Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 2  (Read 2099535 times)

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7975
  • UK
  • Liked: 1276
  • Likes Given: 168

There is nothing wrong with regular people getting excited by this. Just as there is nothing wrong with non jurors and so forth forming an opinion on a court case.

research that stirs the public imagination is good for science itself and the budgets thereof.  ;D

I suppose the danger it runs is of overly raising expectations at this stage in the process. That's all I really meant not that people shouldn't take an interest in it.

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1106
  • Liked: 774
  • Likes Given: 1007
Recent events have really captured the imaginations of many of us here and across the net, but we must maintain a skeptical eye and remain calm and objective. Plenty of plausible mechanisms have been presented here which can explain any perceived indications of spatial contraction due to the presence of atmosphere.

We can celebrate (and debate the finer points of warp travel) when results are successful in vacuum and replicated by others.

After some thought on the subject, I'm going to operate as if there is nothing to this until proven otherwise.

Now back to proven/accepted science for this guy.

The effect is predicted and still needs to be discovered and proven.

For now I'm treating this warp stuff as a zinger which I will store away if needed later.

I got kinda excited about this too but I realized it was largely based on little tangible, which caused me to lose focus. My intention for this post is to try and get the thread back on track, which is to explore whether Emdrive is real and if it can be used for spaceflight.
« Last Edit: 04/25/2015 10:27 AM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7975
  • UK
  • Liked: 1276
  • Likes Given: 168
For me zen-in's last post was very informative on these recent observations & something that's really worth keeping in mind.

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5833
  • USA
  • Liked: 5901
  • Likes Given: 5249
We ought to remember a famous quote written hundreds of years ago:

Quote
it ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them. Thus it happens that whenever those who are hostile have the opportunity to attack they do it like partisans, whilst the others defend lukewarmly

and thus avoid behaving like partisans, avoid getting excited and avoid emotional responses. 

Be cool  8)

Let's continue to use the scientific method.
« Last Edit: 04/25/2015 12:52 PM by Rodal »

Offline lele

  • Member
  • Posts: 56
  • France
  • Liked: 29
  • Likes Given: 65

So, guys.. please continue to share the R&D process so openly as you have done.
8)

On this subject, please also report, as much as possible, negative results, especially since it's still probable that there is a mundane explanation for all the strange results obtained so far.
Reporting negative results is something scientists agree is not done enough, but it's easier on this forum since we have the advantage that there is no editorial board or reviewers.


Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7975
  • UK
  • Liked: 1276
  • Likes Given: 168


So, guys.. please continue to share the R&D process so openly as you have done.
8)

On this subject, please also report, as much as possible, negative results, especially since it's still probable that there is a mundane explanation for all the strange results obtained so far.
Reporting negative results is something scientists agree is not done enough, but it's easier on this forum since we have the advantage that there is no editorial board or reviewers.

Very true as regards the under-reporting of negative results in general, read more than a few articles complaining about this.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 823
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 856
  • Likes Given: 9
Paul M,

Are there any prepared graphics of null runs with the warp interferometry experiment?

Other than the 20W version of these WFI runs which barely had a signal present at ~0.654 Hz, no we haven't, but we will be performing one in the near future when our very part time Dr. Rollins from the science directorate can perform it on another "free" weekend of his.

Dr. Rodal:

Labeling; "T" not f for period, check.

All:

How does one report "negative" results when at times the acquired data just doesn't make sense?  I've been plowing through literally hundreds of copper frustum tests over the last year with various RF tuning configurations and finding that some appear to generate nothing but spurious thermal like results as demonstrated by their positive and then negative going gradual exponential rise and fall times, others that show a very prompt signal at RF turn-on and turn-off comparable to the electrostatic force calibrator on/off slopes, overlaid with the above thermal signatures and some that fall in between.  The only real way I can make sure the "thrust" plots I've been generating are real thrust signatures is to first check for a prompt signal during the first ~5 seconds before thermal effects take hold and then going into reverse thrust mode where the thrust signature opposes the thermal signature to the point it goes negative like the one I've already appended but repeat it here.  Any other testing approaches to cull out these blasted thermal signatures would be appreciated. 

BTW, when the RF is first turned on we literally have an RF induction heating system that immediately starts warming the copper cavity walls, especially at the large OD end of the frustum.  How long does that RF induced thermal heating take to start moving the copper frustum and to what degree?  Looks like another COMSOL problem that will take into account the specific heat of all the frustum components, then profiles the resulting differential temp rise of cone that then generates a frustum expansion rate that will then have to feed into a model of the torque pendulum's deflection sensitivity to off axis loading.  Yuck!   

Best, Paul M.
Star-Drive

Offline Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 80
Just as an aside; I'm sure it hasn't escaped the attention of most here that I am an uncredentialed layperson that usually goes cross eyed just looking at the math part of this. I handle most of this at a purely verbal level. And I am more willing than most here (at least temporarily) to dip into the speculative, the fringe and the Ko0ky side for bits that might have something to them. So it's not as if i am telling such people to get out. I'd be hoisting myself by my own belt loops and escorting my own self out if that were the case.

Seriously; I have had science especially anything to do with space, astronomy or cosmology as a hobby since grade school. I challenged out on enough credits to almost get a bachelor's degree in science topics and in fact got a 2 year degree in science by taking proctored tests while in the military with UNY Regents. I only have 3 actual traditional University courses out of 104 total ACE accredited credit hours. That's it. That's the extent of my academic credentials. Other than that I was a radar operator, org level radar repairman and technician over 20 years so i understand RF systems in that operational and technical niche.


 
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5833
  • USA
  • Liked: 5901
  • Likes Given: 5249
Just as an aside; I'm sure it hasn't escaped the attention of most here that I am an uncredentialed layperson that usually goes cross eyed just looking at the math part of this. I handle most of this at a purely verbal level. And I am more willing than most here (at least temporarily) to dip into the speculative, the fringe and the Ko0ky side for bits that might have something to them. So it's not as if i am telling such people to get out. I'd be hoisting myself by my own belt loops and escorting my own self out if that were the case.

...

I admire your honesty and humility, a great example to the rest of the forum.

Quote from: William Penn
Sense shines with a double luster when it is set in humility. An able yet humble man is a jewel worth a kingdom.

« Last Edit: 04/25/2015 04:14 PM by Rodal »

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5833
  • USA
  • Liked: 5901
  • Likes Given: 5249
...

BTW, when the RF is first turned on we literally have an RF induction heating system that immediately starts warming the copper cavity walls, especially at the large OD end of the frustum.  How long does that RF induced thermal heating take to start moving the copper frustum and to what degree?  ..
The induction heating through the cavity occurs at the speed of light, therefore it is practically instantaneous.  The induction heating decays exponentially in the copper thickness.  The skin depth of induction heating is minute: for copper at 2 GHz it is 1.46 micrometers.  So the only practical issue involving time is due to thermal conduction through the copper, which is governed by the thermal diffusivity of copper and the thickness of copper.  It is best discussed in terms of the dimensionless Fourier number. I have conducted a number of calculations based on this earlier on the thread and wrote a paper on thermal buckling for the cavity that has some representative numbers (less than a second to move the copper a fraction of its thickness).  The bending due to the thermal gradient through the thickness is signifcantly slower, on the order of the test duration.  @frobnicat and me had a number of discussions and calculations on this also earlier on the thread.
« Last Edit: 04/25/2015 04:48 PM by Rodal »

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5833
  • USA
  • Liked: 5901
  • Likes Given: 5249
...

How does one report "negative" results when at times the acquired data just doesn't make sense? ...
Forget it.  You are doing enough reporting interesting results to this thread, for which we are thankful.
Asking you to report all your negative results to a forum is unrealistic.

Ask those who ask you to report negative results whether they know what is the proportion of papers reporting experimental negative results in the most respected peer-reviewed physics journals.

Reporting negative results is a valid concern for non-exact sciences, as Biology used to be (now not so much with Biotechnology which is based on scientific calculations), and certainly necessary for Medicine and required for social "sciences" that need to rely on statistics because of the lack of physical laws and mathematical modeling for those disciplines.  In Medicine, a Nobel Prize was awarded to the inventor and practitioner of lobotomies (reporting of negative results would have been obviously important in this case ! ) and in the "dismal" social science (Economics)  Nobel prizes have been awarded simultaneously to people holding opposing views, so certainly in those disciplines negative results are most important.  The history of Nobel Prizes in Physics is pristine, in comparison, thanks to physical laws (universal laws like conservation of momentum).
« Last Edit: 04/25/2015 05:51 PM by Rodal »

Offline lele

  • Member
  • Posts: 56
  • France
  • Liked: 29
  • Likes Given: 65
...

How does one report "negative" results when at times the acquired data just doesn't make sense? ...
Forget it.  You are doing enough reporting interesting results to this thread, for which we are thankful.
Asking you to report all your negative results to a forum is unrealistic.


Of course I don't want to tell Mr March how to do his job, and I think everyone here really appreciate that 1) people at JSC are working on that subject, 2) Mr March is reporting results here.

I know it's not possible to put the results of every test here.
What I meant is that, for example, Mr March said earlier that numerical computations predicted a 1250N force for a 100kW input. If experiments don't give the same results, I think most people here would like to know it (sorry if it's obvious).
Once again, people who are actually doing experiments or theoretical computations don't owe anything to random forum readers like myself (especially if said readers don't pay their taxes in the US).

The more is known about the experiments (such as the protocol for choosing "real" thrust plots Mr March described in his last post) the more people here can help.

Ask those who ask you to report negative results whether they know what is the proportion of papers reporting negative results in the most respected peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Well, that's another subject, but I think it would probably be better for science if this proportion were higher.

Offline zen-in

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 531
  • California
  • Liked: 468
  • Likes Given: 365
...

How does one report "negative" results when at times the acquired data just doesn't make sense? ...
Forget it.  You are doing enough reporting interesting results to this thread, for which we are thankful.
Asking you to report all your negative results to a forum is unrealistic.

I agree with this.  Negative results don't need to be reported if a protocol has been developed that produces consistent reproducible results.   No one cares about Edisons' many failed experiments while developing an electric light.   In patent language this is called "reduction to practice".
« Last Edit: 04/25/2015 06:02 PM by zen-in »

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5833
  • USA
  • Liked: 5901
  • Likes Given: 5249
EXCELLENT points by @lele and @zen-in on the need for full disclosure of the experimental protocol and by @zen-in on "reduction to practice" and reproducible results.  Consistent reproducible results at Ealeworks as wells as at independent research centers will certainly be needed (as we have been discussing regarding NASA Glenn, JPL or at John Hopkins).
« Last Edit: 04/25/2015 06:24 PM by Rodal »

Offline CW

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • Germany
  • Liked: 141
  • Likes Given: 51
...

How does one report "negative" results when at times the acquired data just doesn't make sense? ...
Forget it.  You are doing enough reporting interesting results to this thread, for which we are thankful.
Asking you to report all your negative results to a forum is unrealistic.

I agree with this.  Negative results don't need to be reported if a protocol has been developed that produces consistent reproducible results.   No one cares about Edisons' many failed experiments while developing an electric light.   In patent language this is called "reduction to practice".

I like that quote from Edison: "I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasaed132683.html) .

Documenting non-working setups is also vital (and explaining what went wrong, in best case), so that no-one repeats avoidable mistakes. This could be especially important for replication efforts. In case there appear unequivocal results, creating a detailed construction manual with bringup tests etc would make a lot of sense.
;)
Reality is weirder than fiction

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5833
  • USA
  • Liked: 5901
  • Likes Given: 5249
Yes we all agree that documenting every detail is always better.  But we have to be realistic and not insist with undue requests from the only person conducting this research that is openly discussing it (certainly Shawyer's team and Prof. Yang's team members have never directly disclosed any data or answered any questions whatsoever in this forum).

For the EM Drive we have a resonant electromagnetic cavity which according to classical physics (encompassing the theory of General Relativity as well as linear Quantum Mechanics), should not accelerate in outer space (under the action of no external forces or no external fields, assuming that the Quantum Vacuum is indestructible and immutable, involving no CP parity violation) because of the universal law of conservation of momentum.  (*)

A billion tests that resulted in the EM Drive producing no acceleration will hold no attention from the scientific community, since such results are fully expected.

A reproducible, incontrovertible test showing self-acceleration (and certainly one showing levitation of the test article for anybody to see) will hold much more attention from the scientific community than a billion tests showing no acceleration.

Once you get that reproducible, consistent, incontrovertible result,  one can proceed to discuss the kind of engineering development that Edison engaged in, and where negative results of variations from the  reproducible, consistent, incontrovertible result are valuable in optimizing the device.

At the moment we are still seeking that reproducible, consistent, incontrovertible result.

__________________________

(*) we are not dealing here with an inexact science.  This is not like Medicine, where a drug can be effective with 70% of the population, ineffective with 29% of the population and produce severe negative effects with 1% of the population.  Conservation of momentum applies in physics for 100% of all cases bar none.  Ditto for conservation of energy.  These are universal laws, just like everybody here is subject to gravitation and we don't have a certain percentage of the population that is unaffected by gravity.
« Last Edit: 04/25/2015 08:16 PM by Rodal »

Offline NovaSilisko

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1828
  • Liked: 1435
  • Likes Given: 1305
And once again I continue to have my dislike of the "popular science" media reenforced.

I can't really articulate how pleased I am that there's nothing even close to the typical "pff science has been wrong before, they'll find a way around that dumb conservation of energy stuff" handwavium reaction around here. I applaud everyone doing the hard work here for being rigorous and scientific about it.

Offline toocoolforschool

  • Member
  • Posts: 3
  • texas
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
couldn't this energy source be used for something other than space travel as well? i mean its generating thrust thrust can power a lot of things.  on another note consider the speed at which faster than light is and you have to consider the possibilities of path disruption say a stray celestial body getting in the way of the craft.  I mean warp speed technically is still theoretical but what could be done to direct a safe path at speeds beyond that of light.  I mean we could potential be talking about a space highway of some sort here.  Its all theory but this discovery has me wanting to be a part of this stuff.....  either way awesome find I wish I understood all the details but I'm definitely intrigued enough to go back to school and get into a bachelors program.   

Offline toocoolforschool

  • Member
  • Posts: 3
  • texas
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
another thing if its giving off heat doesn't that mean that some of the energy is being wasted?  ;) 

Offline toocoolforschool

  • Member
  • Posts: 3
  • texas
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
not sure how it all works but could insulation maybe be of some help... i apologize if I sound like a idiot but I will definitely do some research.

Tags: