Author Topic: EM Drive Developments Thread 1  (Read 763816 times)

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 #680 on: 09/17/2014 12:37 AM »
Por que latim, se estavam falando em italiano e depois em espanhol com termos típicos mexicanos? Línguas românticas, isso sim. ...

Well, like they say: 

Latin is a language.
As dead as dead can be.
First it killed the Romans.
Now it's killing me.
« Last Edit: 09/17/2014 12:38 AM by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Online birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 267
  • United States
  • Liked: 122
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #681 on: 09/17/2014 01:12 AM »

....
Isn't the reason we haven't heard much from NASA because from what's been said a lot of the people involved in this work have NDAs in place concerning what they can & cannot talk about it?

As a taxpayer, my expectation is that any NDA's between NASA and private companies would cover proprietary internal design of the EM drives but not the results of actual tests performed at NASA, including how the tests were conducted at NASA, details of NASA's inverted torsional pendulum set-up, etc., unless they would invoke issues of National Security, in which case it would not be a question of NDA's with private entities, but a matter of security.  I have not seen anything published claiming National Security issues.

Not sure how this isn't exactly the case preventing complete disclosure. As I see it, The paper that was published at the AIAA conference, included a lot of details on the testing protocol, which covers how the tests were performed along with information on the pendulum set-up. Now there are a few details that were missing, but your open letter to the research team prompted Paul March to fill those details in. The only thing that seems to have been left out from the published paper is the same level of detail about the Boeing SFE test article. Which we now know was covered by NDA, according to Paul March. A bare bones NDA would most likely cover the details about how the test article works and any analysis that could potentially allow someone to reverse engineer the device. Which means any inclusion in the AIAA paper alongside the descriptions of the Cannae and Tapered Frustum would amount to a foot note covering only the information found in the deck you previously linked to.

Now I am as annoyed as anyone else about this, as the inclusion of the information on the Boeing test article would most likely strengthen the case against the critics that there is a high statistical probability that there is a real effect being studied by EagleWorks.

Online aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2739
  • 92129
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 237
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #682 on: 09/17/2014 02:08 AM »
What do we think the probability is that there is a real effect?
First, how many devices where an effect is claimed can be included in the same "unknown energy source" bin?
answer is at a guess, 6.
At a guess, how probable is it that the claimant is correct? 50%? or wrong, 50%.
So what is the probability that they are all wrong? 2^-6 ? < 2%.
On the other hand, what is the probability that they are all correct? again, < 2%.

It is unfortunate that we don't know enough statistics to come up with a more telling answer because I really would like for us to get off the dime and go through some proposed theory of operation of the devices. Instead this discussion is swamped by some fast mud slingers for whom it is far more important to convince us that they are correct than it is to give us the latitude to investigate for ourselves.
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline GoatGuy

  • Member
  • Posts: 14
  • Loving Space, NASA, physics and dialog!!!
  • Berkeley CA USA
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #683 on: 09/17/2014 04:40 AM »
in other news, GoatGuy is proclaiming victory, at the NextBigFuture comments section, because nobody countered his mathematics here.

Nope.  No victory, just wondering at the quantitative / mathematical silence.  Perhaps in the future you could put a LINK, so that others may save themselves the trouble of figuring which of the thousands of GoatGuy comments you're referring to?

Just saying.
Have a nice day!


Online KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3470
  • Liked: 453
  • Likes Given: 115
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #684 on: 09/17/2014 04:48 AM »
@aero:
I would say that if the general scientific community considered there to be a 10% chance that the effect was real then it would be the hottest topic in physics today, because the ramifications are so huge both at a theoretical and a practical level, and it is so accessible to testing compared to say, the hunt for the Higgs particle.

btw, there was mention of an interpretation (I cannot remember if it were for the EM drive or another) whereby efficiency would drop off in some form so that it did not deliver free energy.

Was there any description of how this would behave? (Im not to concerned with the deeper theory. I know that I could not possibly understand something that is not obvious to the physics community. I just like to know how to describe the behavior, so I could at least imagine how it would operate in some hardSF universe)

(IslandPlaya wondered if it could be the frame that is stationary wrt to the CMB, which I found really cool regardless of whether there is a mechanism explaining why. Suddenly it becomes something we can at least describe, and it has cool easter eggs like a free 400kms boost in one direction.)
« Last Edit: 09/17/2014 04:53 AM by KelvinZero »

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Liked: 292
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #685 on: 09/17/2014 05:43 AM »
No victory, just wondering at the quantitative / mathematical silence.

I already explained why you can't do energy conservation on a single object experiencing a net force.

If you're just trying to show that if it works, you could build something that looks a lot like a classic perpetual motion machine, I won't disagree.  But if you're trying to show that it is a classic perpetual motion machine and thus cannot possibly be real, you're doing it wrong.

What you've done is show that a device that violates conservation of momentum also violates conservation of energy.  This doesn't address devices that purportedly push on something; to do that you'd have to show that the physics of the pushing are necessarily inconsistent given the proposed principle of operation.

OK, that being what it is, then if we are pushing against the Universe, then it must be relative to our velocity compared to the universe's velocity frame.  There is no way around that one, I'm afraid.

I'm not so sure about that; taking the Mach-effect case and assuming the gravity wave explanation is correct, it seems to me that we're dealing with an interaction that should be subject to the Doppler effect, in an expanding universe.  Alternately, a different explanation for the interaction might prevail; Woodward himself has offered two, only one of which is radiative, and the implications of the other regarding this question are not immediately clear to me.  What I'm trying to suggest is that the "universe's velocity frame" may not be independent of the velocity of the device.

Certainly the Mach-effect equation itself is Lorentz invariant - it makes no reference at all to any external velocity frame.  So if the equation is right, then somehow the effective average velocity of the far-off active mass must track that of the thruster, and it can't be a random coincidence that it does; it has to be inherent in the theory and show up when the theory is properly explored.  The same is true of the Q-thruster - the vacuum doesn't change based on the velocity of the observer; neither do any vacuum fluctuations caused by something at the same velocity as the observer.  The theoretical explanation for where the momentum and energy come from may be complicated or obscure, but it is not immediately obvious that there can't be one.

I find it mildly interesting that in Sciama's Machian inertia derivation, which is specific to the FRW cosmological model, the mean velocity of the causally-connected universe does show up, but only in intermediate steps; the final result only contains its time derivative.

Quote
It also might imply that there wouldn't be directionality anisotropy, as the inertial wind could be directly related to the expansion of SpaceTime itself, which we now know to be ongoing, and accelerating itself.  Energy from latching onto the expansion of the Universe.  Wow.  That'd be a big supply!

Yes it would.
« Last Edit: 09/17/2014 05:51 AM by 93143 »

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8004
  • UK
  • Liked: 1278
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #686 on: 09/17/2014 07:47 AM »


....
Isn't the reason we haven't heard much from NASA because from what's been said a lot of the people involved in this work have NDAs in place concerning what they can & cannot talk about it?

As a taxpayer, my expectation is that any NDA's between NASA and private companies would cover proprietary internal design of the EM drives but not the results of actual tests performed at NASA, including how the tests were conducted at NASA, details of NASA's inverted torsional pendulum set-up, etc., unless they would invoke issues of National Security, in which case it would not be a question of NDA's with private entities, but a matter of security.  I have not seen anything published claiming National Security issues.

Not sure how this isn't exactly the case preventing complete disclosure. As I see it, The paper that was published at the AIAA conference, included a lot of details on the testing protocol, which covers how the tests were performed along with information on the pendulum set-up. Now there are a few details that were missing, but your open letter to the research team prompted Paul March to fill those details in. The only thing that seems to have been left out from the published paper is the same level of detail about the Boeing SFE test article. Which we now know was covered by NDA, according to Paul March. A bare bones NDA would most likely cover the details about how the test article works and any analysis that could potentially allow someone to reverse engineer the device. Which means any inclusion in the AIAA paper alongside the descriptions of the Cannae and Tapered Frustum would amount to a foot note covering only the information found in the deck you previously linked to.

Now I am as annoyed as anyone else about this, as the inclusion of the information on the Boeing test article would most likely strengthen the case against the critics that there is a high statistical probability that there is a real effect being studied by EagleWorks.

Would you say the NDAs are there for commercial reasons or national security?

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 #687 on: 09/17/2014 01:37 PM »
Cognitive infiltration alert:

Quote
According to a NASA contractor report, "the concept of accessing a significant amount of useful energy from the ZPE gained much credibility when a major article on this topic was published in Aviation Week & Space Technology (March 1st, 2004), a leading aerospace industry magazine".

The reader is supposed to conclude that the act of publishing an article, regardless of its proven factuality, particularly in a news organ, not a peer reviewed organ, is the only criteria for imagined "credibility".

Publishing an article in AIAA or another respected journal, while it gives a certain amount of tentative credibility to a concept, offers no guarantee of factuality.

Also, remember that the term "NASA contractor", particularly when anonymous and associated with extraordinary claims, yields no real credibility, but only apparent credibility.

The faith based belief in "free" energy from ZPE will have to be proven and demonstrated so that the qualifer of "scientific proof" can bew used to substitute for the qualifier "faith based".

Too early for Scotch, even by my liberal standards.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

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 #688 on: 09/17/2014 01:37 PM »
Quote from: DeucesLow
Por que latim, se estavam falando em italiano e depois em espanhol com termos típicos mexicanos? Línguas românticas, isso sim.

You forgot the bit o' ingles; "so to speak".

I can read that, without using a translator!  Not so sure about my promunciation, however.

As an aside, a PhD "friend" of mine suggested that I take a college course in calculus, so as to better hold my own here on the forum and in my career change.  And I might do that.  But right now, it is far more important to learn French, and while I'm at it, the other romance languages.

There are too many fascinating people on this forum, scattered among the hominems!

Ace, deuce, whatevs.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

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 #689 on: 09/17/2014 01:38 PM »
in other news, GoatGuy is proclaiming victory, at the NextBigFuture comments section, because nobody countered his mathematics here.

Nope.  No victory, just wondering at the quantitative / mathematical silence. ...

Back to regular programming:  GoatGuy shouldn't crow too much.

if [k] is the EM-drive thrust factor, in Newtons-per-Watt (which has been widely used and quoted) then...

V = 1/k ... is the velocity of the Q-device, where the kinetic energy it creates matches the input energy and...

V = 2/k ... is the velocity of a free-floating spacecraft employing the EM-thruster, where the TOTAL energy invested equals the TOTAL imparted kinetic energy of the spacecraft. ...

Whoah there kemosabe.  Remember, .  Speak slower.

If velocity is m/sec, and k is N/W, work thru the derivation for v = 1/k for me?

1/k = 1/(N/W) = W/N
N = kg (m/sec^^2)
W = N m/s = kg m^2/s^3

Ergo:

k = (kg (m/s^^2))/(kg m^2/s^3)
k = (m/s^2)/(m^2/s^3)
k = (m/s^2) (s^3/m^2)
k = s/m

Therefore:

1/k = m/s = v.

So I get that.

Where the heck does v = 2/k come from?

(Nomenclaturalistically speaking, I thought V was typically Volume, and v was typically velocity.  Solo dicendo.)
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

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 #690 on: 09/17/2014 01:54 PM »

....
Isn't the reason we haven't heard much from NASA because from what's been said a lot of the people involved in this work have NDAs in place concerning what they can & cannot talk about it?

As a taxpayer, my expectation is that any NDA's between NASA and private companies would cover proprietary internal design of the EM drives but not the results of actual tests performed at NASA, including how the tests were conducted at NASA, details of NASA's inverted torsional pendulum set-up, etc., unless they would invoke issues of National Security, in which case it would not be a question of NDA's with private entities, but a matter of security.  I have not seen anything published claiming National Security issues.

Not sure how this isn't exactly the case preventing complete disclosure. ... The only thing that seems to have been left out from the published paper is the same level of detail about the Boeing SFE test article. Which we now know was covered by NDA, according to Paul March. A bare bones NDA would most likely cover ... any analysis that could potentially allow someone to reverse engineer the device. Which means any inclusion in the AIAA paper ... would amount to a foot note covering only the information found in the deck you previously linked to.

Now I am as annoyed as anyone else about this, as the inclusion of the information on the Boeing test article would most likely strengthen the case against the critics that there is a high statistical probability that there is a real effect being studied by EagleWorks.

Is the term "annoyed" a homonym for the "c-word"?

If a device of this sort should work, he who gets it first, uses it first, and NatSec immediately comes into play.  so there's that.

Welcome, Rodal, to the real world of NASA where even cost is considered to be proprietary info not available for the taxpayer to know.  Nor even the USAF, in some cases.

IDK about the math behind your tentative "statistical probability" calculation.  Whether the device works as advertised or not has nothing whatsoever to do with the NDA's.  The NDA's are, well, prophylactic, just in case the device does work.

Like they say, you are "free" to develop a warp drive in the privacy of your own garage.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

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 #691 on: 09/17/2014 02:07 PM »
...I'm not so sure about that; taking the Mach-effect case and assuming the gravity wave explanation is correct...

What if we assume that the gravity wave explanation is not correct?  Does the house of cards fall down?  And by "gravity wave", I'm thinking you're referring to the advanced/retarded wave notion?

Quote
Certainly the Mach-effect equation itself is Lorentz invariant ...

Which M-E equation?

Sciama 1953: phi = -2 pi rho c^2 tau^2? 

Which neglects terms of the order v^2/c^2, without explanation or justification, at least to me.

You go on:

Quote
I find it mildly interesting that in Sciama's Machian inertia derivation...

Again, Sciama 1953 or Sciama 1969?  Which derivation?  Like I asked; talk slower.  OK?  'Cause I'm not following.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline GoatGuy

  • Member
  • Posts: 14
  • Loving Space, NASA, physics and dialog!!!
  • Berkeley CA USA
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #692 on: 09/17/2014 03:24 PM »
if [k] is the EM-drive thrust factor, in Newtons-per-Watt (which has been widely used and quoted) then...

V > 1/k ... is the velocity .. where the Ek exceeds the input energy and...
V > 2/k ... is the velocity of a spacecraft ..  where Ek exceeds the TOTAL invested energy. ...

If velocity is m/sec, and k is N/W, work thru the derivation for v = 1/k for me?

1/k = 1/(N/W) = W/N
N = kg (m/sec²)
W = N m/s = kg m²/s³

Ergo:

k = (kg (m/s²))/(kg m²/s³)
k = (m/s²)/(m²/s³)
k = (m/s²)·(s³/m²)
k = s/m

Therefore:

1/k = m/s = v.

So I get that.
Where the heck does v = 2/k come from?

(Nomenclaturalistically speaking, I thought V was typically Volume, and v was typically velocity.  Solo dicendo.)

Dunno about the capitalization.  Maybe V is volume and v is velocity.  P is sometimes power, and p is often momentum, rather dodgy when talking about this branch of physics.  ρ is mass density, mainly, though it can also refer to charge density, resistivity, quantum states, and in statistics, the correlation coefficient.  I'll stick to V capitalized for now, I guess. 

My compliments on your working backward from dimension-units back to velocity for 1/k.   It is not how I would derive it of course, but bravo!  I've pounded that method into my students over the years to double check one's more straight forward physics (algebraic / calculus) symbolic inferences.  Again, Bravo!

I don't know if internally self-referential links are allowed but: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1254645#msg1254645 is the link to my comment where I did the from-physics equation trace to conclude both V > 1/k criterion and V > 2/k full-system-voyage criterion.

Lastly, I'm not sure what 'crowing' has much to do with anything. A commenter seemed intent on introducing the pique of GoatGuy claiming victory somewhere else, and I felt the need to reposte. Perhaps it is impertinent. I'll learn in due time.

GoatGuy
« Last Edit: 09/17/2014 03:34 PM by GoatGuy »

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 606
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #693 on: 09/17/2014 04:09 PM »
well, maybe it´s a matter of text interpretation, and since you wrote it and claim it was something else, who am I to dispute? It just seemed to me it was "claiming victory" over the fact nobody had challenged your math

Quote from: GoatGuy
Well, if it is any consolation (and rebuttal to your position), no one has actually disagreed with my mathematics, over on Next Big NASA Fornum.

Indeed, the silence has been veritably deafening.
I do believe that half the people there believe I fârted in the Flower Show.
The other half daren't perk up 'cuz they know my knives are sharp.

LOL

GoatGuy


btw, you asked for me to post the link of the NBF discussion here
http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/09/paul-march-is-providing-more.html#comment-1592094709
« Last Edit: 09/17/2014 04:32 PM by aceshigh »

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 606
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #694 on: 09/17/2014 04:13 PM »
and you can be as straightforward here as you are at NextBigFuture

Quote
Oh, please, RogerPenna … at least have a little more backbone than just to lecture me about the wrong way about having discourse on another forum. Since you apparently are good at reading, also note over yonder that I also said, "I'm not disclaiming the results, but rather, that the results imply a fundamental break in the laws of conservation, in Physics". (Paraphrased from 3 other comments I made.)

It is like this:

They - we have a marvelous new device that develops 51.7 µN with 2.73 watts of input microwave power.
Audience - yay! Cheers! WTG! Awesome!
Goat - (begins calculations from 51.7 µN and 2.73 W)
Goat - Yes, but that's 18.9 µN/W, and a 1/k of 52.8 km/s
Goat - Above which, kinetic energy is increasing faster than input energy.
Audience - Wait! What? Anyone know what Goat did wrong?
They - Well, its about Mach's Principle and moving the Universe.
Audience - See! You just don't know, Goat, anything but Newtonian Physics
Goat - That's nice, but my math, is still right. Its a perpetual motion machine
Audience - It doesn't matter: they're right and you're wrong.
Goat - Wait! What? How can the math be right, and wrong at same time?
They - You need to understand that conservation of energy is a Universe thing
Goat - Please, by all means, show the math
They - Its already been done. Do your own research.
Audience - Yah, take that, Goat.
Goat - Sigh… in other words, go on a goose chase, wade through a ton of abstruse math, figure out where they're fudging, come back, and lose everyone of the Audience in an abstract pedantic mathematical proof. Oh, that's rewarding. NOT.
Audience - Nya, nya, if you can't do it, why should we listen to you?
Goat - because, good reader, because the [V = 1/k] criterion is absolute.

And that's what you, Roger are missing. They have experiments which are claimed to produce a certain amount of thrust for a measured amount of input power. This comes out to newtons per watt. Using bog-standard Newtonian physics, I show that there will be a velocity above which more kinetic energy is being added to the physics package, than the amount of energy being poured into it. I further go on to state that at [V > 2/k], that the total amount of energy invested in the experiment from time=0 to whenever the V>2/k occurs … is less than the total amount of kinetic energy of the device.

This, as it turns out, requires the rewriting of Physics. Not just an eensy-weensy amount, but GIANT rewrite. Further, if the postulated practical levels of “k” are achieved (variously quoted as 1N/kW to even 10's of N/W), all power generation by any chemical, nuclear, geologic, renewable, or fossil source could be retired, and replaced with the magic reactionless thrusters. That's pretty sobering a rewrite of physics.

So, yah. I'm waiting for at least one of the physicists to say something other than a retort like, "well you explain how the experiments work then, Goat". I'm sorry, that's not good enough. I've presented a seriously important Physics objection that is quantitative, easily proven and dâmning to all of Physics, if true. It is not concomitant on me to prove this more than I have. It is concomitant on those who pander theory of an alternate reality, to bring forth the equally simple idea of where all the extra kinetic energy is coming from, in mathematically followable terms.

Jeez.

GoatGuy

Offline frobnicat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 151
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #695 on: 09/17/2014 05:14 PM »

According to a NASA contractor report, "the concept of accessing a significant amount of useful energy from the ZPE gained much credibility when a major article on this topic was published in Aviation Week & Space Technology (March 1st, 2004), a leading aerospace industry magazine".

For a destruction of several claims to tap energy from the zero-point quantum-vacuum see pages 65 to 80 of http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20050170447.pdf]>>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

I don't see much destruction of claims from those pages, well written and interesting work but more like a rather neutral recollection of claims with attempts at finding unifying possible empirical and theoretical commonalities. What always strikes when looking the baroque history of such devices, from Tesla longitudinal scalar waves to ZPE reciprocating engines (going through fancy "ball lightnings"), is how it could be possible that of all these claimed results none of them could never ever make it to reproducible experiments in sceptics' labs and then into mainstream science's accepted results (even if not explained). There seems to always be a lost prototype, or an outraged genius forever keeping his recipe secret from those obtuse physicists, or a refused patent leading said genius to retirement in Antarctica, or someone with a 40Hp ZPE generator just keeping it in his basement and then seemingly forgetting about it presumably for more interesting achievements... And that not for years but for decades. I found it even more unbelievable that any of those effect were real (useful as claimed, regardless of theories) on the ground of sociology alone than from the critical stance of mainstream theories. Can't believe physicists at large are that obtuse, can't believe financial backers are that obtuse, can't believe it could be working and forever kept secret, ignored, forgotten.

Regarding security aspects and the c word, really not my cup of tea but I note that "research into successfully harnessing zero-point energy for energy generation purposes is a serious concern inside the intelligence community" from this paper (referenced by the wikipedia page) . Said paper is actually quite sceptic, while keeping eyes open on alternate views : "because it represents a high-risk/high pay-off technology..." which should be expected. From the near practical energy generation prospects alone, space drives should be somehow a concern to intelligence services.

I'm not saying or believing that it is the cause of limited/clumsy/strange communication strategy of the experimenters (from a mainstream open fundamental research point of vue). The accumulation of various experiments and claimed results through the years without exponential spread of a reproducible successful reference setup is more reminiscent of the long history of self deceiving failed attempts at harnessing something from nothing. That is not by itself a proof of the later results being wrong, neither the opinion of analysts, reality has the last word, but it's indicative.

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5835
  • USA
  • Liked: 5915
  • Likes Given: 5253
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #696 on: 09/17/2014 05:54 PM »
....
I'm not saying or believing that it is the cause of limited/clumsy/strange communication strategy of the experimenters (from a mainstream open fundamental research point of vue). The accumulation of various experiments and claimed results through the years without exponential spread of a reproducible successful reference setup is more reminiscent of the long history of self deceiving failed attempts at harnessing something from nothing. That is not by itself a proof of the later results being wrong, neither the opinion of analysts, reality has the last word, but it's indicative.

@frobnicat

Well, we can also look at this from the point of view of (Nobel Prize-winning) Irving Langmuir's definition of : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science, to see whether and how it meets the different characteristics of Pathological Science according to Langmuir:

(These answers to Langmuir's definitions are my personal opinions at this point in time, it will be interesting to see how other people would answer these points)

1) The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity.

This is true for all the reported experimental results for EM drives from NASA's Eagleworks under Dr. White. The measured thrust is in the 20 to 110 microNewton range for all reported devices (Boeing/DARPA, Cannae and Frustum), hence it is "of barely detectable intensity."  (Also, the measurements were performed in an inverted torsional pendulum under magnetic damping, which is known to exhibit parasitic modes of excitation due to coupling of swinging with torsional modes.)

2) and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.

No, this is not true, as the reported results vary with both the intensity of the cause and with physical orientation of the drive.

3) The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability,

Yes, this was already addressed in #1 above.

4) or many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.

Not enough measurements have been performed to make any statistical assessment of significance (from a frequentist -as opposed to Bayesian- statistical viewpoint)

5) There are claims of great accuracy.

No such claims from the NASA report.  Actually the report does not sufficiently address accuracy, in my opinion (concerning inverted pendulum known issues, see #1 above).

6) Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.

Yes.  Three examples: A) [Dr. White] a MagnetoHydroDynamics model for the quantum vacuum, B) [Prof. Woodward] an unconventional Mach effect resulting in an “impulse” mass transient term and a second always-negative “wormhole” mass transient term, and C) [Prof. Brito] a Minkowski instead of an Abraham stress tensor explanation  (to name three different explanations that have been proposed).  "Conventional experience" has not  shown  A) translational momentum transfer imparted from (electron/positron pairs of) virtual particles from the quantum vacuum, B) transient changes in mass resulting from EM, and C) translational momentum imparted from EM explained in terms of (the unsymmetric) Minkowski 3D+time stress tensor  (without addressing "hidden momentum" as done by Poincare, Shockley and others).

7) Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses.

Actually, I have not seen Dr. White respond to criticism from Prof. John Baez (Mathematics Department at U. C. Riverside), Sean Carroll (Sr. Research aAssociate in the Department of Physics at CalTech), etc.  Apparently, "confidentiality due to Non Disclosure Agreements" is claimed for the lack of response.

8 ) The ratio of supporters to critics rises and then falls gradually to oblivion.

Too early to tell regarding  the NASA Eagleworks latest report on "Anomalous thrust...".
« Last Edit: 09/17/2014 08:09 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 #697 on: 09/17/2014 06:11 PM »
Again, Bravo!

Thanks for all those bravos, but you failed to throw me any money!  Analogously, if diamonds are a girl's best friend, then the guy's best friend better be money.  And I need the money to get the girl.  But I digress...

But anyhow, thanks for that re-link.  That was the three pages I already printed.  Now I have to look at the rest of it to figger out all by my lonesome, how you got v=2/k.

I'm not complaining, mind you... except that I'm as lazy as the next non-mathemetician.

Quote from: goatGuy
Indeed, the silence has been veritably deafening.

Don't worry about crowing, but that's what it is.  Heck, I've dislocated my shoulder patting myself on the back for years.  Anyhow, 93143, who has taken me to task here and there, disagrees with your formulation:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1254700#msg1254700
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

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 #698 on: 09/17/2014 06:17 PM »
Quote from: the oracle
Pathological science is the process by which "people are tricked into false results ... by subjective effects, wishful thinking or threshold interactions".[1][2] The term was first[3] used by Irving Langmuir, Nobel Prize-winning chemist, during a 1953...

'53 was a good year indeed.  I suggested investigating this to ol' Langmuir shortly after I was conceived.  Sciama too, BTW.

Whoops, gotta go...
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline raketa

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 211
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #699 on: 09/17/2014 06:28 PM »
I think cheapest and best way to prove, it will be build device that could be used on ISS(my understanding weight and power consumption are not overwhelming) and move it to ISS using one of the Dragon supply missions and tested on Orbit. I think in short time we will see if it is keeping ISS on same orbit or even raise orbit.

Tags: