Author Topic: EM Drive Developments Thread 1  (Read 763177 times)

Offline Ron Stahl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 210
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2680 on: 10/27/2014 08:12 PM »
Yes well, I understand your point but it remains that your practical application is incorrect.  It does not matter which explanation is closest to the observed value, especially when the calculations come after the data is received.  This is simple scientific method any engineer should be aware of.  How close a wrong answer is to the observed value forms no correlation whatsoever with any probability of its veracity, and asking people to think this way is inviting them to form a thinking error.  I'm perhaps overly sensitive to this error because Dr. White has on many occasions compare his model to others in this way, inviting people to form this invalid conclusion.  And it is easy to see how this happens.  Fallacies are tricky things.

Offline IslandPlaya

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 582
  • Outer Hebrides
  • Liked: 163
  • Likes Given: 166
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2681 on: 10/27/2014 08:19 PM »
As I see it science is done in both ways...
You have a theory that you want to test against reality. You do experiments to confirm or deny the theory.
Or
You have an experimental result that can't be explained by current theory. You postulate a new theory to explain the experiment.

Rinse and repeat.

That is what I see going on here. Science at it's best.

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2737
  • 92129
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 236
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2682 on: 10/27/2014 08:22 PM »
Yes well, I understand your point but it remains that your practical application is incorrect.  It does not matter which explanation is closest to the observed value, especially when the calculations come after the data is received.  This is simple scientific method any engineer should be aware of.  How close a wrong answer is to the observed value forms no correlation whatsoever with any probability of its veracity, and asking people to think this way is inviting them to form a thinking error.  I'm perhaps overly sensitive to this error because Dr. White has on many occasions compare his model to others in this way, inviting people to form this invalid conclusion.  And it is easy to see how this happens.  Fallacies are tricky things.

I see our objective as "curve fitting" the data. The more accurate model will fit the data points more accurately. It would be great if we had a mathematical relationship of exactly the right set of parameters. But we don't.

Once we hypothesize the best model that the limited data can provide, future data will serve to confirm or disprove the hypothesis. And that is where scientific objectivity will be paramount.
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2737
  • 92129
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 236
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2683 on: 10/27/2014 08:30 PM »
In addition to the above, since even our most accurate model is all over the place, what, I wonder, are the missing parameters influencing the measured force? Are they all experimental error or do they have to do with shades of polarization? Something else, or do we really have them all but not the right model?
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline Ron Stahl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 210
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2684 on: 10/27/2014 08:32 PM »
The more accurate model will fit the data points more accurately.
This is the trouble, as this above is not true.  Given at least one of the half dozen contenders to explain the lab findings at Eagleworks is correct (which we don't know), there is no reason to suppose that explanation would form the basis of a calculation that is closer to the lab data than those made by other models.  When you don't know what is wrong with a model, or with the setup, or a host of other things, you cannot make these kinds of judgements.  The thing to do is certainly to withhold judgement.  There is no doubt that this above is a fallacy--an example of flawed logic--and Dr. White has deliberately exploited this sort of thing in the past in order to get funding.  I kid you not, you should never play this game.  It is wrong start to finish and has nothing to do with science.  This is rhetoric.
« Last Edit: 10/27/2014 08:34 PM by Ron Stahl »

Offline IslandPlaya

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 582
  • Outer Hebrides
  • Liked: 163
  • Likes Given: 166
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2685 on: 10/27/2014 08:45 PM »
The more accurate model will fit the data points more accurately.
This is the trouble, as this above is not true.  Given at least one of the half dozen contenders to explain the lab findings at Eagleworks is correct (which we don't know), there is no reason to suppose that explanation would form the basis of a calculation that is closer to the lab data than those made by other models.  When you don't know what is wrong with a model, or with the setup, or a host of other things, you cannot make these kinds of judgements.  The thing to do is certainly to withhold judgement.  There is no doubt that this above is a fallacy--an example of flawed logic--and Dr. White has deliberately exploited this sort of thing in the past in order to get funding.  I kid you not, you should never play this game.  It is wrong start to finish and has nothing to do with science.  This is rhetoric.
So you are stating that Dr White is a complete fraud and a liar?

Offline Ron Stahl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 210
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2686 on: 10/27/2014 09:07 PM »
Please don't shoot the messenger.  I'm simply saying that although there is a fantastical amount of great value here especially as regards Dr. Rodel's analysis to this point, this data is from a conference paper, written to gain funding.  It is not a statistically valid sample.  Just look at the error bars had someone chosen to make some.  With what was it, just 9 data points? one forms a conclusion, but that conclusion cannot be statistically valid.  The error in the readings is far more than the spread between the post-dictions that are being compared to them.  It could be one of the nine readings is correct and the others are marred by error, or it could be none of them is correct and all of the data reflects some hidden or loose variable.  And these other labs haven't put out data that we can look at.  So how then can we compare them?

I have said what I have said about Sonny's method on several occasions and the point here is to note, that this is a conference paper, with no statistically valid data, and so any comparison is doomed to mislead at best, and intentionally mislead at worst.  There's nothing wrong with Dr. Rodel's method so far as I can see, save that he's straining to do a real analysis of something less than real data.
« Last Edit: 10/27/2014 09:21 PM by Ron Stahl »

Offline IslandPlaya

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 582
  • Outer Hebrides
  • Liked: 163
  • Likes Given: 166
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2687 on: 10/27/2014 09:15 PM »
Please don't shoot the messenger.  I'm simply saying that although there is a fantastical amount of great value here especially as regards Dr. Rodel's analysis to this point, this data is from a conference paper, written to gain funding.  It is not a statistically valid sample.  Just look at the error bars had someone chosen to make some.  With what was it, just 9 data points? one forms a conclusion, but that conclusion cannot be statistically valid.  The error in the readings is far more than the post-dictions that are being compared to them.  It could be one of the nine readings is correct and the others are marred by error, or it could be none of them is correct and all of the data reflects some hidden or loose variable.  And these other labs haven't put out data that we can look at.  So how then can we compare them?

I have said what I have said about Sonny's method on several occasions and the point here is to note, that this is a conference paper, with no statistically valid data, and so any comparison is doomed to mislead at best, and intentionally mislead at worst.  There's nothing wrong with Dr. Rodel's method so far as I can see, save that he's straining to do a real analysis of something less than real data.
You make valid points about error-bars and the paucity of data points.
However you persist in your claim that it is not 'real' data and thus fabricated.
Please stop this nonsense. Question everything by all means.

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2737
  • 92129
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 236
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2688 on: 10/27/2014 09:16 PM »
The more accurate model will fit the data points more accurately.
This is the trouble, as this above is not true.  Given at least one of the half dozen contenders to explain the lab findings at Eagleworks is correct (which we don't know), there is no reason to suppose that explanation would form the basis of a calculation that is closer to the lab data than those made by other models.  When you don't know what is wrong with a model, or with the setup, or a host of other things, you cannot make these kinds of judgements.  The thing to do is certainly to withhold judgement.  There is no doubt that this above is a fallacy--an example of flawed logic--and Dr. White has deliberately exploited this sort of thing in the past in order to get funding.  I kid you not, you should never play this game.  It is wrong start to finish and has nothing to do with science.  This is rhetoric.
So you are stating that Dr White is a complete fraud and a liar?

No - no. I believe the correct choice is to discard the top 6 models and start with a clean sheet. But since we don't have 6 models, we can't throw them out.

@Dr. Rodal - Do you have current regression analysis for all the models so we will know which to discard.

@ Frobnicat - Do you have some models we can discard, or are you still awaiting new dimensions?
« Last Edit: 10/27/2014 09:21 PM by aero »
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline Ron Stahl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 210
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2689 on: 10/27/2014 09:31 PM »
Please don't shoot the messenger.  I'm simply saying that although there is a fantastical amount of great value here especially as regards Dr. Rodel's analysis to this point, this data is from a conference paper, written to gain funding.  It is not a statistically valid sample.  Just look at the error bars had someone chosen to make some.  With what was it, just 9 data points? one forms a conclusion, but that conclusion cannot be statistically valid.  The error in the readings is far more than the post-dictions that are being compared to them.  It could be one of the nine readings is correct and the others are marred by error, or it could be none of them is correct and all of the data reflects some hidden or loose variable.  And these other labs haven't put out data that we can look at.  So how then can we compare them?

I have said what I have said about Sonny's method on several occasions and the point here is to note, that this is a conference paper, with no statistically valid data, and so any comparison is doomed to mislead at best, and intentionally mislead at worst.  There's nothing wrong with Dr. Rodel's method so far as I can see, save that he's straining to do a real analysis of something less than real data.
You make valid points about error-bars and the paucity of data points.
However you persist in your claim that it is not 'real' data and thus fabricated.
Please stop this nonsense. Question everything by all means.
I'm not suggesting Sonny fabricated this data.  In fact though I cannot say he would never do such a thing, I know Paul March would not.  That's not the issue.  The issue is, that with so few data points, with so much error demonstrated, and no reason to draw a line through the spread of the data the way one hopes they're justified to do ONLY when one has a statistically valid sample, there is no way to get to there from here.  You can't apply these excellent tools Dr. Rodel has been using and expect a real answer when you haven't identified possible sources of error, looked at the error bars, formulated why any particular model is appropriate to the data or not, etc.

Just take one example from Eagle.  The QVF model predicts thrust from DC, and there has been no thrust observed with DC to date.  The QVF model predicted a warp signature from the interferometry experiments and none was observed.  I can therefore see no experimental reasons to suppose the QVF conjecture is even in the running as an explanation for this thrust.  So how can we compare it quantitatively, after the fact of the data?  We simply cannot.  Sometimes that's what science says, "I don't know and I'm not going to guess.".

And BTW, one wants to ask; what does Dr. McCulloch's model say about DC thrust?  I haven't invested myself to understand that model, but with as much in common as it has with ZPF theory, does it predict thrust from DC?  If not, why not?  That's the sort of thing one can ask with this meager data.
« Last Edit: 10/27/2014 09:35 PM by Ron Stahl »

Offline IslandPlaya

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 582
  • Outer Hebrides
  • Liked: 163
  • Likes Given: 166
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2690 on: 10/27/2014 09:33 PM »
Please don't shoot the messenger.  I'm simply saying that although there is a fantastical amount of great value here especially as regards Dr. Rodel's analysis to this point, this data is from a conference paper, written to gain funding.  It is not a statistically valid sample.  Just look at the error bars had someone chosen to make some.  With what was it, just 9 data points? one forms a conclusion, but that conclusion cannot be statistically valid.  The error in the readings is far more than the post-dictions that are being compared to them.  It could be one of the nine readings is correct and the others are marred by error, or it could be none of them is correct and all of the data reflects some hidden or loose variable.  And these other labs haven't put out data that we can look at.  So how then can we compare them?

I have said what I have said about Sonny's method on several occasions and the point here is to note, that this is a conference paper, with no statistically valid data, and so any comparison is doomed to mislead at best, and intentionally mislead at worst.  There's nothing wrong with Dr. Rodel's method so far as I can see, save that he's straining to do a real analysis of something less than real data.
You make valid points about error-bars and the paucity of data points.
However you persist in your claim that it is not 'real' data and thus fabricated.
Please stop this nonsense. Question everything by all means.
I'm not suggesting Sonny fabricated this data.  In fact though I cannot say he would never do such a thing, I know Paul March would not.  That's not the issue.  The issue is, that with so few data points, with so much error demonstrated, and no reason to draw a line through the spread of the data the way one hopes they're justified to do ONLY when one has a statistically valid sample, there is no way to get to there from here.  You can't apply these excellent tools Dr. Rodel has been using and expect a real answer when you haven't identified possible sources of error, looked at the error bars, formulated why any particular model is appropriate to the data or not, etc.

Just take one example from Eagle.  The QVF model predicts thrust from DC, and there has been no thrust observed with DC to date.  The QVF model predicted a warp signature from the interferometry experiments and none was observed.  I can therefore see no experimental reasons to suppose the QVF conjecture is even in the running as an explanation for this thrust.  So how can we compare it quantitatively, after the fact of the data?  We simply cannot.  Sometimes that's what science says, "I don't know and I'm not going to guess.".
Excellent. Thanks Ron.

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5834
  • USA
  • Liked: 5901
  • Likes Given: 5250
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2691 on: 10/27/2014 09:41 PM »
....
Just take one example from Eagle.  The QVF model predicts thrust from DC, and there has been no thrust observed with DC to date.  The QVF model predicted a warp signature from the interferometry experiments and none was observed.  I can therefore see no experimental reasons to suppose the QVF conjecture is even in the running as an explanation for this thrust.  ...
Not arguing with that.  Take a look at this message :  http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1276802#msg1276802 where I show that Dr. White's published formulation has his "Quantum Vacuum Plasma" force directed radially rather than axially (hence he has the predicted QV force perpendicular to the measured force vector).

Still, since he has published predictions I'm curious as to the actual formulas he uses, because Physics's language is mathematics.

Offline Ron Stahl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 210
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2692 on: 10/27/2014 09:54 PM »
I am really the last person to check the math, but I will note to you, I have indeed corrected Sonny's math in the past.  I was home sick and tanked up on cough medicine, and so made the dubious choice to bludgeon my way through Sonny's derivation of his model back in 2007, and what I found was he had transposed a factor for an exponent and all his results reflected this.  And of course at that time he had been doing just as you're doing above, saying his model more accurately predicted the thrusts from Jim's lab than Jim's theory does. 

Well in fact, Woodward has never made any thrust magnitude predictions because he knows how how complex and uncertain the trouble with loose variables is.  It was Andrew Palfreyman who had slapped together an algebraic relation he thought would do the subject justice.  That's what Sonny was using to compare his model to Woodward's theory.  It was years later Woodward went to look at Andrew's relation and found the mistakes in it.  So really Sonny had no right to be comparing Woodward's theory base upon someone else's misinformed algebra.  (And I think some of this is in the book.)  This was all just rhetoric for seeking funding for Eagleworks.

I personally believe that all of this work by its nature, lends itself to qualitative predictions only.  There are just too many things we don't know for example, about the dielectrics used.  They have never been properly characterized.  Predictions there either need to be qualitative, we should have thrust/we should not have thrust; or part of a parametric study where one variable in a system is changed and one looks for scaling with voltage for example.  If you have a voltage-thrust relation and can vary the voltage to look for a quadratic relation for example, that much you can do without identifying all the other loose variables.  That's what parametric studies are for.

Quote
Take a look at this message :  http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1276802#msg1276802 where I show that Dr. White's published formulation has his "Quantum Vacuum Plasma" force directed radially rather than axially (hence he has the predicted QV force perpendicular to the measured force vector).

Yes, I saw that back when you posted it.  Did you get word back from Eagle on this?  I'm asking because when I showed Sonny the error in his derivation, his first response was to attack me "who is this guy?" and his second response was to claim the error had crept in when the spreadsheet had been transmitted from one person to another--which was just the most ludicrous thing I'd ever heard.  And this is the kind of stuff Sonny has been doing for as long as I've known him.

And I hate to say this, but one wonders whether the fault isn't in some part that of Rice University, where most of JSC's folks go for their quick PhD's.  I have never read Sonny's doctoral thesis, but reportedly in his thesis on plasma physics he "proves" that there is no lightning on Venus.  As any budding high school philosopher will tell you, one can't prove a negative, so this has always been the source of some alarm.  It's sloppy thinking we ought not expect at that level.
« Last Edit: 10/27/2014 10:17 PM by Ron Stahl »

Offline RotoSequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 751
  • Liked: 554
  • Likes Given: 762
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2693 on: 10/27/2014 10:42 PM »
I'm not sure why you're beating around the bush so much, Ron; you don't have to be discrete. You find the data being supplied by Sonny White and NASA Eagleworks suspect - the former because the guy is a quack who does bad science, the latter because they need funding.

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5834
  • USA
  • Liked: 5901
  • Likes Given: 5250
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2694 on: 10/27/2014 10:45 PM »
I suggest we should concentrate on the experiments, math and physics, and any discussions be strictly restricted to what are the consequences of his/her published theories but never on the person itself.

Offline RotoSequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 751
  • Liked: 554
  • Likes Given: 762
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2695 on: 10/27/2014 11:07 PM »
I suggest we should concentrate on the experiments, math and physics, and any discussions be strictly restricted to what are the consequences of his/her published theories but never on the person itself.

How do you separate the two, without discarding the conversation topic, when one's hypothesis on the origins of the data is "they're making it up?"

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5834
  • USA
  • Liked: 5901
  • Likes Given: 5250
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2696 on: 10/27/2014 11:19 PM »
I suggest we should concentrate on the experiments, math and physics, and any discussions be strictly restricted to what are the consequences of his/her published theories but never on the person itself.

How do you separate the two, without discarding the conversation topic, when one's hypothesis on the origins of the data is "they're making it up?"
1) I think we should not consider that the data was deliberately "made up", but rather the result of experimentation problems due to the fact that the resonant response is an extremely nonlinear function of frequency

2) For example,  Eagleworks reported only 3 different test results for the truncated cone.  One of these test results is an outlier, practically at the same frequency (0.2% difference) as the first test, described as having exactly the same mode shape (TM211), and at approximately the same input power (1% difference) yet the response is only 54% of the former observed force.    The data, as pointed out by R. Ludwick rather indicates big experimental problems with their equipment being able to tune to a resonant frequency and for the frequency to stay in the narrow resonant bandwidth (due to large Q).  They also had very significant problems with their drifting baseline.
« Last Edit: 10/27/2014 11:30 PM by Rodal »

Offline tchernik

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 247
  • Liked: 297
  • Likes Given: 577
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2697 on: 10/27/2014 11:24 PM »
Hello NSF posters. I have been following this forum and topic since some time ago. Great forum and discussions!

I just wanted to add that I also prefer if the discussion sticks to the scientific facts and theories proving or disproving the claims made by H. White. Telling how horrible a person Harold White really is doesn't add anything new, and it's even damaging to clarifying the facts, because it simply says: "he's a quack! don't discuss him".

Also, I don't have direct evidence of how a horrible person he really is, except the word of the wronged/offended persons.

I assume they talk in good faith, but again, I also assume H. White and his co-author do.

Offline IslandPlaya

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 582
  • Outer Hebrides
  • Liked: 163
  • Likes Given: 166
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2698 on: 10/27/2014 11:41 PM »
Hello NSF posters. I have been following this forum and topic since some time ago. Great forum and discussions!

I just wanted to add that I also prefer if the discussion sticks to the scientific facts and theories proving or disproving the claims made by H. White. Telling how horrible a person Harold White really is doesn't add anything new, and it's even damaging to clarifying the facts, because it simply says: "he's a quack! don't discuss him".

Also, I don't have direct evidence of how a horrible person he really is, except the word of the wronged/offended persons.

I assume they talk in good faith, but again, I also assume H. White and his co-author do.
Welcome good sir!
I agree with you.
Now if we could just pin down this pesky anomalous thrust...

Offline frobnicat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 151
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2699 on: 10/27/2014 11:45 PM »
Hello NSF posters. I have been following this forum and topic since some time ago. Great forum and discussions!

I just wanted to add that I also prefer if the discussion sticks to the scientific facts and theories proving or disproving the claims made by H. White. Telling how horrible a person Harold White really is doesn't add anything new, and it's even damaging to clarifying the facts, because it simply says: "he's a quack! don't discuss him".

Also, I don't have direct evidence of how a horrible person he really is, except the word of the wronged/offended persons.

I assume they talk in good faith, but again, I also assume H. White and his co-author do.

Welcome tchernik

Thing is, there is many many places where people are saying "all those people working on propellantless propulsion are quacks. Period. End of discussion". Or just even not caring saying anything at all : implicit dismissal. There is also a number of places where supporters can congratulate their champion and talking bad on other champions. A few places have we seen where sceptics have invested time to do further study in more detail why they think this is all a dream (I'm thinking of Greg Egan's elegant analytical study of resonance in conical cavity).

This thread on this forum is apparently the one place where interested people can do a real effort of understanding with an open mind, where it is possible to express sceptical views (on rational arguments), where it is possible to express interest in ground breaking theories (with ideas stated clearly enough to be falsifiable hopefully), where it is possible to argue on experimenters methodologies (politely, hopefully), and where it is also possible to try to find classical explanations to the results (without too much hand-waving hopefully).

Please, please, keep this place honest, open, and constructive by all means.
And not locked.

Tags: