Author Topic: EM Drive X-Prize Planning  (Read 67376 times)

Offline CitizenSpace

  • Member
  • Posts: 15
  • Sydney, NSW, Australia
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: EM Drive X-Prize Planning
« Reply #100 on: 12/22/2015 11:34 am »
I think the criteria should be pretty straight forward - I don't see why 5 pages of discussion has resulted in no progress on the subject.

If you really want an EM Drive to be proved, I think you have two options:
1) Produce 1.5N of force from less then 5kWh.
2) Make a positive-TWR thruster
These two could probably be connected. I don't see what all the fuss is about. If you're producing 150 grams of force from less then 5kWh, I think it's safe to say that you've proven the EM Drive has merit. Putting a CubeSat with the system in it shouldn't be required.

I personally really hope that the EM Drive works out. However, based off the fact that it should only take $10,000 or so to produce a serious one that could pass the aforementioned goals (based off what I've heard), and that in doing so we would revolutionise all forms of transportation, I find it increasingly hard to hold onto hope when no one has done so.

Seriously. $10,000 is not a lot of money for what it could mean for humanity.

Offline spupeng7

Re: EM Drive X-Prize Planning
« Reply #101 on: 02/19/2016 12:03 am »
The real prize is flight, so lets incentivize the real prize - Levitation.
Optimism equals opportunity.

Offline Ludus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1713
  • Liked: 1219
  • Likes Given: 951
Re: EM Drive X-Prize Planning
« Reply #102 on: 03/29/2016 02:40 pm »
No lab based performance standard is sufficient for this kind of claim, especially when a test of the immediate application is so simple and transparent.

Any lab based performance standard will just be seen as another opportunity for magic tricks. The issue here is deliberate fraud not detecting subtle phenomena. Researchers are notoriously just as bad as the general public at understanding tricks.

Small satellites aren't a difficult standard for something like this. They just eliminate the possibility of fraud. They're the real application for this so it's not a stunt.

X amount of force or even levitation on a lab bench are no different from The Floating Lady. Build a small satellite with PV panels and maneuver it more than known technology can achieve and you deserve a Nobel prize and billions in research grants. When a miracle is so easy to demonstrate by methods that aren't subject to fraud it's suspicious in itself that anyone wants more muddled alternatives.

Offline tchernik

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 274
  • Liked: 315
  • Likes Given: 641
Re: EM Drive X-Prize Planning
« Reply #103 on: 03/29/2016 05:23 pm »
Serious scientific replication and validation is all that's needed right now.

Once the validity is thoroughly established, then we can do fairs and shows showing the strongest Emdrive in the world.

Offline Paul451

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3160
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2224
  • Likes Given: 1888
Re: EM Drive X-Prize Planning
« Reply #104 on: 03/30/2016 05:34 am »
I think the criteria should be pretty straight forward - I don't see why 5 pages of discussion has resulted in no progress on the subject.

Because if you can build a device that meets any criteria capable of excluding fraud (or even systematic error), then you've already made more money that a puny $10k. Hell, the Nobel Prize in Physics comes with kr8 million (about $1m).

Offline xanatos

Re: EM Drive X-Prize Planning
« Reply #105 on: 08/25/2016 11:53 pm »
Google X-prize threshold suggestion:  Drive must be capable of levitating the mass of its own weight plus it's power supply.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10301
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1109
  • Likes Given: 655
Re: EM Drive X-Prize Planning
« Reply #106 on: 08/26/2016 12:41 pm »
Given that we're discussing an effect that would overturn a great deal of established physics if substantiated, demonstration of effect at some margin beyond noise floor would be an appropriate criteria....

This is the only criteria that is needed.

As an aside, the IP would belong to the party which developed the technology.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10301
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1109
  • Likes Given: 655
Re: EM Drive X-Prize Planning
« Reply #107 on: 08/26/2016 12:53 pm »
Interestingly, so long as I'm driving this bus, there will be no focus on the science, i.e., on the underlying physical understanding of precisely how this works.  My feeling is that is precisely the domain of academic research - and will require potentially substantial work. 

The point of this device is that it is real and testable.  We don't actually have to know how it works - only that it really does.

I think I agree with this.

If the math works and were to be released, then within a week, "everybody" would build one of these things.  The prize money would not be interesting to the party that had the math and a possible blueprint for building the device.

In the other thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.0), as an aside, the focus is more on building a device before having the math.

Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10301
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1109
  • Likes Given: 655
Re: EM Drive X-Prize Planning
« Reply #108 on: 08/26/2016 03:05 pm »

Interestingly, so long as I'm driving this bus, there will be no focus on the science, i.e., on the underlying physical understanding of precisely how this works.  My feeling is that is precisely the domain of academic research - and will require potentially substantial work. 

The point of this device is that it is real and testable.  We don't actually have to know how it works - only that it really does.

I think I agree with this.

If the math works and were to be released, then within a week, "everybody" would build one of these things.  The prize money would not be interesting to the party that had the math and a possible blueprint for building the device.

In the other thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.0), as an aside, the focus is more on building a device before having the math.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Elrond Cupboard

  • Member
  • Posts: 9
  • U.K.
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: EM Drive X-Prize Planning
« Reply #109 on: 08/29/2016 06:13 pm »
The real prize is flight, so lets incentivize the real prize - Levitation.
The effect may be real, but never capable of better than uN forces. If it's better than 30MWN^-1 it might still be useful.

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2225
  • Liked: 791
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: EM Drive X-Prize Planning
« Reply #110 on: 09/01/2016 03:03 am »
There's a new science crowdfunding platform out now, so why wait for the X-Prize foundation?

https://www.fiatphysica.com/

For a crowdfunded effort though, I think the the fundamental requirements would be a 3U cubesat demo and open source everything.

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1150
  • Liked: 836
  • Likes Given: 1071
Re: EM Drive X-Prize Planning
« Reply #111 on: 12/23/2016 12:05 pm »
Latest news suggests we may be in the beginnings of a new space race. Looks like a good time to reevaluate the need for this X Prize planning. We certainly know that EMDrive works now. Let's see what she can really do.
And I can feel the change in the wind right now - Rod Stewart

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4987
  • Likes Given: 6458
Re: EM Drive X-Prize Planning
« Reply #112 on: 12/24/2016 07:30 pm »
We certainly know that EMDrive works now.

That implies that it's a generally accepted fact.  That is not true at all.

There's a small core of believers who believe the evidence is sufficient to establish beyond a doubt that it works.  Most people believe that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that the reasonable bar for the extraordinary claim of the EM Drive working has not been reached.

Offline Peter Lauwer

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 287
  • Setting up an exp with torsion balance
  • Netherlands
  • Liked: 339
  • Likes Given: 469
Re: EM Drive X-Prize Planning
« Reply #113 on: 12/24/2016 09:11 pm »
We certainly know that EMDrive works now.

That implies that it's a generally accepted fact.  That is not true at all.

There's a small core of believers who believe the evidence is sufficient to establish beyond a doubt that it works.  Most people believe that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that the reasonable bar for the extraordinary claim of the EM Drive working has not been reached.

So very true. Amidst all this enthusiasm, sometimes even hysteria, about the EM Drive and its use by the Chinese and how far they might be ahead, we still have to consider that most of it should be classified as 'unconfirmed rumours'.
There is only one decent scientific article in which the existence of an anomalous force is confirmed (White et al, 2016), one undecided, there might be an anomalous force (Tajmar and Fiedler, 2015) the rest is rather vague, not well described, might be misinterpretations, wishful thinking or misleading business information.

The coming year will bring more clarity in this matter, I expect.

I wish you all a Merry Christmas!
Peter
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.    Richard Feynman

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5561
  • Liked: 1128
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: EM Drive X-Prize Planning
« Reply #114 on: 12/27/2016 07:40 pm »
We certainly know that EMDrive works now.

That implies that it's a generally accepted fact.  That is not true at all.

There's a small core of believers who believe the evidence is sufficient to establish beyond a doubt that it works.  Most people believe that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that the reasonable bar for the extraordinary claim of the EM Drive working has not been reached.

Some people seem to be treating the fact that the Chinese Space Agency is carrying out testing of the EMdrive in space as proof that the EMdrive actually works. Shouldn't the device be investigated by major US national laboratories first - like in the case of the Hafnium Controversy - in order to give a more definitive proof/disproof of the phenomenon? It would seem to me that controlled laboratory conditions would be better than just firing it up in outer space, so that you can characterize the effect as precisely as possible, and not accidentally rediscover the photon rocket.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0