Author Topic: EM Drive Developments Thread 1  (Read 795610 times)

Offline Notsosureofit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 656
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 1367
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1020 on: 09/27/2014 08:26 PM »
Teflon sound speed 1400 m/sec

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 272
  • United States
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1021 on: 09/27/2014 08:35 PM »

Quote
Rodal has repeatedly asserted that the "scientific controls" of the inverted pendulum are not satisfactorily removing stray forces, but he has received no acknowledgement that this is the case.  Instead, people are arguing historical narratives, and offering wordy explanations of arbitrary terms.
  Paul addressed Dr. Rodal's concerns quite well.   They're answered.  ... I doubt whether anyone is going to find fault with either Eagle's work or Woodward's in this regard, as they both constantly subject themselves to careful input on their experimental setups on a regular basis.

You are mistaken and/or confused with something else.  Nobody has addressed the issues I have raised concerning parasitic self-excitation of the inverted pendulum due to coupling of swinging with the torsional mode, and the nonlinear nature of the magnetic damping term in the equations of motion. ...

Sorry going to have to call a flag on the play their Rodal. What your saying is only half correct. Paul March did address the issues you initially raised (that is the open letter you wrote that aceshigh reproduced on talk polywell).  And I do not think it is too much to assume that Ron is referring to that part of this long discussion.

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 272
  • United States
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1022 on: 09/27/2014 08:41 PM »
...
Quote
What is the expected rate of acceleration?  What is the measured acceleration?
This is different with every experiment.  IMHO, the proper way to know the answer to this, and it is a good question; is to use a high speed laser doppler vibrometer.  Other methods are far less precise.  Future experiments will use this method if I have anything to say about it.  It is fair to say however, that in general the accelerations generated in perovskites operating in the ultrasonic region, where the design provides a typical mechanical Q of about 700, are in the millions of gees.  The trouble is that the device also needs to oscillate at a second frequency which is not on the natural resonace of the device, and that oscillation will be tiny if not managed extremely well.  In order to know if it has been managed well, one needs a vibrometer.  Woodward tracks his accelerations with accelerometers but he cannot assign raw magnitudes to them in this way.
...

Any idea when we will see more experimental information from Woodward. Also who is going to be taking over for him in the medium to long term, where Mach Effect research is concerned?

...
Quote
How much electrical power goes into the lattice?
In the case of Woodward's current thruster experiments, about 100 watts, and less than one watt is dissipated.  But you cannot infer what you suppose from this answer as there are a handful of complex qualifications I would offer were we having a technical discussion of something you understood sufficiently.  Fact is you have not asked the right question and you cannot understand the right answer either.
...

For the benefit of us bystanders observing this discussion. Do you mind stating what the correct question and answer is?

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1023 on: 09/27/2014 08:45 PM »

Sorry going to have to call a flag on the play their Rodal. What your saying is only half correct. Paul March did address the issues you initially raised (that is the open letter you wrote that aceshigh reproduced on talk polywell).  And I do not think it is too much to assume that Ron is referring to that part of this long discussion.

@birchoff,

Paul March addressed the issue of translation of the center of gravity due to thermal expansion. 

The statement from John that Ron answered was <<Rodal has repeatedly asserted that the "scientific controls" of the inverted pendulum are not satisfactorily removing stray forces,>> Everything to do with the inverted pendulum and not thermal expansion.

 What I stated was correct.  I don't understand why Ron may think that thermal expansion is an issue with inverted pendulums.
« Last Edit: 09/27/2014 09:11 PM by Rodal »

Offline Ron Stahl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 210
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1024 on: 09/27/2014 08:48 PM »
Quote
On one hand you state that you are << just not familiar enough with the experimental setup>> used by Eagleworks for their "Anomalous.." paper and on the other hand you make this blanket, predictive, statement about <<doubt whether anyone is going to find fault>>.
Yes well, I've been doing this for a decade now.  Every engineering forum is filled with people who suppose they are going to find what they assert must be there--some kind of flaw in the test system.   In every one of these forums, there are engineers who presume there must be an error in the system, because they are unable to understand the operation of the device in question and know whether it ought to operate as proposed or not.  So you're in the majority, Dr. Rodal.  I would just note to you though, that Woodward's general reading list has guys with PhD's from Cambridge and Penn State and these are not simpleton types.  They're all doing what you're proposing to do, but with real time invested to understand the systems.  The question is really, are you going to take the time to understand?

Now as to the latest tweak to the Eagle balance, I'm all for that.  I can tell you, over the last few years while Eagle was getting ready to do these tests, they had all manner of difficulties.  It generally takes a year of effort to characterize a new balance like this, and this process is greatly exacerbated when you stick the balance in stainless steel and power it with high voltage.  Just grounding the thing sufficiently is a huge task, and everyone knows this who has been involved over the years.

However, certain controls can thwart certain kinds of troubles quite easily.  I didn't read back at your specific concern, but it sounds like it is dealt with quite ably when using a dummy load on the balance.  So if you didn't get the huge response you wanted , it is likely because the concern you have already has a control in place to cope with it.

In any event, I've known Paul for a lot of years and I will indeed be surprised if he let data go to conference with spurious sources in the mix.  Paul is not sloppy in anything he does.
« Last Edit: 09/27/2014 08:56 PM by Ron Stahl »

Offline Ron Stahl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 210
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1025 on: 09/27/2014 08:53 PM »
Quote
[Any idea when we will see more experimental information from Woodward. Also who is going to be taking over for him in the medium to long term, where Mach Effect research is concerned?
Jim should just be back from vacation about now.  He just started posting to his reading list but nothing about the new test items yet.  It will be an exciting season since he finally will have some PMN on the balance--something I've been after him for since 2007.  It's dicy stuff since it has such a tiny thermal bandwidth of operation, but it also can have much improved stats over the PZT the last few years.

Heidi Fern has already committed to pursue Jim's work when he is unable.  She's that convinced Jim is right in both theory and practice.
« Last Edit: 09/27/2014 08:54 PM by Ron Stahl »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1026 on: 09/27/2014 08:57 PM »
I didn't read back at your specific concern, but it sounds like it is dealt with quite ably when using a dummy load on the balance. 

Yes, it is apparent that you <<didn't read back at [my ]specific concern>>.

Also that you don't understand the issue of self-excitation and limit-cycles of oscillations with nonlinear damping  and coupling of torsional and swinging modes.  This is evident from your statement << it sounds like it is dealt with quite ably when using a dummy load on the balance>>   
« Last Edit: 09/27/2014 09:02 PM by Rodal »

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1027 on: 09/27/2014 09:03 PM »
Before class today, I was 183.2 pounds.  After class, 181.2.  Mostly hydrogen dioxide and sodium chloride.   I note that the sodium chloride sports a cubic lattice.  I moved more mass than that there sintered lattice  setup is ever going to move, and I just used chemical energy.

Also, true to my earlier promise, I did not buy Rodal a Scotch on Friday.

Anybody have a count on how many times the term "you" was used in post #1020?

Also, just to prove how weird the universe really is, here's a picture of my first office building.  1020 19th Street in DC.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 272
  • United States
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1028 on: 09/27/2014 09:20 PM »
Quote
[Any idea when we will see more experimental information from Woodward. Also who is going to be taking over for him in the medium to long term, where Mach Effect research is concerned?
Jim should just be back from vacation about now.  He just started posting to his reading list but nothing about the new test items yet.  It will be an exciting season since he finally will have some PMN on the balance--something I've been after him for since 2007.  It's dicy stuff since it has such a tiny thermal bandwidth of operation, but it also can have much improved stats over the PZT the last few years.

Heidi Fern has already committed to pursue Jim's work when he is unable.  She's that convinced Jim is right in both theory and practice.

Good to hear.

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1029 on: 09/27/2014 09:41 PM »
.
Does this merit a bottle of Scotch? John, when you wrote <<Rodal has repeatedly asserted that the "scientific controls" of the inverted pendulum are not satisfactorily removing >>: the issues I raised are endemic, and known, with inverted pendulums and magnetic dampening.  They are not due to scientific controls.  The alternatives I proposed are

A) to use the Cavendish type pendulum damped by an oil bath (as used in the classical experiments for the inverse-law of gravitation and the measurement of the Casimir force), and as used by Brito et.al. in their 2009 report, or

B) if vertical height is an issue, and therefore must use an inverted pendulum, it should be modified such that the thruster is horizontal at all times (to eliminate mode-coupling) as done for example by Prof. Martinez-Sanchez at MIT Aero & Astro.

I also proposed that the higher priority should be to next test at John Hopkins because they have a Cavendish type pendulum and have expressed interest (according to White's report).  To test at John Hopkins with higher priority than testing at JPL or NASA Glenn, because JPL and Glenn ( according to White's report) have proposed to also use inverted pendulums.
« Last Edit: 09/28/2014 01:44 AM by Rodal »

Offline frobnicat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 151
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1030 on: 09/27/2014 09:53 PM »
​Hope that helps.​  And yeah, you should read the book.  There is so much important stuff in that book that even the asides make the book worthwhile.  Woodward's proposed model of the electron is going to win him a Nobel Prize if it turns out to be correct, and making these thrusters work provides significant evidence to that end.

What strikes me here, as someone trained in down to earth engineering but also interested in fundamental research, is that what appears (from an average mainstream science educated person) we have people applying more of engineering methodology, trying to find some variants and to improve a useful device, while the "simple" experimental evidence for any effect at all (regardless of backing theories) is obscured by this apparently endless series of various devices/various experimental setups, to the point it seems utterly unable to convince mainstream scientists of the reality of a possible experimental positive result (regardless of backing mainstream theories). If dr Woodward et al are interested in a Nobel, my feeling (as an average mainstream science educated person somehow following the topic) is that the various teams involved in experiments are choosing the wrong methodology and should follow some guidelines for fundamental research experimentalists : please produce a complete detailed description of one single self contained airtight device, thermally isolated, energetically isolated, electromagnetically shielded, that is reproducible and will guarantee anyone caring to follow the instructions to observe a thrust/power effect better than 1/c for a few seconds : even if only a few % better than 1/c would be enough for a Nobel. If some theory did prove to be useful to reach the appropriate design then all the better for the Nobel, but theories can come later.

So far my feeling is that the "propellantless propulsion proponents" are doing a really great job at NOT convincing an (admittedly already reluctant) mainstream science community that there is any effect at all. Maybe that is not their goal, maybe they prefer to nurture scepticism and keep working in their corner, with little funds and equipments and small teams, polishing a design to truly amaze us later with a whooping N/kW thruster for all to buy at RadioShack ? But it seems strange to me (and my guess to a majority of scientists and engineers), if effect is real then it is worth fundamental physics methodology, not necessarily billions $ but at least complete open access to blueprints, complete experimental datafiles (including preliminary adjustments and settings) and not just snapshots of a few screens (to be compensated for perspective! can't they dump the raw values of those instruments on some disk?) (and believe our word, this is just so typical a record it would be useless to show you the others...) scatterplots of hundreds of data points (on/off pulses) with varying parameters (positioning, frequency, power, time of the day, temperature and humidity in lab, with or without added ferromagnetic shielding here and there, with or without thermal shielding of the flex bearings...) to show correlations or absence of correlation...

I understand the limited means for small teams small budgets, but the will to log and communicate every possible detail on a stable reference experiment is lacking. NDAs are a no go for fundamental science and a poor excuse considered what is at stakes : BSM physics. What are the general feeling in the proponents ranks about the lack of recognition by the mainstream community so far ? They just don't care ?

Understand this is not an attack on persons, it is an attack on methodology. I have no secret agenda, I have no financial or professional interest in propellentless drives to fail to reach recognition, should they be possible at all. I do have an interest in scientific knowledge and good methodology, and communication to the general public.


Online RotoSequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 777
  • Liked: 572
  • Likes Given: 780
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1031 on: 09/27/2014 10:02 PM »
I agree strongly with frobnicat.

Generally speaking, it's hard to call it good science, or to believe that it's a real effect, when it only seems to manifest itself with an unending list of different devices with highly tuned, yet error prone, experimental apparatuses.
« Last Edit: 09/27/2014 10:02 PM by RotoSequence »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1032 on: 09/27/2014 10:07 PM »
So far my feeling is that the "propellantless propulsion proponents" are doing a really great job at NOT convincing an (admittedly already reluctant) mainstream science community that there is any effect at all. ...
I agree, that is my reaction as of late, with many exceptions.  Notably, Paul March (@Star-Drive), addressing a number of points with numbers and data.  Unfortunately he stopped frequenting this forum some time ago.  But I truly appreciate all of the responses I have seen from Paul March.  He is truly missed.

Of relevance to what is being discussed, Paul March readily admitted that they had a problem with the magnetic dampening, interacting, and therefore affecting the baseline and that they are attempting to address it with a "2nd generation magnetic damper design" (which I don't think will be enough to address it as I will show as I get the time to do so). 
« Last Edit: 09/27/2014 11:03 PM by Rodal »

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 272
  • United States
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1033 on: 09/27/2014 11:11 PM »
​Hope that helps.​  And yeah, you should read the book.  There is so much important stuff in that book that even the asides make the book worthwhile.  Woodward's proposed model of the electron is going to win him a Nobel Prize if it turns out to be correct, and making these thrusters work provides significant evidence to that end.

What strikes me here, as someone trained in down to earth engineering but also interested in fundamental research, is that what appears (from an average mainstream science educated person) we have people applying more of engineering methodology, trying to find some variants and to improve a useful device, while the "simple" experimental evidence for any effect at all (regardless of backing theories) is obscured by this apparently endless series of various devices/various experimental setups, to the point it seems utterly unable to convince mainstream scientists of the reality of a possible experimental positive result (regardless of backing mainstream theories). If dr Woodward et al are interested in a Nobel, my feeling (as an average mainstream science educated person somehow following the topic) is that the various teams involved in experiments are choosing the wrong methodology and should follow some guidelines for fundamental research experimentalists : please produce a complete detailed description of one single self contained airtight device, thermally isolated, energetically isolated, electromagnetically shielded, that is reproducible and will guarantee anyone caring to follow the instructions to observe a thrust/power effect better than 1/c for a few seconds : even if only a few % better than 1/c would be enough for a Nobel. If some theory did prove to be useful to reach the appropriate design then all the better for the Nobel, but theories can come later.

So far my feeling is that the "propellantless propulsion proponents" are doing a really great job at NOT convincing an (admittedly already reluctant) mainstream science community that there is any effect at all. Maybe that is not their goal, maybe they prefer to nurture scepticism and keep working in their corner, with little funds and equipments and small teams, polishing a design to truly amaze us later with a whooping N/kW thruster for all to buy at RadioShack ? But it seems strange to me (and my guess to a majority of scientists and engineers), if effect is real then it is worth fundamental physics methodology, not necessarily billions $ but at least complete open access to blueprints, complete experimental datafiles (including preliminary adjustments and settings) and not just snapshots of a few screens (to be compensated for perspective! can't they dump the raw values of those instruments on some disk?) (and believe our word, this is just so typical a record it would be useless to show you the others...) scatterplots of hundreds of data points (on/off pulses) with varying parameters (positioning, frequency, power, time of the day, temperature and humidity in lab, with or without added ferromagnetic shielding here and there, with or without thermal shielding of the flex bearings...) to show correlations or absence of correlation...

I understand the limited means for small teams small budgets, but the will to log and communicate every possible detail on a stable reference experiment is lacking. NDAs are a no go for fundamental science and a poor excuse considered what is at stakes : BSM physics. What are the general feeling in the proponents ranks about the lack of recognition by the mainstream community so far ? They just don't care ?

Understand this is not an attack on persons, it is an attack on methodology. I have no secret agenda, I have no financial or professional interest in propellentless drives to fail to reach recognition, should they be possible at all. I do have an interest in scientific knowledge and good methodology, and communication to the general public.

I agree with what you are saying, but I think there seems to be an assumption that Eagleworks or Dr. Woodward have something that could be so easily reproduced that a complete description is all that is needed for someone else to reproduce it. As someone who is interested in seeing this line of research carried out, my perspective is that we are really just at the beginning, where the researchers have a hypothesis and are carrying out experiments to attempt to prove those hypotheses. In Eagleworks case they think they can push on the quantum vaccum and are carrying out tests according to their idea to see if it actually can be done. While Dr. Woodward believes it should be possible to temporarily shield some matter from the effects of all the matter in the universe in just such a way to be able to coax thrust out of it. Both ideas on their face are extraordinary. But thats all they are right now. It is my perspective that Eagle works is trying to get to the point that they can provide someone with a description that can be independently verify. They just dont have that right now. As for Woodward In his book the reason he has moved from his classical MET design to MLT and back to MET is because he was unable to get a consistent thrust signal after having his designs tested in more than one way.

The real problem is, everyone seems to be starting with the assumption that what Woodward or Eagleworks has is an actual working device. While what I think they both have is akin to proof that there may be smoke on the horizon. Now they are attempting to verify that the smoke is real and it is being caused by a fire.

In a way Rodal's posts I believe are inadvertently the cause of this. I GREATLY appreciate the analysis he has provided, but in my opinion I think it has become painfully clear about 30-35 pages ago that we do not have enough information to conclusively prove or disprove that the devices work as described. At best we have conclusively proven that we don't have enough information. At this point the only move left is to carry on with our lives until we glean any more new useful information.

P.S. As a heads up to everyone Shawyer is set to give a presentation at IAC 2014 on October 03 see link here http://www.iafastro.net/iac/paper/id/21913/summary/. I severely doubt he will have anything that passes my definition of useful information. My money would bet that he plans to recycle his old presentations plus reference the Eagleworks conference paper. Though this is a bet I would not mind loosing.

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1034 on: 09/27/2014 11:25 PM »
...
@birchoff

Very thoughtful post. Yes, it is painful, because all of us search for meaningful answers, and you are right, sometimes the answers are just not there.

I have recently noticed that this type of effect appears to go back to the 1920's, at least:

<<During the 1920s, Thomas Townsend Brown was experimenting with an x-ray tube known as a "Coolidge tube," which was invented in 1913 by the American physical chemist William D. Coolidge. Brown found that the Coolidge tube exhibited a net force (a thrust) when it was turned on. Brown applied for a British patent on April 15, 1927, which was issued on November 15, 1928 as Patent No. 300,311, entitled, “Method of Producing Force or Motion.”>> http://www.sunrisepage.com/ufo/files/Brown,%20Thomas%20Townsend.%20British%20Patent%20300,311.pdf

So it is even more depressing that this apparent effect (see the March 2003 article "Force on an Asymmetric Capacitor", by Thomas B. Bahder and Chris Fazi", Army Research Laboratory, Adelphi, MD http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0211/0211001.pdf) of very small forces involved with electromagnetic devices has such a long and meandering history.
« Last Edit: 09/28/2014 01:22 PM by Rodal »

Offline frobnicat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 151
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1035 on: 09/28/2014 11:36 AM »
I agree with what you are saying, but I think there seems to be an assumption that Eagleworks or Dr. Woodward have something that could be so easily reproduced that a complete description is all that is needed for someone else to reproduce it. As someone who is interested in seeing this line of research carried out, my perspective is that we are really just at the beginning, where the researchers have a hypothesis and are carrying out experiments to attempt to prove those hypotheses. In Eagleworks case they think they can push on the quantum vaccum and are carrying out tests according to their idea to see if it actually can be done. While Dr. Woodward believes it should be possible to temporarily shield some matter from the effects of all the matter in the universe in just such a way to be able to coax thrust out of it. Both ideas on their face are extraordinary. But thats all they are right now. It is my perspective that Eagle works is trying to get to the point that they can provide someone with a description that can be independently verify. They just dont have that right now. As for Woodward In his book the reason he has moved from his classical MET design to MLT and back to MET is because he was unable to get a consistent thrust signal after having his designs tested in more than one way.

Ok, this is preliminary and difficult. But, regardless of theories, they claim results, they claim difficult to obtain and measure but real non classical effects. Sceptic but open minded readership is not requiring cautionary phrase "assuming any propellantless effect at all is possible" at each single slide or paragraph of the publications, but the overall tone is that they have no doubt they are onto something, and trying to improve that something. But there is nothing to improve if there is nothing, and it is very possible there is nothing, that propellantless effects (better than 1/c) is not part of reality, like FTL travels. It would be very desirable but it could be just plain impossible. No matter bright theories to explain how it could be possible, and it is certainly worth investigating such possibilities, in the end it might be just plain impossible. And that is what best contemporary theories and their theoreticians are telling. They could be wrong. They very possibly could be right, even if wrong on a lot of other things.

If all the signals are false, then there is no progress to be made by comparing the signals. For instance it is irrelevant to make a theory that better explains why a thruster could better push on vacuum with a dielectric resonator than without, it is irrelevant to make devices with dielectric resonators because seeing a signal would be better than no signal. I think that they are trying too hard to see something, and not hard enough to see nothing.

There is the device and the experiment to test the device. As for the experimental part there is a force measuring system and an enclosure around the device to insure the device is isolated from the rest of the experiment and can't expel anything or push on any wall or field. Working in a vacuum is a kind of enclosure, but it is far from sufficient. If any effect at all is possible then this enclosure is irrelevant for applications. For determining the all or nothing answer of "is the effect real ?" this enclosure is paramount. The experimenters and theoreticians here seem to put so much accent on the device, some real effort on the force measuring (but maybe not the appropriate apparatus), but not much about the enclosure.

Except when they do, then we get clear answer but null result, no effect (for what was previously claimed as real) : so what was the progress made by believing in the previous results for some time ? If effect is impossible, any progress is illusory.



Offline Notsosureofit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 656
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 1367
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1036 on: 09/28/2014 11:53 AM »
Progress in instrumentation is still important progress.

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1037 on: 09/28/2014 12:42 PM »
I think that they are trying too hard to see something, and not hard enough to see nothing.
An excellent summary.

Offline frobnicat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 151
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1038 on: 09/28/2014 01:15 PM »
Quote from: Notsosureofit
Progress in instrumentation is still important progress.

yes it is, but it is not a progress to better propellantless drives unless they are possible at all. Alright this could be progress toward knowing if it is possible or not, but what I mean is that if the accent is put on magnitude of signals in experiments with spurious effects rather than eliminating (or being able to filter out) all spurious effects on clean settings first then the progress is in making better spurious effects, not better real effect. I'm thinking here of the dean drive.
Quote from: wikipedia dean drive
In 2012 a researcher attempting to characterize the Woodward effect, another proposed reactionless drive effect, has stated that she carefully designed her experiments to specifically exclude any "Dean drive" effects: the unintended interaction with the environment in, around or touching the apparatus. She considered these effects "spurious noise".
It appears to me some people are spending a lot of energy at improving spurious effects as if it were a progress toward a real effect. As for the later, considering the real effect is impossible and there is therefore no real part to be distinguished from spurious noise, improving signal magnitude is no progress at all. The null results of experiments by Brito/Marini/Galian are a progress. Not because the result is null and I would want standard physics to win, but because it appears as a clean result (within the sensitivity...). Obviously if you were to produce an apparently clean positive it would be under much more scrutiny and attacks than a null result...

I believe involved experimentalists (of recent discussed research) are intelligent people, trying to do serious work to assess and eliminate or filter out spurious effects and produce a clean setup for their result. Also I understand this is difficult, and it takes time and budgets. The feeling though is that they are a bit too much enthusiast on believing this is real and put too much in device designs and variations and not enough in isolation and shielding. Not saying no effort at all is made on that, or to report or answer on those spurious aspects, but not enough to be convincing for such extraordinary claims. Again, Dean drive... false progress. Even if we did learn some things about "unsymmetrical frictional resistance" (useful but not as much as reactionless forces, by a light year) and about optimising such "dean drive effect" : not much useful at all, except maybe for robot actuation, but then probably better to study for this specific goal from the start as for moving around a robot a dean drive would be a poor comparison to a device that don't pretend to be isolated from ground effects (while still using them but in a less obvious manner).


Offline frobnicat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 151
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1039 on: 09/28/2014 01:34 PM »
In other words, see any progress here ? :



What if all those recent experiments are only more high-tech less obviously not beyond standard physics ? 

(how is it possible to include a video directly inside the post ?)

Tags: