Quote from: Eusa on 12/27/2017 05:03 pmI 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!
I already have my conclusions: artefacts all the way.
Sources say the satellite, which carries the emdrive of Chen yue, has been changing its orbit for a year.
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-effectI 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.
Quote from: R.W. Keyes on 12/27/2017 10:33 pmQuote from: Eusa on 12/27/2017 05:03 pmI 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.
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.”
Quote from: R.W. Keyes on 12/27/2017 10:33 pmQuote from: Eusa on 12/27/2017 05:03 pmI 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.
QuoteThe 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.”byRob Coppinger 3 February 2017Royal Aeronautical Societyhttps://www.aerosociety.com/news/flights-of-fancy/
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
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.
Quote from: Bob012345 on 12/29/2017 05:09 pmTaken 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.
Quote from: PotomacNeuron on 12/29/2017 05:27 pmQuote from: Bob012345 on 12/29/2017 05:09 pmTaken 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.
Quote from: Bob012345 on 12/29/2017 05:36 pmQuote from: PotomacNeuron on 12/29/2017 05:27 pmQuote from: Bob012345 on 12/29/2017 05:09 pmTaken 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?
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.
The Mach effect has been verified by three different labs in countries other than the US.
Quote from: Augmentor on 12/30/2017 04:03 pmThe 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?