Author Topic: EM Drive Developments Thread 1  (Read 796661 times)

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1120 on: 09/29/2014 04:37 PM »
Oh, and the drink is a Martini.

Huh.  Shaken or stirred?

There's also this paper:

But what does the latest astrophysical data show?  My (limited) knowledge is that G hasn't changed appreciably with time...
Don't know about its claimed small anisotropy.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9163
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 611
  • Likes Given: 316
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1121 on: 09/29/2014 04:43 PM »
Dunno what today's value is, but the point of the paper is that our increasingly accurate measurements are not honing into a limiting value, but that the value is changing, and not in a predictable dierection, even if by only a small amount.  If G is changing, then why and how become important questions.  And if why and how can be answered, then one can ask if it can be controlled.  Just hare braining on the ramifications of understanding gravity and inertia, and it's applicability to a propellantless drive.
« Last Edit: 09/29/2014 05:31 PM by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 800
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 148
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1122 on: 09/29/2014 04:45 PM »

Being unable to build a consistent and reproducible experiment in 17 years is completely compatible with "no true effect is possible" or "true effect is possible but were never encountered yet", and less and less compatible with "some true effect was witnessed at some point". Regardless of priors and theories.


you missed "or true effect has been encountered and demonstrated in numerous trials, but required conditions not understood sufficintly to make it reliable and consistent," which is also compatible with the history. Otherwise, I agree.
Quote

Quote
The one thing that changes the dynamic is if you can increase the thrust/power to the level where spurious sources of thrust are differentiated by the power level. The larger the thrust being measured, the easier it is to figure out the source.

So even if the theory is wrong, after so many years of chasing something uncertain, and if you're convinced either by the underlying theory or previous results, surely it makes sense to keep trying to increase the thrust while only slowly chipping away at the spurious potential sources.

If "my" theory is correct (true effect is impossible) : the thrust is spurious, trying to augment it is trying to augment a spurious effect. At some point it could appear clearly as spurious because it was augmented. Ok, I give you that.
Ok, so you accept the main point I made. Good. Sure took a lot of words to say that though.

Quote

But it is also possible that in this antagonistic interplay between lowering the effects one recognize as spurious and augmenting the effects believed to be true (still spurious, but not recognized as such), and changing constantly from set-ups, devices, experimental conditions... one is just keeping on the level of confusion needed to maintain an illusion of true effect and progress when there is none.

That is an entirely unjustified characterization that belongs more to charlatanery like Rossi's ecat or Blacklight power. Neither Woodward nor White's open efforts deserve that.
Quote

So even if augmenting the thrust could be a way to find and understand it as a spurious effect (real progress) my take is that it is not the best way. Focus should be on a good appropriate balance and isolating the device, first, like Brito et al. Then if you have a positive result, this is a clean result, apply for Nobel. Else, null result (like Brito et al), this is also a clean result. Then try another theory/design. Don't expect better thrusting as any guideline for the new design as this is all or nothing, either you have a real effect (and improvement can come later, after the Nobel) or you have no real effect (and improving thrust is pointless). So every new design is a blank page.

Consider our medieval scientists, after some time at becoming expert at hoping on a given scale to optimise the averaged apparent weight they build a new and better scale. The experience gained in hoping to fool a mechanical scale is still useful to get non null result with the new model of scale, but not as good. Disparate results... but still non null, and still possible to refine the aptitude to fool this new kind of scale... (also at lower levels). Better and better scales, lower and lower effects, but still non null, and still possible to "improve" on any given scale. At some point a monk remarks that blowing downward has a very small but significant and continuous effect on apparent weight. That would be a real effect (for the goal of flying/hovering). What was gained in terms of progress by all those years of hoping when discovering this new real effect ? Better scales, I grant you that, but for the real effect it's like starting from a blank page.

Nice strawman. But this proposed path is exactly what these efforts have been doing! And each time a particular spurious source is ruled out, critics have found a new hobby horse to criticize. So after years of this, at some point you can only address the forest of potential sources, as I said, by attempting to increase the force. If you fail to do so, that is another brick in the wall against accepting the theory. So it's best for all parties involved, including the critics, yes?

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1123 on: 09/29/2014 05:36 PM »
... after years of this, at some point you can only address the forest of potential sources, as I said, by attempting to increase the force. If you fail to do so, that is another brick in the wall against accepting the theory. So it's best for all parties involved, including the critics, yes?
@cuddihy

Yes, attempting to increase the thrust force is certainly best for all parties involved, the inventors and their backers as well as those that question whether the thrust forces are real (and if so, whether they are subject to be scaled up to enable the 269 days trip to Titan and Enceladus described by Eagleworks). 

With all the problems I see in measuring the thrust in a magnetically damped inverted pendulum like the one at Eagleworks, I certainly think that it would make things much easier if the thrust forces were increased.  I understand that Eagleworks is trying to do that with their next Frustum microwave device.

If the thrust forces were increased to be comparable to the thrust force of an ion rocket there are so many places where these devices could be tested...

Until that (increasing the thrust force) happens the #1 priority should be to test using the Cavendish at John Hopkins University (for the reasons I posted).

Offline Notsosureofit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 656
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 1367
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1124 on: 09/29/2014 06:23 PM »
Intresting:

Axion Dark Matter Experiments
G.Rybka Talk at the Workshop on Frontiers of New Physics: Colliders and Beyond in Trieste, Italy (2014)

Oops :Check slides 29/31 and 28/31 on the inclusion of dielectrics  (no time for chatting just now)
« Last Edit: 09/29/2014 06:34 PM by Notsosureofit »

Offline Ron Stahl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 210
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1125 on: 09/29/2014 06:29 PM »
If the experiments cannot be easily reproduced by other scientists at other locations, they cannot  be considered part of the scientific progress.
This is certainly not true.  First of all we'll never be agreed with what is "easy" but even should we under special circumstances, "ease" of experiment has never been one of the criteria used to judge experimental science.

And I'll give an example.  Reading quickly down from last week's notes, I see again the criteria that the experimental setup ought to be "self-contained".  I'd just note i coined that phrase years ago, probably in this forum when looking at the issue of the power supply.  The trouble is, this criteria, while it removes general doubts, creates anything but "ease" of experiment.

In the case of Woodward's work, he has correctly avoided self-contained power systems for good reasons.  First of all, there are plenty of scientific controls and protocols that can establish whether one has a spurious contribution from the power supply, and these controls are part of the foundation for Woodward's work, so he really doesn't need a self-contained apparatus and this is normally requested by people who are not yet familiar enough with the setup to make an educated appraisal of it.  And I'll note, there is no onus on the experimenter to provide for "ease' of judgement.  The onus is for good science.

So why does Woodward feed power to the thruster through the galinstan contacts rather than put a battery aboard?  Some of this is simple economics and some is a necessary part of the scientific controls applied.  In short, it would be extremely expensive to have a self-contained apparatus that can provide controls such as variable voltage to the thruster, and clearly demonstrating thrust as a function of voltage is one key element that has to be provided in these tests.  If one were to go with a self-contained setup, one would necessarily have to be able to vary voltage, the phase between the 1w and 2w components of the signal, etc., and to control such things with an RF control signal and receiver inside the vacuum chamber, where high voltage is involved, is certainly not ever going to be "easy" nor is it within Woodward's budget.  So he's doing what he can with the resources he has and when one avails themselves to all the details of the setup, one can see the concerns about power into the balance arm have indeed been dealt with in other ways.

This said, let me note that I am still a proponent of a self-contained demonstration but for other reasons.  The fact is, we need to address the veracity issue here.  There's no money for real replication, so what to do?  Well, what you do is look for independent validation without funds for replication which is to say, you design a kit that can be moved from one lab to the next and using each lab's own protocols, test a single device (or small number of identical devices.)  In order to move the whole kit, you have to have serious portability, so you are looking at a much more expensive experiment than you would otherwise.  You want to build the thruster and power system, such that they can be put on half a dozen different balances, without costing each of these other labs so much that this solution is out of the realm of possibility.

And I would just note to you, these very practical concerns about who pays for what very often determine what gets tested and what does not.  Woodward cannot pay for a replication and have that work provide the necessary independence such that the replication would generate sufficient veracity.  What is required therefore is to put the cash into a kit that can be used to validate at various different labs, and this does seem to me requires a self-contained setup.  I'm all for this, but this requires serious funding.  It's not a hobby project.  It's near a million dollars just to miniaturize the power system for this, but then you hope to get your validation studies for free.

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1126 on: 09/29/2014 06:51 PM »
Intresting:

Axion Dark Matter Experiments
G.Rybka Talk at the Workshop on Frontiers of New Physics: Colliders and Beyond in Trieste, Italy (2014)

Oops :Check slides 29/31 and 28/31 on the inclusion of dielectrics  (no time for chatting just now)

I had not yet seen that presentation  "Axion Dark Matter Experiments  G.Rybka Talk at the Workshop on Frontiers of New Physics: Colliders and Beyond in Trieste, Italy (2014)", thanks for the tip  :),  Here is the link to that presentation:

http://cdsagenda5.ictp.it//askArchive.php?categ=a13203&id=a13203s13t10&ifd=48107&nm=Rybka.pdf&down=1&type=Presentation_Rybka

Here I attach slides 27, 28 and 29

Notice how the expected axion coupling increases with expected axion mass.

Look at the magnitude of those Q's  (10^6)

They now report testing at much higher frequencies as well: 15 to 120 GHz range. They were previously testing in the 0.81 to 0.86 GHz range, see:  http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1263849#msg1263849

Eagleworks run the Frustrum at 1.94 GHz  (twice the value of what ADMX run before, but less than 7 times what they report now in this slide).

They are also running with a lower magnetic field (3 T and 6 T instead of the previously reported >7 T)

They are spacing the dielectric resonators by 1/2 the wavelength in the waveguide.
« Last Edit: 09/29/2014 07:18 PM by Rodal »

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9163
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 611
  • Likes Given: 316
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1127 on: 09/29/2014 07:23 PM »
If the experiments cannot be easily reproduced at all by other scientists at other locations, they cannot  be considered part of the scientific progress.

This is certainly not true.

Fixed that for Rodal.  Is Rodal's statement now true?
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1128 on: 09/29/2014 07:28 PM »
Slides 30 and 31 from the presentation  "Axion Dark Matter Experiments  G.Rybka Talk at the Workshop on Frontiers of New Physics: Colliders and Beyond in Trieste, Italy (2014)".  Here is the link to that presentation:

http://cdsagenda5.ictp.it//askArchive.php?categ=a13203&id=a13203s13t10&ifd=48107&nm=Rybka.pdf&down=1&type=Presentation_Rybka

__________________

This belongs immediately following my presentation of the other slides, before John's impromptu correction  :)
« Last Edit: 09/29/2014 07:30 PM by Rodal »

Offline Ron Stahl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 210
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1129 on: 09/29/2014 07:28 PM »
If the experiments cannot be easily reproduced at all by other scientists at other locations, they cannot  be considered part of the scientific progress.

This is certainly not true.

Fixed that for Rodal.  Is Rodal's statement now true?
Yes.  Close enough though "all" seems to open a crazy box of nonsense.  Does the good Doctor pay you to edit his posts online?
« Last Edit: 09/29/2014 07:30 PM by Ron Stahl »

Offline IslandPlaya

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 582
  • Outer Hebrides
  • Liked: 163
  • Likes Given: 166
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1130 on: 09/29/2014 07:35 PM »
If the experiments cannot be easily reproduced at all by other scientists at other locations, they cannot  be considered part of the scientific progress.

This is certainly not true.

Fixed that for Rodal.  Is Rodal's statement now true?
What about the discovery of the Higgs boson at CERN?
Can this be replicated at a different location?
No. It cannot presently and therefore cannot be considered part of scientific progress according to Rodal.
Does that make Rodal's statement true of false?

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1131 on: 09/29/2014 07:38 PM »
If the experiments cannot be easily reproduced at all by other scientists at other locations, they cannot  be considered part of the scientific progress.

This is certainly not true.

Fixed that for Rodal.  Is Rodal's statement now true?
What about the discovery of the Higgs boson at CERN?
Can this be replicated at a different location?
No. It cannot presently and therefore cannot be considered part of scientific progress according to Rodal.
Does that make Rodal's statement true of false?
And why can't it be replicated? is it because of somebody's "personal touch" ? NO
Is it because of claimed NDA's NO
Is it because the testing protocol is not scientifically provided NO

It is because there is no comparable facility to CERN

Do you think that Woodward's or Eagleworks facilities compare in any way to CERN ? NO. 
« Last Edit: 09/29/2014 07:39 PM by Rodal »

Offline IslandPlaya

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 582
  • Outer Hebrides
  • Liked: 163
  • Likes Given: 166
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1132 on: 09/29/2014 07:40 PM »
If the experiments cannot be easily reproduced at all by other scientists at other locations, they cannot  be considered part of the scientific progress.

This is certainly not true.

Fixed that for Rodal.  Is Rodal's statement now true?
What about the discovery of the Higgs boson at CERN?
Can this be replicated at a different location?
No. It cannot presently and therefore cannot be considered part of scientific progress according to Rodal.
Does that make Rodal's statement true of false?
And why can't it be replicated? is it because of somebody's "personal touch" ? NO
Is it because of claimed NDA's NO
Is it because the testing protocol is not scientifically provided NO

It is because there is no comparable facility to CERN

Do you think that Woodward's or Eagleworks facilities compare in any way to CERN ? NO.
Maybe you should update your statement about scientific progress then, rather than getting angry.

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1133 on: 09/29/2014 07:44 PM »
Quote
What about the discovery of the Higgs boson at CERN?
Can this be replicated at a different location?
No. It cannot presently and therefore cannot be considered part of scientific progress according to Rodal.
Does that make Rodal's statement true of false?
And why can't it be replicated? is it because of somebody's "personal touch" ? NO
Is it because of claimed NDA's NO
Is it because the testing protocol is not scientifically provided NO

It is because there is no comparable facility to CERN

Do you think that Woodward's or Eagleworks facilities compare in any way to CERN ? NO.
Maybe you should update your statement about scientific progress then, rather than getting angry.
I did not put an angry face, on the contrary, I'm smiling  :)

I'm glad that you brought up CERN as a comparison, as there is a huge difference to be noticed (besides the scale of CERN):

The experiments at CERN are being performed with the simultaneous cooperation of hundreds of scientists from different institutions across the world.

The issue of "scientific acceptance" is handled at CERN by this worldwide involvement in their experiments. There is all kinds of double-checking and replication (at CERN  itself) of experiments before the data is accepted.
« Last Edit: 09/29/2014 07:49 PM by Rodal »

Offline RotoSequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 778
  • Liked: 572
  • Likes Given: 780
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1134 on: 09/29/2014 07:51 PM »
The LHC and the discovery of the Higgs Boson also relied on tens of trillions of data points. Before they started looking for new science, they made sure they rediscovered every other standard model particle to verify that their instruments were accurately calibrated. The discovery of the Higgs Boson relied on the legacy of many other scientific instruments, rather than just the Large Hadron Collider's detectors. Even then, it's accepted scientific literature, in large part, because reproduction steps are available to anyone willing to build another large particle accelerator.

The secret to the LHC's success is a long history of collaboration and openness about their scientific results. Secrecy is the enemy of progress.
« Last Edit: 09/29/2014 07:52 PM by RotoSequence »

Offline IslandPlaya

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 582
  • Outer Hebrides
  • Liked: 163
  • Likes Given: 166
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1135 on: 09/29/2014 07:52 PM »
If the experiments cannot be easily reproduced at all by other scientists at other locations, they cannot  be considered part of the scientific progress.

This is certainly not true.

Fixed that for Rodal.  Is Rodal's statement now true?
What about the discovery of the Higgs boson at CERN?
Can this be replicated at a different location?
No. It cannot presently and therefore cannot be considered part of scientific progress according to Rodal.
Does that make Rodal's statement true of false?
And why can't it be replicated? is it because of somebody's "personal touch" ? NO
Is it because of claimed NDA's NO
Is it because the testing protocol is not scientifically provided NO

It is because there is no comparable facility to CERN

Do you think that Woodward's or Eagleworks facilities compare in any way to CERN ? NO.
Maybe you should update your statement about scientific progress then, rather than getting angry.
I did not put an angry face, on the contrary, I'm smiling  :)

I'm glad that you brought up CERN as a comparison, as there is a huge difference to be noticed (besides the scale of CERN):

The experiments at CERN are being performed with the simultaneous cooperations of hundreds of scientists from across the world.  I know of several from MIT and other world universities.

I guessed you were angry because of the shouted 'NO's
Quote
Do you think that Woodward's or Eagleworks facilities compare in any way to CERN ? NO.
For sure the scale of those facilities doesn't match CERN.
But in terms of scientific integrity I have no reason to doubt either. It seems also that Woodward et al are also cooperating with other interested scientists and institutions.
My point is that your previous statement about scientific progress is NOT true for CERN and therefore is false.

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1136 on: 09/29/2014 07:54 PM »

I hereby update my poorly worded previous statement  :):

If the experiments cannot be reproduced by other scientists, they cannot  be considered part of the scientific progress.

This takes care of CERN, as there are hundreds of independent scientists involved from academic institutions from across the world.


« Last Edit: 09/29/2014 07:58 PM by Rodal »

Offline IslandPlaya

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 582
  • Outer Hebrides
  • Liked: 163
  • Likes Given: 166
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1137 on: 09/29/2014 07:59 PM »

I hereby update my poorly worded previous statement  :):

If the experiments cannot be reproduced by other scientists, they cannot  be considered part of the scientific progress.

This takes care of CERN, as there are hundreds of scientists involved from across academic institutions from across the world.
Ah! That's better.
Thank you Dr. Rodal.
So how does your updated statement relate to the matter in hand?

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1138 on: 09/29/2014 08:02 PM »

I hereby update my poorly worded previous statement  :):

If the experiments cannot be reproduced by other scientists, they cannot  be considered part of the scientific progress.

This takes care of CERN, as there are hundreds of scientists involved from across academic institutions from across the world.
Ah! That's better.
Thank you Dr. Rodal.
So how does your updated statement relate to the matter in hand?

I would rather discuss numbers, possible other effects (look at my recent postings on Axion dark matter) and engineering calculations than spend more time on this don't you think  :)

Not interested in a thread on definitions of what is and what is not science.  Maybe we should do that on a thread on Karl Poper  :)


Offline IslandPlaya

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 582
  • Outer Hebrides
  • Liked: 163
  • Likes Given: 166
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1139 on: 09/29/2014 08:04 PM »

I hereby update my poorly worded previous statement  :):

If the experiments cannot be reproduced by other scientists, they cannot  be considered part of the scientific progress.

This takes care of CERN, as there are hundreds of scientists involved from across academic institutions from across the world.
Ah! That's better.
Thank you Dr. Rodal.
So how does your updated statement relate to the matter in hand?

I would rather discuss numbers, possible other effects (look at my recent postings on Axion dark matter) and engineering calculations than spend more time on this don't you think  :)

Not interested in a thread on definitions of what is and what is not science.  Maybe we should do that on a thread on Karl Poper  :)
Agreed.
Thanks.
I'll have something more on-topic soon.

Tags: