-
#260
by
ChrisWilson68
on 08 Aug, 2014 07:04
-
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.
-
#261
by
ChrisWilson68
on 08 Aug, 2014 07:07
-
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.
-
#262
by
QuantumG
on 08 Aug, 2014 07:50
-
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".
-
#263
by
Stormbringer
on 08 Aug, 2014 08:32
-
-
#264
by
sanman
on 08 Aug, 2014 14:04
-
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.
-
#265
by
sanman
on 08 Aug, 2014 14:06
-
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?
-
#266
by
Star One
on 08 Aug, 2014 16:03
-
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.
-
#267
by
cuddihy
on 08 Aug, 2014 16:15
-
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).
-
#268
by
aero
on 08 Aug, 2014 16:35
-
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.
-
#269
by
DMeader
on 08 Aug, 2014 16:45
-
-
#270
by
Star One
on 08 Aug, 2014 17:05
-
-
#271
by
DMeader
on 08 Aug, 2014 17:08
-
Maybe "these article writers" know bad science when they see it.
-
#272
by
Star One
on 08 Aug, 2014 17:13
-
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?
-
#273
by
aero
on 08 Aug, 2014 18:48
-
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.
-
#274
by
Star One
on 08 Aug, 2014 19:04
-
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.
-
#275
by
GregA
on 08 Aug, 2014 23:22
-
-
#276
by
Stormbringer
on 08 Aug, 2014 23:35
-
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!
-
#277
by
Lars_J
on 09 Aug, 2014 05:42
-
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?
-
#278
by
Stormbringer
on 09 Aug, 2014 06:13
-
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?
-
#279
by
QuantumG
on 09 Aug, 2014 06:24
-
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.