Does anyone have an update on the IVO Quantum thruster?

[Norm38]

^^^
Well that’s the whole point of this isn’t it?  Either the Barry-1 cubesats raise themselves 100km or they don’t. No faking that. Sit tight and watch the show.

[edzieba]

^^^
Well that’s the whole point of this isn’t it?  Either the Barry-1 cubesats raise themselves 100km or they don’t. No faking that. Sit tight and watch the show.

The ideal outcome (for IVO) would be if the cubesat fails before their self-imposed 1 month waiting period, or some other on-sat issue precludes testing occurring. A failed test is a problem (not that failed tests have stopped any other inertialess drive maker seeking further funding...) but having the test just not produce a result at all keeps the dream alive.

[InterestedEngineer]

PS: And before an IVO supporter start with the inevitable "but, but, but", I have seen people get hurt when they follow science scams and therefore will provide the counterpoint to insert caution.

How many people have gotten hurt because a potential breakthrough was ignored because muh settled science.

I suspect that number exceeds the ones scammed.

In this case, it's rich people or governments with money to burn, they are running a real science experiment with no other possible explanation on the result

Instead of naysaying this, just wait for the experimental results.   Then you can say something about the results.

Yes, this is going meta, like most other topics in New Physics forums, but if the naysayers keep bringing up the same old arguments they should get the same old response.

Wait for the data.   Be glad someone is running a valid test on New Physics.

[wembley]

Well, no -- the Dresden test was widely misrepresented as 'disproving' the EmDrive, in fact it only removed one anomaly. And the Dresden test itself was seriously flawed -- https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2021/04/09/inventor-warned-that-latest-test-of-impossible-space-drive-was-fatally-flawed/?sh=2390f6963a11

Both McCulloch and Shawyer are keen in proof by results. The interesting thing is how many groups are now putting up cubesats with propellentless drives. I suspect we will see quite a few more come out of the woodwork in the next few months.

[RareSaturn]

The ideal outcome (for IVO) would be if the cubesat fails before their self-imposed 1 month waiting period, or some other on-sat issue precludes testing occurring. A failed test is a problem (not that failed tests have stopped any other inertialess drive maker seeking further funding...) but having the test just not produce a result at all keeps the dream alive.

Wouldn't a successful test be a better outcome?

[leovinus]

PS: And before an IVO supporter start with the inevitable "but, but, but", I have seen people get hurt when they follow science scams and therefore will provide the counterpoint to insert caution.

[snip] , they are running a real science experiment with no other possible explanation on the result

Sorry but this is not a science experiment.

Science requires that results can be reproduced and independently verified. Please correct me if I am wrong here but are there scientific papers, peer reviewed, in e.g. Nature describing the theory, prototype and principles? No. Is there a patent that we can use to build a reproduction and independently test for new physics? Not one that I have seen. Was a prototype of the drive built on Earth and independently verified? No.

For scientific progress, it is vital to follow the scientific process which requires reproduction and independent verification.  Otherwise, you just follow believes and faith however you want to interpret that. And you are correct, it is very tiresome we even have to point out how science progresses but scammers like to engage in a "trust me" before asking for money. Pun intended btw

In this case, we not seen a test protocol, we have not seen how the satellite was constructed, and therefore we do not know what would constitute a success. If this thing has indeed no other thrusters (which we do not know I believe) and it move with a dv= 1 km/sec to another orbit then I will cheer them on and all labs in the world will want to test the device. After independent testing and verification then there is a Nobel prize. If the satellite moves with a dv = 0.1 mm/sec in the realms of thermal effects then we are none the wiser.

[InterestedEngineer]

PS: And before an IVO supporter start with the inevitable "but, but, but", I have seen people get hurt when they follow science scams and therefore will provide the counterpoint to insert caution.

[snip] , they are running a real science experiment with no other possible explanation on the result

Sorry but this is not a science experiment.

Science requires that results can be reproduced and independently verified. Please correct me if I am wrong here but are there scientific papers, peer reviewed, in e.g. Nature describing the theory, prototype and principles? No. Is there a patent that we can use to build a reproduction and independently test for new physics? Not one that I have seen. Was a prototype of the drive built on Earth and independently verified? No.

For scientific progress, it is vital to follow the scientific process which requires reproduction and independent verification.  Otherwise, you just follow believes and faith however you want to interpret that. And you are correct, it is very tiresome we even have to point out how science progresses but scammers like to engage in a "trust me" before asking for money. Pun intended btw

In this case, we not seen a test protocol, we have not seen how the satellite was constructed, and therefore we do not know what would constitute a success. If this thing has indeed no other thrusters (which we do not know I believe) and it move with a dv= 1 km/sec to another orbit then I will cheer them on and all labs in the world will want to test the device. After independent testing and verification then there is a Nobel prize. If the satellite moves with a dv = 0.1 mm/sec in the realms of thermal effects then we are none the wiser.

That has to be the silliest definition of "scientific experiment" I've ever read.  I think you've confused "experiment" with "theory".  Your worship of peer review is absurd, go see what Max Planck said about this topic:   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle

Since I've read Karl Popper and you likely have not, let me try this from that perspective.

Hypothesis:  IVO is capable of measurable deltaV in a zeroG environment that exceed effects of solar wind, earth magnetic field interactions, and constrained to no ejected propellant (latter proved by design)

3 possible outcomes:

1.  If they manage to move the IVO orbit then the hypothesis that IVO works increases in probability, and other scientific experiments can be run the further increase that probability (e.g. more cubesats or big expensive lab on earth).  Increased probability of further funding
2. If they don't move the IVO orbit w/ what they think is working hardware then the hypothesis that IVO works decreases in probability.  They probably won't get further funding
3.  They prove the hardware doesn't pass self checks, rendering the whole experiment null, nothing changes about the probability of the hypothesis being correct.  Lower probability of further funding.

[Star One]

More on the IVO launch and other projects with comments from McCulloch and Shawyer here https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2023/11/17/controversial-quantum-space-drive-in-orbital-test-others-to-follow/

Let me be the one to insert a very, very large amount of caution here.

The quoted post above refers to both Shawyer and McCulloch which made me smile as we know that the EMDrive by Roger Shawyer was debunked and does not work.
https://bigthink.com/the-future/emdrive-debunked/

McCulloch is misquoting studies to promote his work.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51196.180

So when you quote two less trustworthy people to promote an IVO "drive" then that puts the IVO work in the same category as Cold fusion or the fake fusion device "E-Cat" by Mr Rossi in Italy.

So far, the IVO "drive" has all the hallmarks of a science scam like the cold fusion and Rossi's E-Cat. Generate hype to ask for money. You might like for comparison this read In Cold Fusion 2.0, Who's Scamming Whom?.

PS: And before an IVO supporter start with the inevitable "but, but, but", I have seen people get hurt when they follow science scams and therefore will provide the counterpoint to insert caution.

Maybe it would help if you didn’t post at other people as if you were in the process of producing a low budget Netflix documentary especially when you don’t seem to have even kept abreast of developments on this topic.

[CoolScience]

That has to be the silliest definition of "scientific experiment" I've ever read.  I think you've confused "experiment" with "theory".  Your worship of peer review is absurd, go see what Max Planck said about this topic:   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle

Since I've read Karl Popper and you likely have not, let me try this from that perspective.

What you are doing here is literally just a personal attack, while trying to make yourself seem smarter. What you demonstrate matters more than what you claim (just like in science in general.) It doesn't matter if you have read Popper, you don't seem to understand the concept of a falsifiable hypothesis. Leovinus on the other hand has demonstrated understanding of how science works.

Hypothesis:  IVO is capable of measurable deltaV in a zeroG environment that exceed effects of solar wind, earth magnetic field interactions, and constrained to no ejected propellant (latter proved by design)

Not a falsifiable hypothesis. IVO refers to a company, not a valid scientific theory. It is the same with all of these topics, since there is no consistent theory behind them, every time a replication shows no thrust, they just say "oh but you have to tweak xyz."

This satellite cannot support anything like quantized inertia, since McCulloch's claims about quantized inertia have long since been shown to be fundamentally inconsistent (go look up some of the locked threads on it.) The probability of that theory working is equal to the probability that 1+1=3.

3 possible outcomes:

Not a complete or particularly accurate list.

If #1 happens, it simply sets the probability they stuck some type of ion thruster on it to near 100%.

#2 won't happen realistically (at least according to any press release), because in such a case they would obviously claim it was actually #3.

There are other possibilities too, but anything relating to it creating propellantless thrust (which is by definition a perpetual motion machine as well, and apparently now a banned subject here anyway) has a probability so small it might not be expressible in scientific notation, needing up arrow notation or similar.

[CoolScience]

Maybe it would help if you didn’t post at other people as if you were in the process of producing a low budget Netflix documentary especially when you don’t seem to have even kept abreast of developments on this topic.

Maybe it would help if you could  post something relevant instead of personal attacks. The recent development on this topic is that spaceflight has gotten so cheap that people who are either scammers or fail at basic physics are capable of buying a ride to orbit. (There are a couple other options, but generally would fall into one of those categories if not both.)

[RareSaturn]

 every time a replication shows no thrust, they just say "oh but you have to tweak xyz."

What the hell are you talking about?  Who has tried to replicate the IVO thruster?

If #1 happens, it simply sets the probability they stuck some type of ion thruster on it to near 100%.

That is a huge claim and probably defamatory.  You would need some kind evidence to back that up.

[CoolScience]

 every time a replication shows no thrust, they just say "oh but you have to tweak xyz."

What the hell are you talking about?  Who has tried to replicate the IVO thruster?

Please read the entire sentence: "It is the same with all of these topics." emDrive, QI, Dean drive, etc. Nonsense claims of propellantless propulsion follow the same patterns. That this particular one they haven't allowed independent replications does them no favors.

If #1 happens, it simply sets the probability they stuck some type of ion thruster on it to near 100%.

That is a huge claim and probably defamatory.  You would need some kind evidence to back that up.

I didn't make any judgement on whether they have or haven't done so. I only stated that that is the only reasonable explanation if the orbit significantly increases in energy. This derives from the simple fact that propellantless propulsion like they have claimed is completely inconsistent with everything we know about reality. Explaining in detail just how absurd propellantless propulsion is, would be a massive effort due to the huge number of reasons, mathematical proofs and experiments that all agree on this fact. It would also be off topic for this thread and the site in general. As a starter, you can look up Noether's theorem.

Defamatory is the personal attacks InterestedEngineer and Star One engaged in. Possibly also your misrepresentations of what I said if it wasn't due to you simply misinterpreting what I wrote.

[Bob Shaw]

Please can we just kill this discussion.

[daedalus1]

Please can we just kill this discussion.

Don't you mean you not 'we'.
It's preferable to not read something if you're not interested rather than try to stop a discussion.

[InterestedEngineer]

I've been around long enough to see that the threads get locked because some naysayer comes along that doesn't like whatever advanced physics topic is under discussion and spreads FUD.  The resulting argument gets the thread locked, but it's nearly always the nayser's fault.  Which fits their goal, which makes it sad that they win.

This thread is about an an actual experiment on advanced physics going on in orbit.  Please stay on topic.

[CoolScience]

I've been around long enough to see that the threads get locked because some naysayer comes along that doesn't like whatever advanced physics topic is under discussion and spreads FUD.  The resulting argument gets the thread locked, but it's nearly always the nayser's fault.  Which fits their goal, which makes it sad that they win.

This thread is about an an actual experiment on advanced physics going on in orbit.  Please stay on topic.

Pointing out how physics works or that the hypothesis presented is not specific enough to be falsifiable is not FUD. Ignoring what I said and dismissing it like this is rude and only goes to show that you have no counter argument, instead making an off-topic post like this.

What gets the threads locked is when the proponents of the magic propulsion devices can't counter the information and facts they are presented with and instead engage in personal attacks like has already happened multiple times in this thread. I have never seen it be the fault of the people explaining actual physics. Always the uncivility and off topic-ness starts from the proponents of the non-physical claims. If it was the other way around the mods wouldn't close the thread entirely, or they would create a replacement, so discussion of the topic could continue. When the proponents of the device can't even act civilly is when there is no point in even having the thread.

[InterestedEngineer]

I've been around long enough to see that the threads get locked because some naysayer comes along that doesn't like whatever advanced physics topic is under discussion and spreads FUD.  The resulting argument gets the thread locked, but it's nearly always the nayser's fault.  Which fits their goal, which makes it sad that they win.

This thread is about an an actual experiment on advanced physics going on in orbit.  Please stay on topic.

Pointing out how physics works or that the hypothesis presented is not specific enough to be falsifiable is not FUD. Ignoring what I said and dismissing it like this is rude and only goes to show that you have no counter argument, instead making an off-topic post like this.

What gets the threads locked is when the proponents of the magic propulsion devices can't counter the information and facts they are presented with and instead engage in personal attacks like has already happened multiple times in this thread. I have never seen it be the fault of the people explaining actual physics. Always the uncivility and off topic-ness starts from the proponents of the non-physical claims. If it was the other way around the mods wouldn't close the thread entirely, or they would create a replacement, so discussion of the topic could continue. When the proponents of the device can't even act civilly is when there is no point in even having the thread.

The presumption that we know all of physics is the problem.  If we are going to assume that, the entire thread is irrelevant.

As far as epistemology goes, no, a fully agreed upon mechanistic explanation is not necessary to test a hypothesis that a mechanistic might exist.   Sometimes you guess and try stuff in science.

When I engineer something to be successful in the market I rarely go down to elementary physics.   It doesn't  mean I'm not testing a hypothesis that "product/service X will be successful in the market".

[InterestedEngineer]

I have seen people get hurt when they follow science scams and therefore will provide the counterpoint to insert caution.

Let the record show that this was the first personal attack.  By someone who wants to get the thread banned.

Stick to the topic.   how much deltaV will IVO have to perform in order for the proof to be 5 sigma?