Lite torque pendulum due to the heat being generated in the test article and being dissipated through the torque penulum's aluminum structure and bearings via IR radiation, but you need to ask Woodward for his opinion on that one as well.

"If the unaveraged thrust signal was about 50 times what it currently is compared to the noise, there really wouldn't be any question."

OK, so you vote for a +/-50-to-100 micro-Newton output thrust using the same ARC-Lite test setup since it is currently producing ~1.3 micro-Newton, check.  As a reminder my Faraday shielded MLT consistently produced a reversable +/-1,000 to 5,000 micro-Newton while it was working...

Best,

Paul M.

Edit:  Corrected typos and units
« Last Edit: 07/08/2011 04:43 AM by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 877
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1382 on: 07/08/2011 04:53 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.

93143:

Thatís my point exactly.  Let's set a level playing field for all scientific experiments as to what constitutes "Proof" and then don't change the rules in the middle of the game just because one is unfamiliar with the topic at hand, or even worse, having a political / economic agenda that does not benefit from the particular results in question.

Best,

Paul M.
Star-Drive

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1383 on: 07/08/2011 07:16 AM »
Perhaps the better question to ask is what would it take for other scientists to pay attention? What would it take for them to take on the cost and effort to replicate your experiments?

Sadly, I think the answer to these questions may indeed be a hovering, self-contained, battery powered test unit. Or perhaps a pendulum demonstration.

Offline Cinder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 562
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 189
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1384 on: 07/08/2011 07:45 AM »
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.
The pork must flow.

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1645
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 121
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1385 on: 07/08/2011 08:25 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.

Yet we have tenureships and book sales built on String Theory, which isn't even physically verifiable. Meanwhile we have GRBs which show no fine structure of the universe down to 10^-48m, 13 orders of magnitude below the Planck scale...
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 877
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1386 on: 07/08/2011 04:07 PM »
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.

Yet we have tenureships and book sales built on String Theory, which isn't even physically verifiable. Meanwhile we have GRBs which show no fine structure of the universe down to 10^-48m, 13 orders of magnitude below the Planck scale...
Lampy & Crew:

I posed my what level "Proof" question to the Woodward group and got back the following replies with the last one from a PhD Electrical Engineer on the distribution by the name of Bruce Long.  I think Bruce pretty much nailed it:

"Some thoughts:

"Short answer: "Independent replication / confirmation of observations." (Millis)

"So it just boils down to a popularity contest amongst the experimenters?" (March)

Well---uhm----Ah------YES

"There has got to be a more rational way to approach this issue..." (March)

Well --uhm ---Ah---   NO

No because in the end general acceptance is not a rational process--- it is a social process.

Geology presents a dismal example in the long nasty process that lead to the acceptance of the theory of plate tectonics despite evidence  understandable by a school child--ie the jigsaw pattern evident on a globe.

It might be useful to draw a distinction between acceptance of an experiment as valid and the acceptance of a theory as valid.

Likewise it  might be useful to draw a distinction between partial acceptance and near universal acceptance.

The first showing incremental acceptance on a spatial ( if you will) level, the second showing incremental acceptance on a temporal level.


It seems to me a clean, repeatable, convincing experiment is just about within our grasp,  general acceptance of Jim's theoretical work I believe-even with test articles hovering over the bench- is more distant.    Basically I beleive people- even "rational-logical" scientists as a whole are generally unable to abandon a world view held for a  significant fraction of a life time,and to replace it with a new paradigm. 

To support this dismal hypothesis I point to my reading of the history of acceptance of plate tectonics ( history of science term paper subject) and my personal experience trying to do turn arounds in more than one failing electronics company.

People cling to what they know and what is familiar.  They cling even tighter if they know they face failure.

Dysfunctional social structures it seems to me become stronger ( in a bad sense of the word), more  rigid and more dogmatic in the face of an existential threat.  There are numorous examples of this on the current world stage unfortunately.

But with clean, repeatable experimental evidence the transition does come.....eventually."


So we march toward making the M-E test articles be able to hover into the confernce room and the rest we leave to history.

Best,

Paul M.
Star-Drive

Offline IsaacKuo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 435
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1387 on: 07/08/2011 06:28 PM »
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"?

Because life is too short to apply the same standard of evidence to all claims across the board.  If I tell you that I just saw a Boeing 747 flying overhead, is it worth your time to require the same level of evidence as if I tell you that I just saw a Klingon Bird of Prey flying overhead?

It's just plain common sense.

Quote
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.

You're failing to consider the fact that human civilization has a long and continuing history of false claims including mistaken beliefs, mistaken analysis, lies, distortions, and cherry picking.  Because there is a significant chance that a claim can be false, you should consider the probability that a claim is false.

Like it or not, this probability is not independent of whether or not the claim contradicts mainstream science.  The overwhelming majority of claims which contradict mainstream science are false.  So, even if the statistical significance claimed is the same percentage, the probability of a fringe claim actually being false is higher than the probability of a mainstream claim actually being false.

So, for example, suppose one scientist tells you that he's 99% certain that he saw a Boeing 747 in the air.  Suppose another scientist tells you that he's 99% certain that he saw a Klingon Bird of Prey in the air.  Not only do they make these claims, they show you photographic evidence.  Based on a statistical analysis of the signal/noise ratio of the pixels, you find that both 99% assessments are indeed accurate.

Do you honestly rate both of those claims as equally likely to be true?
« Last Edit: 07/08/2011 06:29 PM by IsaacKuo »

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1388 on: 07/08/2011 07:03 PM »

So we march toward making the M-E test articles be able to hover into the confernce room and the rest we leave to history.

Best,

Paul M.

How long do you think it will take to achieve this?

With the exception of your 2004 experiment, you guys still seem to be stuck at micronewtons.

Offline kurt9

  • Member
  • Posts: 31
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1389 on: 07/08/2011 08:24 PM »

So we march toward making the M-E test articles be able to hover into the confernce room and the rest we leave to history.

Best,

Paul M.

How long do you think it will take to achieve this?

With the exception of your 2004 experiment, you guys still seem to be stuck at micronewtons.

A demonstration around 1 millinewton would convince me its real.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 877
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1390 on: 07/08/2011 08:35 PM »

So we march toward making the M-E test articles be able to hover into the confernce room and the rest we leave to history.

Best,

Paul M.

How long do you think it will take to achieve this?

With the exception of your 2004 experiment, you guys still seem to be stuck at micronewtons.

A demonstration around 1 millinewton would convince me its real.

GeeGee:

It should occur this fall with my MLT-2011 self-contained test article.

Kurt9:

1.0 milli-Newton under what circumstances?  My STAIF-2006 paper already demonstrated reversible MLT generated forces well over your 1.0 milli-Newton threshold requirement.

Best,

Paul M.
Star-Drive

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Liked: 292
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1391 on: 07/08/2011 09:29 PM »
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"?

Because life is too short to apply the same standard of evidence to all claims across the board.  If I tell you that I just saw a Boeing 747 flying overhead, is it worth your time to require the same level of evidence as if I tell you that I just saw a Klingon Bird of Prey flying overhead?

It's just plain common sense.

Yes, it's plain common sense.  What it is not is science.

Obviously the claim of seeing the 747 is more likely.  But if the BoP can be faked, so can the 747 - probably even more easily, in fact.  So the photographic evidence for the 747 does not actually constitute a higher degree of proof than the one for the BoP.

We can believe the 747 claim because it isn't perceived as intrinsically unlikely, and it saves mental effort.  Also because it probably isn't particularly important to be right.  But doing this in science is called "confirmation bias" and is a bad thing.

Offline IsaacKuo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 435
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1392 on: 07/08/2011 10:05 PM »
Because life is too short to apply the same standard of evidence to all claims across the board.  If I tell you that I just saw a Boeing 747 flying overhead, is it worth your time to require the same level of evidence as if I tell you that I just saw a Klingon Bird of Prey flying overhead?

It's just plain common sense.

Yes, it's plain common sense.  What it is not is science.

It is absolutely necessary in science.

Quote
Obviously the claim of seeing the 747 is more likely.  But if the BoP can be faked, so can the 747 - probably even more easily, in fact.  So the photographic evidence for the 747 does not actually constitute a higher degree of proof than the one for the BoP.

Correct.  And Sagan's correct point is that the 747 does not need a higher degree of proof, while the Klingon BoP does need a higher degree of proof.

Quote
We can believe the 747 claim because it isn't perceived as intrinsically unlikely, and it saves mental effort.  Also because it probably isn't particularly important to be right.  But doing this in science is called "confirmation bias" and is a bad thing.

Confirmation bias is an inherent feature of science.  Like it or not, science is inherently conservative with a large degree of inertia.  If there are a thousand confirmations of various predictions of relativity, then scientist's don't test to make sure it's valid every time they perform an experiment that uses a particle accelerator.  They assume it's valid, and use the theory to make calculations.  Without making these assumptions, science wouldn't be able to progress beyond the most basic observations.

If someone publishes a paper confirming predictions of relativity, this does not attract much scrutiny or attention.  But if someone publishes a paper refuting preductions of relativity, this is greeted with skepticism and is generally either scrutinized or dismissed.  Yes, this is an example of confirmation bias.  It's also how science has to work.  It just couldn't be any other way.

Too much confirmation bias can certainly be a bad thing, but science needs a degree of confirmation bias just to function.

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Liked: 292
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1393 on: 07/08/2011 10:56 PM »
You're conflating two different things.

You can go ahead and assume the prevailing theory is correct when you use it as a basis for other stuff, like your particle accelerator example.  (Or like the Mach Effect work, which assumes GRT is correct.)  You CANNOT assume the prevailing theory is correct when you are attempting to demonstrate that it is.

Confirmation bias, properly understood, is NOT necessary, except in the sense that it is unavoidable.

Offline Cinder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 562
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 189
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1394 on: 07/08/2011 10:59 PM »
edit- more concisely said above by 93143

Extraordinary evidence is only required if the status quo or conventions it challenges is extraordinarily well established.

It's one thing to move forward on some experiment based on a single confirmation bias assumption, but it's another to continue stacking assumptions on top of one another as you would by assuming e.g. that the laws of nature rule out Mach Effect conjecture and that therefore Mach Effect is unfounded and therefore requires an (assumed!) extraordinary burden of proof.

Because you (understandably) never went out and confirmed the full landscape of that assumed ME-excluding System Of The World, it's only an assumption that ME phenom as conjectured are fictive.  Why should that conjecture require extraordinary burden of proof when the burden of proof for the preceding assumption (a system of the world that excludes ME) hasn't even been fully satisfied?  Hasn't been fully satisfied but merely assumed.

In fact ME reportedly is rooted in just such a local fog of war, so to speak.  The origins of inertia are still new territory and ME conjecture plumbs into that fog in accordance with already established un-extraordinary conjectures.
« Last Edit: 07/08/2011 11:00 PM by Cinder »
The pork must flow.

Offline IsaacKuo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 435
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1395 on: 07/08/2011 11:10 PM »
You're conflating two different things.

You can go ahead and assume the prevailing theory is correct when you use it as a basis for other stuff, like your particle accelerator example.  (Or like the Mach Effect work, which assumes GRT is correct.)  You CANNOT assume the prevailing theory is correct when you are attempting to demonstrate that it is.

Confirmation bias, properly understood, is NOT necessary, except in the sense that it is unavoidable.

No, that's not confirmation bias.  That's circular reasoning.

Confirmation bias is a bias to either accept things that confirm your beliefs or disregard things that don't confirm your beliefs.

Offline IsaacKuo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 435
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1396 on: 07/08/2011 11:23 PM »
Because you (understandably) never went out and confirmed the full landscape of that assumed ME-excluding System Of The World, it's only an assumption that ME phenom as conjectured are fictive.

I haven't stated any opinion about this ME conjecture one way or another.

I am not a theoretical physicist.  I don't understand what in the world mainstream physicists are talking about when they get technical, so I know I wouldn't even be able to tell mainstream from fringe physics.

I do know that I'm not really interested in this thruster.  Even if it works as advertised, its performance would be on the order of other electric thrusters.  My interests lie in vastly different performance regimes.

As for the potential to revolutionize theoretical physics?  Like I said, I am not a theoretical physicist.  I don't even comprehend the Standard Model.

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1397 on: 07/08/2011 11:24 PM »
If transient mass fluctuations were being studied without the mention of applications to advanced propulsion, they would not even be regarded as an extraordinary claim. They would be held to the same standard of evidence as every other testable hypothesis in physics that does not violate the laws of physics. As soon as you mention words like "propellantless" or "reactionless" propulsion, eyebrows start to raise, and your hypothesis has been tossed in with the likes of ghosts and UFO's, requiring extraordinary evidence to satisfy an "extraordinary" claim.
« Last Edit: 07/08/2011 11:42 PM by GeeGee »

Offline Cinder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 562
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 189
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1398 on: 07/08/2011 11:39 PM »
Isaac - That was general "you"

If it works as advertized we get weekend roadtrip times for Moon destinations, and everything from Mars to Saturn within about a week's travel time.  I cannot see how this is not interesting.  And engine that gives you constant 1G like that is plenty for now, plenty to kick start colonization, along with a flurry of other significant applications.
« Last Edit: 07/08/2011 11:47 PM by Cinder »
The pork must flow.

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Liked: 292
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1399 on: 07/08/2011 11:39 PM »
You're conflating two different things.

You can go ahead and assume the prevailing theory is correct when you use it as a basis for other stuff, like your particle accelerator example.  (Or like the Mach Effect work, which assumes GRT is correct.)  You CANNOT assume the prevailing theory is correct when you are attempting to demonstrate that it is.

Confirmation bias, properly understood, is NOT necessary, except in the sense that it is unavoidable.

No, that's not confirmation bias.  That's circular reasoning.

Okay, I overstated it somewhat.

What I meant is that if you are more likely to accept evidence that the current theory is right than accept equally valid evidence that it is wrong, then you are subject to confirmation bias, which can harm the science if it leaks into the methodology or the interpretation of the results.  It is in no way good or necessary.

Assuming a well-founded theory is correct when attempting to build something else on it is an entirely different thing, and completely reasonable.

It's a rather fine philosophical point, I suppose...
« Last Edit: 07/08/2011 11:55 PM by 93143 »

Tags: