EM Drive Developments Thread 1

[ChrisWilson68]

Here is an article with a more accepting slant. Still has errors but what can you do. The tests were NOT performed in vacuum.

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-08/07/10-qs-about-nasa-impossible-drive

It does make one very important point that is there is no agreed theory on how high temperature superconductors work but because they have been replicated so many times we know they do.

There has actually been a paper on high-temp superconductors published recently, explaining how they work. It is supported by computer codes to simulate them as well. Sorry can't find the link at the mo.

Doesn't matter. They worked for a long time before anyone figured out how. EM Drive, if verified to work, is in that stage before anyone has figured how.

They're not comparable because superconductivity never violated any fundamental laws of physics.  The claims about the EmDrive violate fundamental laws of physics.

[ChrisWilson68]

I, for one, am glad if the NASA team's test results announcement has created a flutter. At least this will encourage more experts to get involved in coming up with either a definitive proof or disproof on this matter. At least one way or the other, the matter can then be settled.

It's already considered settled by mainstream science: there is nothing there.  Mainstream scientists have already looked into the EmDrive years ago and convinced themselves it doesn't work.  That didn't do a thing to discourage its proponents.

Nothing is going to change.  I'll bet you in five years the current state will be exactly what it is today: mainstream science remains convinced there's no effect there, and believers will still insist the effect is real.

[QuantumG]

It's already considered settled by mainstream science: there is nothing there.  Mainstream scientists have already looked into the EmDrive years ago and convinced themselves it doesn't work.  That didn't do a thing to discourage its proponents.

There's no such thing as "mainstream science".

There's stuff that works and stuff that doesn't. The EMDrive is firmly in the latter category. The day it makes it into the former will be called a "breakthrough".

[Stormbringer]

here is a slide that kind of shows the set up it's not as good as the video i am looking for but you can see some of the items i mentioned like the contacts the faraday cage the vacuum level and so forth in slide 4:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/02/mach-effect-propulsion-research-update.html

[sanman]

Here is an article with a more accepting slant. Still has errors but what can you do. The tests were NOT performed in vacuum.

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-08/07/10-qs-about-nasa-impossible-drive

It does make one very important point that is there is no agreed theory on how high temperature superconductors work but because they have been replicated so many times we know they do.

There has actually been a paper on high-temp superconductors published recently, explaining how they work. It is supported by computer codes to simulate them as well. Sorry can't find the link at the mo.

Doesn't matter. They worked for a long time before anyone figured out how. EM Drive, if verified to work, is in that stage before anyone has figured how.

They're not comparable because superconductivity never violated any fundamental laws of physics.  The claims about the EmDrive violate fundamental laws of physics.

I dunno - before people started thinking of Cooper's pairs, it seemed like Superconductivity apparently  violated the need for Work to be done.

[sanman]

It's already considered settled by mainstream science: there is nothing there.  Mainstream scientists have already looked into the EmDrive years ago and convinced themselves it doesn't work.  That didn't do a thing to discourage its proponents.

There's no such thing as "mainstream science".

There's stuff that works and stuff that doesn't. The EMDrive is firmly in the latter category. The day it makes it into the former will be called a "breakthrough".

When you're talking about micro-Newtons, it's hard to clearly see what's working or isn't. More experiments can be done to clarify if that thrust is happening or isn't.

Why did they experience the thrust in the opposite direction when they reversed the orientation of the device?

[Star One]

This story certainly has spread far and wide it's even appeared in entertainment website forums.

I hope this doesn't cause any kind of backlash in the reputation of NASA if this all proves to be nothing, I know NASA isn't a homogenous whole, we know that but does the public which tends to just see the initials.

[cuddihy]

I'm interested by the Paul March speculation about electrostriction of the resonant cavity combined with dieletric causing possible Mach Effect that would explain the thrust without the conservation of mass issues EM drives represent. (Because mass used is external to the device, see the Woodward Effect thread).

[aero]

Why did they experience the thrust in the opposite direction when they reversed the orientation of the device?

I think they measured thrust relative to their measurement device. When they turned the EM thruster 180 degrees relative to their measurement device, it thrusted in the same direction relative to the thruster, but in the reverse direction relative to their measurement device.

[DMeader]

I present the following. No personal flames please.
https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/how-to-fool-the-world-with-bad-science-7a9318dd1ae6

[Star One]

I present the following. No personal flames please.
https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/how-to-fool-the-world-with-bad-science-7a9318dd1ae6

Yet another article where it appears that the author does not seem to have read the full report, notice the mention of the null device issue.

[DMeader]

Maybe "these article writers" know bad science when they see it.

[Star One]

Maybe "these article writers" know bad science when they see it.

Do we know whether the author read the full report rather than the abstract that was initially released?

[aero]

Maybe "these article writers" know bad science when they see it.

Do we know whether the author read the full report rather than the abstract that was initially released?

We don't know if he read the full report but we do know that he is quoting from the abstract because he says so.
He also reports the sensitivity of the measurement device to be an order of magnitude worse than all other claims I have seen.

•The “test” performed at NASA was sensitive to a minimum thrust threshold of about 10-to-15 microNewtons, and the “positive result” claimed detection of somewhere between 30-to-50 microNewtons of thrust.

[Star One]

Maybe "these article writers" know bad science when they see it.

Do we know whether the author read the full report rather than the abstract that was initially released?

We don't know if he read the full report but we do know that he is quoting from the abstract because he says so.
He also reports the sensitivity of the measurement device to be an order of magnitude worse than all other claims I have seen.

•The “test” performed at NASA was sensitive to a minimum thrust threshold of about 10-to-15 microNewtons, and the “positive result” claimed detection of somewhere between 30-to-50 microNewtons of thrust.

Thanks I missed that part but deduced from the rest of the article that it was probably from the abstract.

[GregA]

I present the following. No personal flames please.
https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/how-to-fool-the-world-with-bad-science-7a9318dd1ae6

The analogy drawn would infer that top scientists have tried to replicate the effect and failed. If that was true I'd side far more with the skeptics.

As it is I believe it needs such research, no?

(Edit: It would be bad science to not do it)

[Stormbringer]

I present the following. No personal flames please.
https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/how-to-fool-the-world-with-bad-science-7a9318dd1ae6

The analogy drawn would infer that top scientists have tried to replicate the effect and failed. If that was true I'd side far more with the skeptics.

As it is I believe it needs such research, no?

(Edit: It would be bad science to not do it)

Fie! The high Priests of the great infernal entity known as Science have powers to discern anything heretical (in violation of the laws of physics) without even knowing what it's about or if it really does violate the laws of physics because anything weird has to violate the law; it just does . din'tcha know that? Infidel!

[Lars_J]

I present the following. No personal flames please.
https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/how-to-fool-the-world-with-bad-science-7a9318dd1ae6

The analogy drawn would infer that top scientists have tried to replicate the effect and failed. If that was true I'd side far more with the skeptics.

As it is I believe it needs such research, no?

(Edit: It would be bad science to not do it)

Fie! The high Priests of the great infernal entity known as Science have powers to discern anything heretical (in violation of the laws of physics) without even knowing what it's about or if it really does violate the laws of physics because anything weird has to violate the law; it just does . din'tcha know that? Infidel!

...as opposed to the true propulsion breakthrough - wishful thinking?

[Stormbringer]

i have seen people here pan fusion propulsion.; a likely near term advancement. i have seem them pan VASIMR and other advanced concepts that aren't that unlikely. i have even seen them argue about this or that chemical propulsion scheme being unrealistic or undesireable. so exactly what advanced concepts are non "woo woo?" to everyone's satisfaction? hamster flatulence? what?

[QuantumG]

i have seen people here pan fusion propulsion.; a likely near term advancement. i have seem them pan VASIMR and other advanced concepts that aren't that unlikely. i have even seen them argue about this or that chemical propulsion scheme being unrealistic or undesireable. so exactly what advanced concepts are non "woo woo?" to everyone's satisfaction? hamster flatulence? what?

Seems to me that everyone wants to talk about the stuff that has no hope of working and no-one ever wants to talk about the stuff that could be made to work with enough money. People used to love talking about solar sails, but now that one has flown (IKAROS) and two more are under development (Sunjammer and LightSail) suddenly no-one is interested anymore. Similarly, few people are terribly interested in talking about nuclear thermal rockets unless they're some impractical fusion contraption, but they were all the rage back in Heinlein's day. Reality has the nasty habit of boring the dreamers.