Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3  (Read 1803698 times)

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5261
If he is still using the ARC balance, then it uses special "C-flexural" bearings. These come with an intrinsic restoring force and prevent the balance from acting like a ballistic galvanometer.
http://c-flex.com/

These bearings are now beloved these many years by Woodward. As a matter of fact, right after the "null result report" by Tajmar and Buldrini re. a Woodward Effect experiment they reported upon at STAIF2006, Tom Mahood (an ex-student of Woodward whose M.Sc. thesis was on the Woodward Effect) went off to his well-equipped home workshop and ran up the "ARClite", which Woodward has used ever since. It was a copy of the Buldrini design.

Therefore, it is most likely that this persistent measured force is a real force and really is persistent.

He says he used a knife edge balance, which is what's shown in the photo. There is no bearing. The only restoring force is gravity acting on the counter weight. He's counter-balanced the EM drive to the resolution of 1 uN of force. Which means, the restoring force must be < 1 uN. I would agree that IF there were a bearing with a restoring force, then to persist in the displaced position would require a continuous force. But given that it was simply a knife edge, there is nothing but gravity to restore the displacement back to the origin.

A good control test would've been to displace the EM drive to this level of displacement with the power off, and then determine how long it takes to restore the displacement back to the origin.

IMO, the correlation with temperature is a red herring. Both are slow to change and he didn't do anything to investigate if they are or are not correlated.
Todd
The knife edge itself is a means by which the balance may NOT return to its original position at all (within the very small displacements that are involved), depending on the contact forces at the knife edge, and how sharp is the knife edge.

At the knife edge you have "mountains" and "valleys" in the nanometer range.  Due to the contact force you have stresses at the peaks of these mountains that can be readily be shown are in the plastic, permanent deformation range of the elasto-plastic metal used for the knife.  Due to contact, there is a friction, due to the interweaving of contacting mountains and valleys under the contact stresses.

The force displacement (at the scale of the roughness of the knife edge) relationship is nonlinear and hysteretic (governing the contact stresses and strains of what is macroscopically known as friction): this results in stick-slip at the contact of the knife edge.  Depending on the contact load and the sharpness of the knife edge, the balance may not actually come back at all to its neutral position and may stay in the new position at a slight angle, as the restoring force due to gravity may not overcome the frictional force (due to plastic deformation of the knife edge peaks).

As you say, they should have tested this, to see whether the position is restored, how long it takes, and whether this is repeatable and uniform.
« Last Edit: 07/29/2015 05:26 PM by Rodal »

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8017
  • UK
  • Liked: 1281
  • Likes Given: 168

Welp,

     Looks like either there really is something to this EM Drive or as CalTech physicist Sean Carroll says,
“My insight is that the EMDrive is complete crap and a waste of time...”

http://io9.com/no-german-scientists-have-not-confirmed-the-impossibl-1720573809

     An old saying is that, when a scientist says something is impossible, then he is most assuridly wrong.
OK, here's the "physicist" with the not-so-well thought out response (couldn't remember, thks). Caltech as well...nice. I bet he is an inspiration to all his students and institution.

Its taken me a couple of days to analyze and read the most recent test results; months, overall to figure out what the story is. This guy spouts off within hours indicates his "insight" is not 20/20.

Regardless, he'd best read NSF for analysis of potential problems with the recent test plus improvements that can be made. Critics without solutions or real efforts are simply wasting bandwidth...IOW, a very low Q factor ;)

Isn't that the third time that critical article has been linked to in this thread.

Offline kch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1731
  • Liked: 466
  • Likes Given: 8321

     An old saying is that, when a scientist says something is impossible, then he is most assuridly wrong.

... a somewhat-oversimplified variant of the original:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws

(memetic drift seems to be unavoidable)  ;)

Offline LasJayhawk

If I am to presume that I can get thrust out of this thing by exciting modes in the microwave band, I'm forced to assume the same thing could happen in the infrared band.

In that case the residual heat could be stimulating the EM drive effect (assuming it exists, or course) :)
That's assuming an infrared reflector is in place in the apparatus. I don't think so.

People made mirrors out of copper 1800 years ago....

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5261
We continue the program started with posts
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1403629#msg1403629
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1404000#msg1404000
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1404004#msg1404004
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1404005#msg1404005
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1404006#msg1404006
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1404754#msg1404754
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1404783#msg1404783
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1406306#msg1406306
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1409278#msg1409278
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1410556#msg1410556

showing the stress (force/unitArea) on the small and the big Base for rfmwguy's NSF-1701 geometry:  (Db= 11.01 in,Ds= 6.25 in,L=10.2 in), with the dipole antenna previously used by aero for the RFMWGUY and the Yang/Shell geometry, but this time located near the big end in the transverse direction: dipole 0.058 m long perpendicular to the axis of axi-symmetry x of the truncated cone.

The stress tensor σxx (*) component is obtained using Wolfram Mathematica ( http://www.wolfram.com/mathematica/ ) , post-processed from the transient Finite Difference (using Meep) solution for RF feed ON.
In order to compare the stresses to the previous cases, I have shown all plots to the same numerical scale. 
The Finite Difference mesh identical to the one used for the previous rfmwguy NSF-1701 model.
The main comparison is the following:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1404754#msg1404754
which is NSF-1701 with the antenna at the small end.
______________________________






(*)  (we denote by σxx= T11 the contravariant component of the tensor acting along the longitudinal direction "x" of the EM Drive, normal to the the plane yz having normal x, where direction "1" is "x")

(**) For the copper diamagnetism is assumed such that the magnetization M is assumed proportional to the applied magnetic field such that for free space it is assumed that M is zero in free space in the relationship 

(***) The Stress calculations are for an Input Power of 43 Watts (similar to the value used by NASA in some of their runs).  The Stress values are proportional to the Input Power, so for example, if the Input Power were 860 Watts, that means that the calculated values for Stress are 860 Watts/ 43 Watts = 20 times greater than shown in the plots.    In other words, for 860 Watts InputPower, the values for Stress in the plots need to be multiplied by a factor of 20.
« Last Edit: 07/29/2015 05:47 PM by Rodal »

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5261
The stress at the small base for NSF-1701 with the antenna perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, near the big end.  It shows a transverse magnetic TM11 m=1, n=1 mode shape, same mode shape as previously shown. 
« Last Edit: 07/29/2015 05:50 PM by Rodal »

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5261
EM DRIVE FORCE vs. TIME

Antenna perpendicular to longitudinal direction placed near the Big Base for NSF-1701
Compare with
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1406062#msg1406062



Quote from: aer

NSF-1701 - 245x261x261
Yang-Shell - 229x196x196

This is the final summary output from the log file.

run 0 finished at t = 13.054 (6527 timesteps)

Total number of slices 14, the last 14 of 32 full cycles, or periods at 0.1 period intervals. That is, at 30.7, 30.8 and so forth to 32.0 periods of the drive center frequency.
Number of time steps, 6527 and total meep time = 13.054 time units.

Quote from: aero
Same antenna, 58 mm in the y direction, Ez excitation.

(set! antlongx 0)                               ; direction vector of dipole antenna SI units
(set! antlongy 0.058)                           ; = 58 mm
(set! antlongz 0)
« Last Edit: 07/30/2015 04:17 PM by Rodal »

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2165
  • Liked: 2681
  • Likes Given: 1124

Welp,

     Looks like either there really is something to this EM Drive or as CalTech physicist Sean Carroll says,
“My insight is that the EMDrive is complete crap and a waste of time...”

http://io9.com/no-german-scientists-have-not-confirmed-the-impossibl-1720573809

     An old saying is that, when a scientist says something is impossible, then he is most assuridly wrong.
OK, here's the "physicist" with the not-so-well thought out response (couldn't remember, thks). Caltech as well...nice. I bet he is an inspiration to all his students and institution.

Its taken me a couple of days to analyze and read the most recent test results; months, overall to figure out what the story is. This guy spouts off within hours indicates his "insight" is not 20/20.

Regardless, he'd best read NSF for analysis of potential problems with the recent test plus improvements that can be made. Critics without solutions or real efforts are simply wasting bandwidth...IOW, a very low Q factor ;)

Isn't that the third time that critical article has been linked to in this thread.
I think so...probably indicates critical articles are few and far between. If I were of that opinion, I'd avoid unequivocal pronouncements that may have to be taken back someday. Actually, I'm of neither opinion, but am building to test it for myself rather than relying on shawyer, yang, nasa, et al. I do think abit like Tajmar (on an unfunded home budget) I'm less interested in the theory as I am results.

Fascinating project, this emdrive-turned cavity thruster when you think about it.

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
What is the point of spending one's life evincing physical law when one doesn't stand behind the theory and the myriads of experiments which back up that theory? Carroll's reaction is entirely natural and understandable. He is also smarter than most (all?) here. Don't be so quick to judge - he isn't. He has 400 years of theory and experience at his back. That's a slow burn of hard-won knowledge and observation of how our world works.

It's called "science".
« Last Edit: 07/29/2015 06:01 PM by deltaMass »

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5261
This is what we have learned:

1) The net force is in the direction pointing from the big base to the small base for all the Yang/Shell cases (antenna at either end) and for NSF-1701 with the antenna near the Big End.  However, with the antenna placed near the small end of NSF-1701 the force points in the opposite direction: from the small base towards the big base.  This is unique to NSF-1701's geometry.

I have a steady-state separate model (not using Meep) that gives me  a force pointing from the big base towards the small base consistently for all cases, including NSF-1701, so only the case with the antenna at the small base of NSF-1701 is at odds with it.

There are at least three ways to look at this:

A) the force direction predictions are immaterial either because the EM Drive is an experimental artifact or because the electromagnetic fields inside the cavity do no obey the Maxwell's equations solution model in Meep (I doubt this second option though)

B) the results with the force pointing towards the small base may be the real deal, and the NSF-1701 test with the RF feed near the small base may result in no thrust force (instead of pushing towards the big base).

or

C) the result with the force pointing towards the big base is the real deal: NSF-1701 with the RF feed at the small end will produce a net thrust and Yang/Shell will produce no thrust and neither will NSF-1701 with the RF feed at the big end.


 It will be interesting to test NSF-1701 for both cases: with the antenna at the big end, compared with another test with the antenna at the small end.

2) For Yang/Shell it is better to have the antenna perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, and placed near the Big Base, which results in almost twice the net force as when the antenna is placed near the Small Base.

3) We also verified that the worst thing to do is to place the antenna aligned along the longitudinal direction

_________________

The geometry of NSF-1701 is much more sensitive to RF feed placement (whether at the big end or the small end) than Yang/Shell.  Thus NSF-1701 presents itself as an excellent testbed to learn what's gong on.
I think this sensitivity is related to the distance from the small base to the vertex of the cone, see

http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results

                               r1

Yang                        0.6953 m               
NASA Eagleworks     0.3111 m
Shawyer Demo        0.2260 m
Shawyer Flight Thr   0.1764 m



I think that the smaller r1 the better: the closer to the apex of the cone, as shown by Zeng and Fan, and Todd WarpTech

Yang's geometry is more than twice as far.
« Last Edit: 07/30/2015 10:01 PM by Rodal »

Offline wallofwolfstreet

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 165
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 436
What is the point of spending one's life evincing physical law when one doesn't stand behind the theory and the myriads of experiments which back up that theory? Carroll's reaction is entirely natural and understandable. He is also smarter than most (all?) here. Don't be so quick to judge - he isn't. He has 400 years of theory and experience at his back. That's a slow burn of hard-won knowledge and observation of how our world works.

It's called "science".

Couldn't agree more.

Go on reddit and read the comment sections of all most any post on the emdrive, such as here.  You will find heaps of post talking about the dogmatic mainstream, and how they were too busy being pompous and full of themselves to give a lone wolf inventor a chance, and we'd be to pluto by now if it weren't for the ivory tower elitists holding the little guy down.

The recent "good" news has emboldened people who want nothing more than to see mainstream physics fail, because it would be gratifying for them to have their preconceived notions validated.  Smart and prestigious people support mainstream physics, and nothing is more gratifying to the underdog than seeing smart and prestigious people fail. 

If I had to guess, people like Carroll get tired of people rooting for them to fail, so they lash out. 

If this thing turns out to be bunk, how many "believers" will admit that they were wrong, and caught up in the hype?  If this thing works as claimed, how many pages of gloating will we see coming out of forums and news articles, lambasting Carroll as a dogmatic?  My guess is close to zero and a lot, respectively.       
« Last Edit: 07/29/2015 06:35 PM by wallofwolfstreet »

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1230
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1296
  • Likes Given: 1752
What is the point of spending one's life evincing physical law when one doesn't stand behind the theory and the myriads of experiments which back up that theory? Carroll's reaction is entirely natural and understandable. He is also smarter than most (all?) here. Don't be so quick to judge - he isn't. He has 400 years of theory and experience at his back. That's a slow burn of hard-won knowledge and observation of how our world works.

It's called "science".

In my experience, most main stream physicists have that "deer in the headlights" look when talking to Engineers about practical real-world problems and solutions. Physicists live in an ideal mind set based on theory and have difficulty breaking past their pre-conceptions when it comes to solving real world problems. At my previous job, I had the pleasure of being the only one there that was not a PhD or PhD student, but I was the one who had all the real-world experience in designing and building power products that were safe and reliable. My first week on the job for example, I showed them that their compact inverter design had insufficient capacitors, which I could see just by looking at it. By the 2nd week, one of the PhD's had run her simulations and verified what I said, that these capacitors would never handle the ripple current for more than a few hours at best. They follow the cook-book theories they are taught and understand. When it comes to designing something that actually works, they typically rely on the Engineers bail them out.

I used to joke that my job as an Engineer was to show the PhD's what to do. :)
Todd

Offline SteveD

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 290
  • United States
  • Liked: 76
  • Likes Given: 10
Sorry, but some comments from those of us who should probably stick to writing science fiction and leave actual science to the better qualified.

1.  Has is struck anybody here that we really don't know what is going on.  Sayer's theory breaks conservation of momentum.  Eagleworks theory involves quantum virtual particles.  In other words using a quantum effect to create thrust in the relativistic universe.  Without knowing what is going on it would seem a bit difficult to build a null device that you are sure is not going to work.

2.  Tajmar cut a hole in the waveguide, attached a magnetron to the side of the device and measured a small amount of thrust that might have conformed to theory, and a large side force.  What I can't find in the paper is if that side force varied with the orientation of the magnetron to the measuring instrument.  If the force were strongest directly away from the magnetron, well that's interesting as long as conventional explanations can be excluded.  So what happens if you cut a hole and put a magnetron in the broad end of an EM Drive?

3.  Last time I looked heat was radiated away in the infrared band of the electromagnetic spectrum.  That's a higher frequency than microwaves.  So the observation, basically, is that an electromagnetic drive continues to produce thrust while higher frequency waves are being emitted.  Wasn't there something about lasers behaving oddly when shot into the center of an operational EM Drive? 

4.  I'd just like to point out that what Eagleworks seems to be saying is that their is some form of quantum virtual particle that suddenly flashes into existence and can be briefly interacted with.  Particle like things, that are not actual particles, that suddenly pop into existence, get in the way of something -- gaining energy while doing so -- then leave (presumably releasing stored energy as heat) seems perilously close to arguing that a quantum effect is responsible for entropy.  Taking this a bit further, some of the published press material, seems to imply that these entropic non-particles can be interacted with during their brief existence by filling a sealed contain with high Q factor waves moving in a uniform direction.  I suspect that's not what's going on, and not what Eagleworks means.

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2165
  • Liked: 2681
  • Likes Given: 1124
...Carroll's reaction is entirely natural and understandable. He is also smarter than most (all?) here. Don't be so quick to judge - he isn't. He has 400 years of theory and experience at his back. That's a slow burn of hard-won knowledge and observation of how our world works.

It's called "science".
No offense DM, but such a learned, well educated scholar using inferior language infers an overly-emotional attachment to a particular point of view IMHO. 400 years is a long time for other people to put in solid efforts. Our friend here is obviously protecting their viewpoints...but so did the Church when these pesky "astronomer" heretics showed up after 800 years.

I'll withhold judgement of course. He was probably just having a bad day, maybe fearful of funding diversions. After all, Caltech/JPL and NASA are pretty close ;)

Online tchernik

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 247
  • Liked: 297
  • Likes Given: 577
What is the point of spending one's life evincing physical law when one doesn't stand behind the theory and the myriads of experiments which back up that theory? Carroll's reaction is entirely natural and understandable. He is also smarter than most (all?) here. Don't be so quick to judge - he isn't. He has 400 years of theory and experience at his back. That's a slow burn of hard-won knowledge and observation of how our world works.

It's called "science".

Couldn't agree more.

Go on reddit and read the comment sections of all most any post on the emdrive, such as here.  You will find heaps of post talking about the dogmatic mainstream, and how they were too busy being pompous and full of themselves to give a lone wolf inventor a chance, and we'd be to pluto by now if it weren't for the ivory tower elitists holding the little guy down.

The recent "good" news has emboldened people who want nothing more than to see mainstream physics fail, because it would be gratifying for them to have their preconceived notions validated. 

If I had to guess, people like Carroll get tired of people rooting for them to fail, so they lash out. 

If they this thing turns out to be bunk, how many "believers" will admit that they were wrong, and caught up in the hype?  If this thing works as claimed, how many pages of gloating will we see coming out of forums and news articles, lambasting Carroll as a dogmatic?  My guess is close to zero and a lot, respectively.       

I mostly agree, but with a few caveats:

- Yes, lots of people would like to see physics or big science fail for once. Why? because we are human, that's why. We are basically irrational apes and we root for the underdog and hate the authority "restricting" us. Science is not really an enemy of course, it's just the method and the changing dialectic discourse of what we know about the world thanks to that method, but in the eye of many, it represents the closet thing to ecclesiastic authority. And even more now, when it has imbibed itself (and being mixed up) with some political and societal opinions (e.g. climate politics and its detractors are always fighting for saying they have the scientific truth on their side).

- The impact of this being true and the unfairness of having Carroll's or other people's egos bruised are hardly on the same league. If the fans are wrong, the critics can gloat but hardly anyone else will be impacted in particular, on the contrary case, the critics get the bashing and gloating by virtue of being in the tiny minority vs a spiteful majority. But so what? the critics won't die because of it and if something like this is true, life as we know it will change and everyone on Earth (including the critics)  will be impacted.

« Last Edit: 07/29/2015 06:46 PM by tchernik »

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
It's really not about personalities, but rather about our precious corpus of knowledge we call science. EmDrive as described violates conservation of momentum, which is linked, via Noether's symmetry theory, to the invariance of physics under displacements in space. Or in layman's terms, the electron charge is the same in Hoboken as it is in Hampstead. Everyone (with at least one notable exception and his acolyte) understands this. Therefore, if EmDrive works then it topples the entire edifice of physics. This is not a small thing, and one should expect a suitably graded response from science professionals. It's perfectly predictable.

Offline wallofwolfstreet

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 165
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 436
I mostly agree, but with a few caveats:

- Yes, lots of people would like to see physics or big science fail for once. Why? because we are human, that's why. We are basically irrational apes and we root for the underdog and hate the authority "restricting" us. Science is not really an enemy of course, it's just the method and the changing dialectic discourse of what we know about the world thanks to that method, but in the eye of many, it represents the closet thing to ecclesiastic authority. And even more now, when it has imbibed itself (and being mixed up) with some political and societal opinions (e.g. climate politics and its detractors are always fighting for saying they have the scientific truth on their side).

Great way of wording it.  Some people see laws like COE and COM, the speed of light, etc., as cruelly restrictive, and would love to see them come crashing down.

Quote
 
- The impact of this being true and the unfairness of having Carroll's or other people's egos bruised are hardly on the same league. If the fans are wrong, the critics can gloat but hardly anyone else will be impacted in particular, on the contrary case, the critics get the bashing and gloating by virtue of being in the tiny minority vs a spiteful majority. But so what? the critics won't die because of it and if something like this is true, life as we know it will change and everyone on Earth (including the critics)  will be impacted.

I don't follow the logic here.  If I believe X, and X has great implications if true and no implications if false, do I somehow have the moral high ground?  Should Carroll have been kinder simply because the emdrive being true would be awesome?  Are all the smug posts saying "I told you so!" (I'm talking on the web in general here, not in this thread) after the recent Tajmar result okay because they are in the minority, fighting the "spiteful" majority?

I guess what I'm saying is, that yes, Carroll probably is attached to his view of the universe.  Likewise, it's pretty clear from reading this forum that some people are attached to the emdrive being true, and would be very disappointed to find out otherwise.  This makes for terrible science, because it means "believers" have an emotional incentive to find positive results, and "sceptics" have an emotional incentive to find null results.  Carroll's comments don't help the situation, but the comments going after him are indicative that this thread is falling into the exact same trap.

If Carroll has made his comments about the nonexistence of cold fusion or faster than light neutrinos, would he have gotten the same response?         
« Last Edit: 07/29/2015 07:11 PM by wallofwolfstreet »

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2326
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2956
  • Likes Given: 2589
What is the point of spending one's life evincing physical law when one doesn't stand behind the theory and the myriads of experiments which back up that theory? Carroll's reaction is entirely natural and understandable. He is also smarter than most (all?) here. Don't be so quick to judge - he isn't. He has 400 years of theory and experience at his back. That's a slow burn of hard-won knowledge and observation of how our world works.

It's called "science".

Couldn't agree more.

Go on reddit and read the comment sections of all most any post on the emdrive, such as here.  You will find heaps of post talking about the dogmatic mainstream, and how they were too busy being pompous and full of themselves to give a lone wolf inventor a chance, and we'd be to pluto by now if it weren't for the ivory tower elitists holding the little guy down.

The recent "good" news has emboldened people who want nothing more than to see mainstream physics fail, because it would be gratifying for them to have their preconceived notions validated.  Smart and prestigious people support mainstream physics, and nothing is more gratifying to the underdog than seeing smart and prestigious people fail. 

If I had to guess, people like Carroll get tired of people rooting for them to fail, so they lash out. 

If this thing turns out to be bunk, how many "believers" will admit that they were wrong, and caught up in the hype?  If this thing works as claimed, how many pages of gloating will we see coming out of forums and news articles, lambasting Carroll as a dogmatic?  My guess is close to zero and a lot, respectively.       
Don't mistake my enthusiasm for believing science hype. If this blows a gasket than we will have learned something, if it works then we will have learned much more. There is no bad data.

What I find extremely interesting is the chance we might find new physics at work here. To me there is a good chance of that. There is so much we don't know. For a quick instance, where does the extra spin come from on a proton? Simple question.  I think anyone who empirically states they know it all is being a pompous ass and as bad as ones pushing SciFi science.

Nature could care not one iota about your ego.

Shell


Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2165
  • Liked: 2681
  • Likes Given: 1124
What is the point of spending one's life evincing physical law when one doesn't stand behind the theory and the myriads of experiments which back up that theory? Carroll's reaction is entirely natural and understandable. He is also smarter than most (all?) here. Don't be so quick to judge - he isn't. He has 400 years of theory and experience at his back. That's a slow burn of hard-won knowledge and observation of how our world works.

It's called "science".

Couldn't agree more.

Go on reddit and read the comment sections of all most any post on the emdrive, such as here.  You will find heaps of post talking about the dogmatic mainstream, and how they were too busy being pompous and full of themselves to give a lone wolf inventor a chance, and we'd be to pluto by now if it weren't for the ivory tower elitists holding the little guy down.

The recent "good" news has emboldened people who want nothing more than to see mainstream physics fail, because it would be gratifying for them to have their preconceived notions validated.  Smart and prestigious people support mainstream physics, and nothing is more gratifying to the underdog than seeing smart and prestigious people fail. 

If I had to guess, people like Carroll get tired of people rooting for them to fail, so they lash out. 

If this thing turns out to be bunk, how many "believers" will admit that they were wrong, and caught up in the hype?  If this thing works as claimed, how many pages of gloating will we see coming out of forums and news articles, lambasting Carroll as a dogmatic?  My guess is close to zero and a lot, respectively.       
Don't mistake my enthusiasm for believing science hype. If this blows a gasket than we will have learned something, if it works then we will have learned much more. There is no bad data.

What I find extremely interesting is the chance we might find new physics at work here. To me there is a good chance of that. There is so much we don't know. For a quick instance, where does the extra spin come from on a proton? Simple question.  I think anyone who empirically states they know it all is being a pompous ass and as bad as ones pushing SciFi science.

Nature could care not one iota about your ego.

Shell
This Carroll guy is quite an active writer: http://preposterousuniverse.com with impressive credentials (which I checked out myself rather than relying on others). We do have to understand critics and proponents have a lot at stake if they choose the wrong side...especially in writing ;)

You and I think alike...any data is useful...too many theories for and against out there for me.

NSF-1701 extended static temp testing probably tonight.

Also, you asked me a question and I totally "spaced" it...sorry.



Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2326
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2956
  • Likes Given: 2589
What is the point of spending one's life evincing physical law when one doesn't stand behind the theory and the myriads of experiments which back up that theory? Carroll's reaction is entirely natural and understandable. He is also smarter than most (all?) here. Don't be so quick to judge - he isn't. He has 400 years of theory and experience at his back. That's a slow burn of hard-won knowledge and observation of how our world works.

It's called "science".

Couldn't agree more.

Go on reddit and read the comment sections of all most any post on the emdrive, such as here.  You will find heaps of post talking about the dogmatic mainstream, and how they were too busy being pompous and full of themselves to give a lone wolf inventor a chance, and we'd be to pluto by now if it weren't for the ivory tower elitists holding the little guy down.

The recent "good" news has emboldened people who want nothing more than to see mainstream physics fail, because it would be gratifying for them to have their preconceived notions validated.  Smart and prestigious people support mainstream physics, and nothing is more gratifying to the underdog than seeing smart and prestigious people fail. 

If I had to guess, people like Carroll get tired of people rooting for them to fail, so they lash out. 

If this thing turns out to be bunk, how many "believers" will admit that they were wrong, and caught up in the hype?  If this thing works as claimed, how many pages of gloating will we see coming out of forums and news articles, lambasting Carroll as a dogmatic?  My guess is close to zero and a lot, respectively.       
Don't mistake my enthusiasm for believing science hype. If this blows a gasket than we will have learned something, if it works then we will have learned much more. There is no bad data.

What I find extremely interesting is the chance we might find new physics at work here. To me there is a good chance of that. There is so much we don't know. For a quick instance, where does the extra spin come from on a proton? Simple question.  I think anyone who empirically states they know it all is being a pompous ass and as bad as ones pushing SciFi science.

Nature could care not one iota about your ego.

Shell
This Carroll guy is quite an active writer: http://preposterousuniverse.com with impressive credentials (which I checked out myself rather than relying on others). We do have to understand critics and proponents have a lot at stake if they choose the wrong side...especially in writing ;)

You and I think alike...any data is useful...too many theories for and against out there for me.

NSF-1701 extended static temp testing probably tonight.

Also, you asked me a question and I totally "spaced" it...sorry.
Reviewing pages and pages I found I spaced one from you. Sorry.
http://www.google.com/patents/US3760291

Tags: