Poll

Rate they likelyhood you currently assign to what we are referring to here on NSF as EM-Drive having an eventual application to propelling spacecraft.

<10%
51 (76.1%)
10 - 33%
5 (7.5%)
34 - 66%
7 (10.4%)
67 - 90%
1 (1.5%)
>90%
3 (4.5%)

Total Members Voted: 67

Voting closed: 06/10/2015 10:09 pm


Author Topic: Alternate EM drive opinion poll  (Read 10892 times)

Offline nadreck

Alternate EM drive opinion poll
« on: 05/27/2015 10:09 pm »
Ok, 14 day time limit on this. I believe the majority of respondent's answers will change with time.

I am not asking about your opinion as to why it will or will not have an application to spacecraft propulsion just whether not you believe it will.
It is all well and good to quote those things that made it past your confirmation bias that other people wrote, but this is a discussion board damnit! Let us know what you think! And why!

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
Re: Alternate EM drive opinion poll
« Reply #1 on: 05/31/2015 02:02 am »
Hey just wanted to add a note that 10% is still a huge value. I imagine some strong and active proponents might only put the probability of a revolutionary discovery around that level and still consider it well worth researching. Even at 1% it would be worth it.

I personally put the probability much lower but this isnt based any detailed knowledge. Revolutions on the scale of relativity or quantum mechanics are very very rare and there is no strong theoretical reason to search for such a breakthrough here.

Offline Misha Vargas

Re: Alternate EM drive opinion poll
« Reply #2 on: 05/31/2015 01:53 pm »

Hey just wanted to add a note that 10% is still a huge value.
[...]

Less-than 10%. It was the lowest option given. A lot of us were thinking of a number quite a bit under 10%.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13997
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: Alternate EM drive opinion poll
« Reply #3 on: 05/31/2015 03:07 pm »


Hey just wanted to add a note that 10% is still a huge value.
[...]

Less-than 10%. It was the lowest option given. A lot of us were thinking of a number quite a bit under 10%.

Possibly those who hadn't looked at or read the resources in the thread & just went by sensationalistic reporting online.

Offline nadreck

Re: Alternate EM drive opinion poll
« Reply #4 on: 05/31/2015 03:16 pm »


Hey just wanted to add a note that 10% is still a huge value.
[...]

Less-than 10%. It was the lowest option given. A lot of us were thinking of a number quite a bit under 10%.

Possibly those who hadn't looked at or read the resources in the thread & just went by sensationalistic reporting online.

Given the level of response so far (about 1/4 that of the other poll) this is starting to reflect the continuum I wrote about on the other EM drive poll thread. There is not 1/3rd of the people convinced there is a usable propulsion  phenomena here, a significant majority consider it unlikely that there is.  This was not a poll asking whether it was worth investigating, and note I am in the middle category on this poll which makes me a wild optimist compared to most who have taken this poll.
It is all well and good to quote those things that made it past your confirmation bias that other people wrote, but this is a discussion board damnit! Let us know what you think! And why!

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13997
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: Alternate EM drive opinion poll
« Reply #5 on: 05/31/2015 03:30 pm »



Hey just wanted to add a note that 10% is still a huge value.
[...]

Less-than 10%. It was the lowest option given. A lot of us were thinking of a number quite a bit under 10%.

Possibly those who hadn't looked at or read the resources in the thread & just went by sensationalistic reporting online.

Given the level of response so far (about 1/4 that of the other poll) this is starting to reflect the continuum I wrote about on the other EM drive poll thread. There is not 1/3rd of the people convinced there is a usable propulsion  phenomena here, a significant majority consider it unlikely that there is.  This was not a poll asking whether it was worth investigating, and note I am in the middle category on this poll which makes me a wild optimist compared to most who have taken this poll.

I haven't even taken this poll as I'd already done the other one & maybe people felt all polled out on the topic. I wonder how many others fell into this camp.

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
Re: Alternate EM drive opinion poll
« Reply #6 on: 06/02/2015 10:56 am »
Hey just wanted to add a note that 10% is still a huge value.
Less-than 10%. It was the lowest option given. A lot of us were thinking of a number quite a bit under 10%.
That was my point.
The range [0%,10%) is far too large a range. I think it would include extreme naysayers to serious proponents. If I thought there was a 9% chance of totally upending physics I would consider it very promising. It does not distinguish between the two most important cases IMO. I personally would have added at least a <1% option.
« Last Edit: 06/02/2015 11:04 am by KelvinZero »

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13997
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
Alternate EM drive opinion poll
« Reply #7 on: 06/02/2015 11:23 am »
Hey just wanted to add a note that 10% is still a huge value.
Less-than 10%. It was the lowest option given. A lot of us were thinking of a number quite a bit under 10%.
That was my point.
The range [0%,10%) is far too large a range. I think it would include extreme naysayers to serious proponents. If I thought there was a 9% chance of totally upending physics I would consider it very promising. It does not distinguish between the two most important cases IMO. I personally would have added at least a <1% option.

How could it include serious proponents, they are hardly likely to be found in such a low band are they.

Your supposition seems to be based on the assumption that this is going to upend physics which is just as contentious statement in itself as the proposition of thrust is. One does not equal the other, it's not beyond the realms of possibility for this to work without needing new physics which is where your assumption runs into trouble.
« Last Edit: 06/02/2015 11:35 am by Star One »

Offline Tellmeagain

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 252
  • maryland
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: Alternate EM drive opinion poll
« Reply #8 on: 06/02/2015 11:46 am »
I want to vote 0%. But I have to vote <10% because there is no 0%.

Better if the options can be,
A. 0%
B. extremely small, but not 0%
C. larger than extremely small, but <1%
D.E.F ...I  do not care whatever way you divide the rest.

and I will vote A
A=absolutely no chance
B=there is hopefully a slight chance, no matter how slight it is.
C=I believe there is hope.
D.E.F.... large chances
« Last Edit: 06/02/2015 12:00 pm by Tellmeagain »

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13997
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: Alternate EM drive opinion poll
« Reply #9 on: 06/02/2015 12:02 pm »

I want to vote 0%. But I have to vote <10% because there is no 0%.

Better if the options can be,
A. 0%
B. extremely small, but not 0%
C. larger than extremely small, but <1%
D.E.F ...I  do not care whatever way you divide the rest.

and I will vote A
A=absolutely no chance
B=there is hopefully a slight chance, no matter how slight it is.
C=I believe there is hope.
D.E.F.... large chances

That would be both biased in one direction & lead to a ludicrous number of options.

Offline Tellmeagain

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 252
  • maryland
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: Alternate EM drive opinion poll
« Reply #10 on: 06/02/2015 12:18 pm »
It can be unbiased, and have only two more options than the original 5.
A. 0%
B. extremely small, but not 0%
C. larger than extremely small, but <1%
D. 1%-99%
E. smaller than "extremely close to 100%", but larger than 99%
F. extremely close to 100%, but not 100%
G. 100%

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13997
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: Alternate EM drive opinion poll
« Reply #11 on: 06/02/2015 12:37 pm »

It can be unbiased, and have only two more options than the original 5.
A. 0%
B. extremely small, but not 0%
C. larger than extremely small, but <1%
D. 1%-99%
E. smaller than "extremely close to 100%", but larger than 99%
F. extremely close to 100%, but not 100%
G. 100%

What's the point of option D for a start, also you're biasing the poll at the extremes?

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2443
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 410
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Alternate EM drive opinion poll
« Reply #12 on: 06/02/2015 05:05 pm »
I'll put it simply;

     Even if the EM drive proves to be a failure, we will have learned how NOT to build an EM drive and may gain Information of value for several other potentile applications of EM fields.  As there also seems to be an unaccountable frequency shifting of light in conjunction with this system, we may learn things about optical manipulation of light by EM fields that we never even suspected.

     So overall, even if this EM drive proves far more elusive than we thought, we will still learn a lot from the experiments being done, much of which, could be applicible to space science.
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline kch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1758
  • Liked: 496
  • Likes Given: 8807
Re: Alternate EM drive opinion poll
« Reply #13 on: 06/02/2015 05:23 pm »
I want to vote 0%. But I have to vote <10% because there is no 0%.

0% *is* less than 10% ... ;)

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13997
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: Alternate EM drive opinion poll
« Reply #14 on: 06/02/2015 06:18 pm »

I want to vote 0%. But I have to vote <10% because there is no 0%.

0% *is* less than 10% ... ;)

I know rather head scratching statement by the OP there.

Offline nadreck

Re: Alternate EM drive opinion poll
« Reply #15 on: 06/02/2015 10:41 pm »
We already had a poll on the EM-Drive. Is this a case of "If you don't like the answer, ask again!"?

No it was a case of I didn't like the question and the choice of answers, as well the interpretations of at least one person looking at the answers didn't fit with my view of statistics.

So I asked what I thought was the relevant question to satisfy my curiosity about what people believed about EM-Drive and its application as a propulsion system.
It is all well and good to quote those things that made it past your confirmation bias that other people wrote, but this is a discussion board damnit! Let us know what you think! And why!

Offline Paul451

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3553
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2518
  • Likes Given: 2180
Re: Alternate EM drive opinion poll
« Reply #16 on: 06/02/2015 11:13 pm »
I want to vote 0%. But I have to vote <10% because there is no 0%.
Better if the options can be,
A. 0%
B. extremely small, but not 0%
C. larger than extremely small, but <1%
D.E.F ...I  do not care whatever way you divide the rest.
That would be both biased in one direction

The responses are biased in one direction. Currently three quarters of respondents are choosing the first option. Any well designed poll should get a wider spread than that, suggesting the range 0-10% is vastly too wide to give an informative response.

Similarly, the (currently) 3 people who selected ">90%" are such outliers that they probably would have selected 99 or 100%, but it would be interesting to see if that's the case.

Therefore the two portions of this poll that are the most interesting but currently least informative are 0-10% and >90%. The middle 10-90% is pretty uninteresting.

[With a Normal distribution somewhere in the middle, having uniform ranges makes sense. But when you have such a lopsided response, you need to zoom in on the ends.]

& lead to a ludicrous number of options.

6 is ludicrous but 5 is okay?

Offline nadreck

Re: Alternate EM drive opinion poll
« Reply #17 on: 06/02/2015 11:22 pm »
I want to vote 0%. But I have to vote <10% because there is no 0%.
Better if the options can be,
A. 0%
B. extremely small, but not 0%
C. larger than extremely small, but <1%
D.E.F ...I  do not care whatever way you divide the rest.
That would be both biased in one direction

The responses are biased in one direction. Currently three quarters of respondents are choosing the first option. Any well designed poll should get a wider spread than that, suggesting the range 0-10% is vastly too wide to give an informative response.

Similarly, the (currently) 3 people who selected ">90%" are such outliers that they probably would have selected 99 or 100%, but it would be interesting to see if that's the case.

Therefore the two portions of this poll that are the most interesting but currently least informative are 0-10% and >90%. The middle 10-90% is pretty uninteresting.

[With a Normal distribution somewhere in the middle, having uniform ranges makes sense. But when you have such a lopsided response, you need to zoom in on the ends.]

& lead to a ludicrous number of options.

6 is ludicrous but 5 is okay?

To me the results are interesting as they asked people to quantify their sense of whether EM-Drive was applicable to space propulsion or not and unlike the other survey that seemed to suggest about 25% thought it did 45% thought it might and the rest 30% were sure it didn't. Here I seem to have a result that says 75% (the 30% who were sure it didn't and the 45% that seemed unsure) say it is less than 10% likely  to have any application and the most of other 25% only think it "Might" have an application for space propulsion showing that the 25% from the other survey are pretty unsure. Or of course maybe the people who do think there is thrust didn't bother to take this survey.
It is all well and good to quote those things that made it past your confirmation bias that other people wrote, but this is a discussion board damnit! Let us know what you think! And why!

Offline Paul451

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3553
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2518
  • Likes Given: 2180
Re: Alternate EM drive opinion poll
« Reply #18 on: 06/02/2015 11:50 pm »
Therefore the two portions of this poll that are the most interesting but currently least informative are 0-10% and >90%. The middle 10-90% is pretty uninteresting.
To me the results are interesting as they asked people to quantify their sense of whether EM-Drive was applicable to space propulsion or not and unlike the other survey that seemed to suggest about 25% thought it did 45% thought it might and the rest 30% were sure it didn't. Here I seem to have a result that says 75% (the 30% who were sure it didn't and the 45% that seemed unsure) say it is less than 10% likely to have any application and the most of other 25% only think it "Might" have an application for space propulsion showing that the 25% from the other survey are pretty unsure.

I'm not sniping at the poll, just sniping at those sniping at those sniping at the poll... ahem...

I think it's a reasonable poll, and much less ambiguous (IMO) than the first poll. You weren't to know that the response would be so lopsided, given how spread out the response in the other poll was. I would have expected about 30% at the low end, the rest spread more evenly through the range.

(Likewise, specifying "space applications" was a good way to not get bogged down in the definition of "real" or "useful" or some other term.)

Maybe try again in 6 months (or the next big wave of publicity) and open up the bottom and top bands, close up the three middle bands.

Or of course maybe the people who do think there is thrust didn't bother to take this survey.

Maybe. But as someone else noted, it may be that those who believe there might be something to it are still voting at the low end because they are trying to be fair to the scientific method. "This is early, we need more data..."

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: Alternate EM drive opinion poll
« Reply #19 on: 06/03/2015 12:40 am »
It's not beyond the realms of possibility for this to work without needing new physics

Actually, it is beyond the realm of possibility for this to work without needing new physics.  Conservation of momentum is guaranteed by currently-accepted physics and currently-accepted physics doesn't not include any sort of mechanism for transferring momentum to the quantum vacuum or distant galaxies or anything of the sort.

This has been repeatedly pointed out in these threads.  I'm not sure why anyone doesn't get this yet.

Even if the EM drive proves to be a failure, we will have learned how NOT to build an EM drive and may gain Information of value for several other potentile applications of EM fields.  As there also seems to be an unaccountable frequency shifting of light in conjunction with this system, we may learn things about optical manipulation of light by EM fields that we never even suspected.

So overall, even if this EM drive proves far more elusive than we thought, we will still learn a lot from the experiments being done, much of which, could be applicible to space science.

I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that.  How microwaves bounce around metal cavities has already been pretty well characterized.

Not every experiment is equally useful.  Some experiments are extremely unlikely to teach us anything we don't already know.  The EM-drive experiments are in that category.

It's just sad because there are lots of physics students and researchers at reputable institutions who need more money to do experiments that actually have a decent chance of teaching us new things.  They don't get all the attention from amateurs that things like EM Drives and Warp Drives get.  Sad.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1