Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10  (Read 1635180 times)

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1150
  • Liked: 837
  • Likes Given: 1071
https://www.quora.com/If-we-place-a-laser-in-space-away-from-Earths-gravity-and-point-it-towards-an-observatory-on-Earth-can-we-somehow-see-the-time-dilation-effect

I see a symmetry here. If you have a gravitational body which causes observers to disagree about the frequency of the laser, then the symmetry is that if you have two lasers of different frequency interfering, then you should see an acceleration.
And I can feel the change in the wind right now - Rod Stewart

Offline oyzw

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 177
  • Liked: 173
  • Likes Given: 1
Sources say the satellite, which carries the emdrive of Chen yue, has been changing its orbit for a year.

Offline Peter Lauwer

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 287
  • Setting up an exp with torsion balance
  • Netherlands
  • Liked: 339
  • Likes Given: 469
I already have my conclusions: artefacts all the way.
It's great that you have come to a decision of great personal importance. Now, you have to go back and tailor the facts, conjectures, experimental output, and experimental design to agree with your viewpoints. I've heard it's lots more fun than science is!
It is common practice in politics.
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 Peter Lauwer

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 287
  • Setting up an exp with torsion balance
  • Netherlands
  • Liked: 339
  • Likes Given: 469
Sources say the satellite, which carries the emdrive of Chen yue, has been changing its orbit for a year.

"Sources". Unverifiable rumours.
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 Notsosureofit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 691
  • Liked: 747
  • Likes Given: 1729
https://www.quora.com/If-we-place-a-laser-in-space-away-from-Earths-gravity-and-point-it-towards-an-observatory-on-Earth-can-we-somehow-see-the-time-dilation-effect

I see a symmetry here. If you have a gravitational body which causes observers to disagree about the frequency of the laser, then the symmetry is that if you have two lasers of different frequency interfering, then you should see an acceleration.

See:  http://emdrive.wiki/@notsosureofit_Hypothesis

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 278
I already have my conclusions: artefacts all the way.
It's great that you have come to a decision of great personal importance. Now, you have to go back and tailor the facts, conjectures, experimental output, and experimental design to agree with your viewpoints. I've heard it's lots more fun than science is!

There's really no need to be defensive about it; EM Drive will stand on its own merits, or it will fall on its own merits.

That's the ideal but the process can be quite messy, sometimes unnecessarily so, when real people with all their faults and biases are involved. We simply don't have enough information at the present time to make definitive judgments. Those who do make acceptance harder even when better evidence does come forth. Facts win out in the end but that can be delayed when hard attitudes form early on. So, some defensiveness is called for.

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5564
Quote
The Committee of the Royal Aeronautical Society’s Space Group (chairman: Philip Davies FRAeS) has followed the controversy since at least 2005 when Roger Shawyer sought to publish an EmDrive paper in the Society’s The Aeronautical Journal. The Committee responded to the current situation with the following statement:

“Much time has been spent by many parties reviewing the claims of propellantless propulsion despite an apparent lack of reproducible results. The issue with all of these ‘thrusters’ is the lack of theoretical background to them, with each proponent claiming their own to be obvious and sound, yet with none of them agreeing. This was not how the jet engine was developed and is not how the Sabre hypersonic air-breathing engine is being developed by Reaction Engines (see AEROSPACE September 2013, p 39).

If the developers of such devices want to be taken more seriously, it’s incumbent upon them to allow greater scrutiny of their experiments or to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that they have something that works. We note the reluctance of the proponents to publish detailed results which is a barrier to acceptance by the scientific community and we support the AIAA in publishing a peer-reviewed paper on the subject. The lack of acceptance by the mainstream propulsion community will not change without a more open sharing of results and proofs, as well as a rigorous theoretical underpinning. We therefore encourage the inventors to facilitate the creation of a far stronger evidential basis – perhaps with the Society providing an impartial forum for this.”

by

Rob Coppinger
3 February 2017
Royal Aeronautical Society

https://www.aerosociety.com/news/flights-of-fancy/




Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1926
  • Liked: 316
  • Likes Given: 553
Sources say the satellite, which carries the emdrive of Chen yue, has been changing its orbit for a year.

That could probably be verified by observation, depending on what satellite it is. In what way is it changing its orbit? Inclination? Altitude? Does it have any other propulsion system that could be the source of the delta v?
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline R.W. Keyes

  • Member
  • Posts: 77
  • Philadelphia
  • Liked: 54
  • Likes Given: 45
I already have my conclusions: artefacts all the way.
It's great that you have come to a decision of great personal importance. Now, you have to go back and tailor the facts, conjectures, experimental output, and experimental design to agree with your viewpoints. I've heard it's lots more fun than science is!
It is common practice in politics.
Indeed it is. But I hope that's not what we're devolving into.

I want to add, that there is an almost equally unscientific approach in believing the EMdrive works, and discounting any evidence to the contrary. It isn't as bad, though, because while the former 'artefacts' approach seeks to quash all further research into the effect, the latter will keep on trying, damn the weather, and might actually find something.

Offline R.W. Keyes

  • Member
  • Posts: 77
  • Philadelphia
  • Liked: 54
  • Likes Given: 45
Some of us were put on this Earth in order to get off of it.

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 278
Quote
The Committee of the Royal Aeronautical Society’s Space Group (chairman: Philip Davies FRAeS) has followed the controversy since at least 2005 when Roger Shawyer sought to publish an EmDrive paper in the Society’s The Aeronautical Journal. The Committee responded to the current situation with the following statement:

“Much time has been spent by many parties reviewing the claims of propellantless propulsion despite an apparent lack of reproducible results. The issue with all of these ‘thrusters’ is the lack of theoretical background to them, with each proponent claiming their own to be obvious and sound, yet with none of them agreeing. This was not how the jet engine was developed and is not how the Sabre hypersonic air-breathing engine is being developed by Reaction Engines (see AEROSPACE September 2013, p 39).

If the developers of such devices want to be taken more seriously, it’s incumbent upon them to allow greater scrutiny of their experiments or to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that they have something that works. We note the reluctance of the proponents to publish detailed results which is a barrier to acceptance by the scientific community and we support the AIAA in publishing a peer-reviewed paper on the subject. The lack of acceptance by the mainstream propulsion community will not change without a more open sharing of results and proofs, as well as a rigorous theoretical underpinning. We therefore encourage the inventors to facilitate the creation of a far stronger evidential basis – perhaps with the Society providing an impartial forum for this.”

by

Rob Coppinger
3 February 2017
Royal Aeronautical Society

https://www.aerosociety.com/news/flights-of-fancy/

Quote
The issue with all of these ‘thrusters’ is the lack of theoretical background to them, with each proponent claiming their own to be obvious and sound, yet with none of them agreeing.

No, it's not. The issue is whether or not the data is reliable not whether it can be explained or by whom.

Quote
This was not how the jet engine was developed and is not how the Sabre hypersonic air-breathing engine is being developed by Reaction Engines

Say what? Irrelevant! Are they proposing a secret government program?

Quote
If the developers of such devices want to be taken more seriously, it’s incumbent upon them to allow greater scrutiny of their experiments or to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that they have something that works

Taken seriously by whom? Does the Royal Aeronautical Society claim to speak for the whole community of engineers and scientists who may be interested? I wonder just what they think people are trying to do?

This statement appears to question not only EMDrive but also all propellent-less propulsion work which includes the Mach effect work.
« Last Edit: 12/29/2017 05:11 pm by Bob012345 »

Offline PotomacNeuron

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 265
  • Do I look like a neuroscientist?
  • MD
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 42

Taken seriously by whom? Does the Royal Aeronautical Society claim to speak for the whole community of engineers and scientists who may be interested? I wonder just what they think people are trying to do?

This statement appears to question not only EMDrive but also all propellent-less propulsion work which includes the Mach effect work.

There surely are something common between them.
I am working on the ultimate mission human beings are made for.

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 278

Taken seriously by whom? Does the Royal Aeronautical Society claim to speak for the whole community of engineers and scientists who may be interested? I wonder just what they think people are trying to do?

This statement appears to question not only EMDrive but also all propellent-less propulsion work which includes the Mach effect work.

There surely are something common between them.

Yes, they each have a discussion thread on this site. Add the opposition of many armchair critics.

Offline PotomacNeuron

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 265
  • Do I look like a neuroscientist?
  • MD
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 42

Taken seriously by whom? Does the Royal Aeronautical Society claim to speak for the whole community of engineers and scientists who may be interested? I wonder just what they think people are trying to do?

This statement appears to question not only EMDrive but also all propellent-less propulsion work which includes the Mach effect work.

There surely are something common between them.

Yes, they each have a discussion thread on this site. Add the opposition of many armchair critics.

How about, they both do not work?
I am working on the ultimate mission human beings are made for.

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 278

Taken seriously by whom? Does the Royal Aeronautical Society claim to speak for the whole community of engineers and scientists who may be interested? I wonder just what they think people are trying to do?

This statement appears to question not only EMDrive but also all propellent-less propulsion work which includes the Mach effect work.

There surely are something common between them.

Yes, they each have a discussion thread on this site. Add the opposition of many armchair critics.

How about, they both do not work?

So, is that your position?

Offline LowerAtmosphere

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 106
  • Liked: 67
  • Likes Given: 91
The EM Drive still holds a roster of suitable mainstream explanations while the Mach Effect is singular and theoretically incomplete and experimentally unproven if not dubious to be quite frank (note here that this is my personal opinion). Equating them or comparing them is valid only if you enjoy using the affect bias or a few other cognitive biases (feel free to pause reading and search for a list of cognitive biases to refresh your memory) to motivate and frame your arguments.

Regarding proof so far a little reminder is in order...

For thrust measurements with low SNR we can't draw hard conclusions one way or another. As we perform experiments and identify error sources however, we can learn and integrate the practical lessons into better design and more rigorous analysis. A near perfect irrefutable experiment exists: we just lack the resources and the imagination to perform it. If a reader has access to, say, a heavily shielded test site with excellent ambient conditions and the budget to apply the best practices including supercooling and a refractive wall material (multiple theories on the wall - I will not be repeating them) showing an ideal high peak  TE013(or 3+) field pattern density, and corresponding axial energy asymmetry, then we are done with these initial threads as soon as it confirms thrust to a high confidence level. Any experiment not following all of the best practices is flawed and will serve as diatribe material for those who genuinely care about empirical proof. Since we are not expecting a constant stream of academic papers or CERN-like endeavours, skepticism is warranted for as long as we engage in DIY experiments light on accompanying statistics and methodology. Calculate or estimate your SNR and sensitivity if you want skeptics to shut up!

Offline Augmentor

  • Member
  • Posts: 91
  • Liked: 52
  • Likes Given: 67
The EM Drive still holds a roster of suitable mainstream explanations while the Mach Effect is singular and theoretically incomplete and experimentally unproven if not dubious to be quite frank (note here that this is my personal opinion). Equating them or comparing them is valid only if you enjoy using the affect bias or a few other cognitive biases (feel free to pause reading and search for a list of cognitive biases to refresh your memory) to motivate and frame your arguments.

Regarding proof so far a little reminder is in order...

For thrust measurements with low SNR we can't draw hard conclusions one way or another. As we perform experiments and identify error sources however, we can learn and integrate the practical lessons into better design and more rigorous analysis. A near perfect irrefutable experiment exists: we just lack the resources and the imagination to perform it. If a reader has access to, say, a heavily shielded test site with excellent ambient conditions and the budget to apply the best practices including supercooling and a refractive wall material (multiple theories on the wall - I will not be repeating them) showing an ideal high peak  TE013(or 3+) field pattern density, and corresponding axial energy asymmetry, then we are done with these initial threads as soon as it confirms thrust to a high confidence level. Any experiment not following all of the best practices is flawed and will serve as diatribe material for those who genuinely care about empirical proof.

Since we are not expecting a constant stream of academic papers or CERN-like endeavours, skepticism is warranted for as long as we engage in DIY experiments light on accompanying statistics and methodology. Calculate or estimate your SNR and sensitivity if you want skeptics to shut up!

An amusing analysis since nothing will end skeptictical speculations or playing Devil's advocate especially curmudgeons. Here are some notes ...



The Mach effect has been verified by three different labs in countries other than the US. Mach effects have been out of the noise for at least three years with SNR and sensitivity being improved. While some folks would like to achieve the nobel goal of high SNR and sensitivity, let's be serious. Low thrust units become an element in a large array so practical applications are within reach.

High SNR suggests amplification to at least mN levels where thrust measurements can be done by most any university lab or garage shop operation.  High sensitivity can be interpreted two ways: the ability to repeat and hold a thrust setting as well as the ability to perform thrust throttling. In an array, both are required. Ideally, one might be able to set and forget "cruise control" or "position hold" aka hover. In reality, drift compensation will be required at both the element and array level.

The emDrive experimental results may possibly be a Mach effect. However, the plethora of emDrive theories far exceeds any basis in physics and often borders on speculation and wishful thinking. General Relativity is a theory which at last count has survived over 100 years with at least 102 theories that have failed to replace GR. Mach effects stand on solid ground theoretically although engineers need more direction than has been provided, a condition that exists for the emDrive as well.

For space drive theory, mainstream physics is defined by General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. For field drives aka space drive, any approach needs to consider the following theories and how such theory may apply.

1. Mach effect theory
2. Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory
3. Transactional Interpretation of quantum mechanics
4. Pair creation, particularly the oscillation between photon and  electron/positron states
5. Quantum Field Theory

The Transactional Interpretation solves many of the issues of the Copenhagen Interpretation and even the Bohmian Interpretation. John Cramer's book, The Quantum Handshake, provides the extent of Transactional Interpretation; Ruth Kastler's book add quantum field theory in a speculative way.

 As John Cramer questioned in his "Alternate Views" column AV-173 in Analog,

                              "Is it space drive time?"


Your spacetime, theory, evidence and opinion may vary...



Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13606
An amusing analysis since nothing will end skeptictical speculations or playing Devil's advocate especially curmudgeons. Here are some notes ...
Indeed. As always there are skeptics and Doubters.  Skeptics can be won round by better (and more transparent) experimental methods. Doubters will always doubt anything  until it's actually happened, even if you can explain a solid chain of logic from here to the finish line.

Quote from: Augmentor
The Mach effect has been verified by three different labs in countries other than the US. Mach effects have been out of the noise for at least three years with SNR and sensitivity being improved. While some folks would like to achieve the nobel goal of high SNR and sensitivity, let's be serious. Low thrust units become an element in a large array so practical applications are within reach.

High SNR suggests amplification to at least mN levels where thrust measurements can be done by most any university lab or garage shop operation.  High sensitivity can be interpreted two ways: the ability to repeat and hold a thrust setting as well as the ability to perform thrust throttling. In an array, both are required. Ideally, one might be able to set and forget "cruise control" or "position hold" aka hover. In reality, drift compensation will be required at both the element and array level.

The emDrive experimental results may possibly be a Mach effect. However, the plethora of emDrive theories far exceeds any basis in physics and often borders on speculation and wishful thinking. General Relativity is a theory which at last count has survived over 100 years with at least 102 theories that have failed to replace GR. Mach effects stand on solid ground theoretically although engineers need more direction than has been provided, a condition that exists for the emDrive as well.
There is of course a way to test all theories.

While the effect is slight over a very long journey in space if it's real it should appear.

It seems what's needed is a prize.

First EM Drive powered cubesat to Jupiter and back. $10m prize.  2nd or 3rd prize as well?
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1729
  • United States
  • Liked: 4389
  • Likes Given: 1407
The Mach effect has been verified by three different labs in countries other than the US.

I only know of Buldrini (Germany) and Tajmar (Austria). Of those two I have seen Buldrini's trace measurements. Woodward measured ~1uN, while Buldrini measured ~0.15uN. Are Tajmar's replication efforts a solid verification? Perhaps he had measurements at the latest conference in LA that have yet to be published?

Which is the third lab?
« Last Edit: 12/30/2017 04:40 pm by Monomorphic »

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Do it!
  • Statesville, NC
  • Liked: 1453
  • Likes Given: 1925
The Mach effect has been verified by three different labs in countries other than the US.

I only know of Buldrini (Germany) and Tajmar (Austria). Of those two I have seen Buldrini's trace measurements. Woodward measured ~1uN, while Buldrini measured ~0.15uN. Are Tajmar's replication efforts a solid verification? Perhaps he had measurements at the latest conference in LA that have yet to be published?

Which is the third lab?

George Hathaway in Canada.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0