Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5  (Read 940643 times)

Offline Space Time Engineer

  • Member
  • Posts: 8
  • West Coast
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 24
Michelle:

Bravo girl, way to go!!  We are in this business because we are dreamers that see the light on the distant hill that we want to be part of.

Now back to how to get there. 

BTW, Tetrakis is right to be very concerned about accounting for the thermal effects in these EmDrive experiments for they can make an otherwise straight forward thruster test into a nightmare of conflicting results.  Been there, done that.  However we've found that going to vacuum operations just changes one set of thermal effects for another set that still have to be analytically accounted for and subtracted from any impulsive signal that may be present in the experimental data.

Phil:

The Eagleworks (EW) Lab ultimately works for the taxpayers of the USA and the data we are accumulating and vetting will be made public, but only after its been further vetted in a known peer reviewed journal, which is happening now, but sadly that process can take months to accomplish, so please be patient.  We are also preparing to test our copper frustum in another NASA test facility as part of an Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V) requirement mandated by JSC management, but again that is several months off, so it will take even more time to divulge those test results, pro or con. 

All:

In the meantime I cheer on all the DIY experimenters who are pursuing these EmDrive replications either in-air or in-vacuum for both approaches brings illumination to the dark-estate we are exploring.  I also suggest that all of us should look deeper into how Roger Shawyer designed and built his 2nd generation, 100kg rotary copper frustum test rig.  Why?  Because I think Roger's use of spherical end-caps in his 2nd gen copper frustum and on, AND the use of resonant mode frequency tracking and active feedback driven tuning of the frustum RF system, either mechanically and/or electronically, are the key elements needed to produce large impulsive thrust signals that measure in the hundreds of milli-Newton (mN).

Best, Paul March


Fantastic to hear from you Paul.  Cannot wait to read the paper.  Cheers.

Bob

Offline ThinkerX

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 326
  • Alaska
  • Liked: 122
  • Likes Given: 61
Quote
Brainstorming time...airflow up into and above magnetron is the cause of thermal lift. Thinking about a cold air induction "downward moving" system on top plate of frustum, perhaps offsetting lift.

So, make a solid "fence" around mag...sucking cold air down onto top side of frustum plate (a few inches away from mag) and the horizontally over to base of mag which will then rise up after heating.

Tying to cheat mother nature here. As it is now, cold air is drawn into mag from below and horizontally. Divert this cold airflow to an intake from top of frustum away from mag.

Uhhh, am I delusional?

I suspect you'd only be creating more noise.

At this point, given the thermal issues, the best bet for a detecting legitimate thrust would probably be a variant of Shawyers rotary rig - though that may be a bit of a budget buster for our DIY people.  I do wonder if a 'water' or 'float' test might also work (put the device on a tiny boat, put the boat in a large barrel or some such filled with water, and see if it moves). 

I dunno...would a Shawyer style rotary rig work in a vacuum?

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2364
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 3089
  • Likes Given: 2659
Quote
PS: If I do decide to ramp my testing up to a point where it would be a business would that fact make it not as amateurish?

No Shell, that wouldn't do it. You'd need to hire a helper who would then be the professional. It would be OK for you to remain unpaid as the boss, most bosses are amateurs anyway.
hahhaa snort sputter!!! Made me almost spew out my coffee aero.

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2364
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 3089
  • Likes Given: 2659
Quote
Brainstorming time...airflow up into and above magnetron is the cause of thermal lift. Thinking about a cold air induction "downward moving" system on top plate of frustum, perhaps offsetting lift.

So, make a solid "fence" around mag...sucking cold air down onto top side of frustum plate (a few inches away from mag) and the horizontally over to base of mag which will then rise up after heating.

Tying to cheat mother nature here. As it is now, cold air is drawn into mag from below and horizontally. Divert this cold airflow to an intake from top of frustum away from mag.

Uhhh, am I delusional?

I suspect you'd only be creating more noise.

At this point, given the thermal issues, the best bet for a detecting legitimate thrust would probably be a variant of Shawyers rotary rig - though that may be a bit of a budget buster for our DIY people.  I do wonder if a 'water' or 'float' test might also work (put the device on a tiny boat, put the boat in a large barrel or some such filled with water, and see if it moves). 

I dunno...would a Shawyer style rotary rig work in a vacuum?
No. It would not work, it needs air to float the plates but a magnetic bearing could do it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_bearing

Shell

Offline Paul451

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1379
  • Australia
  • Liked: 676
  • Likes Given: 573
Thread activity is picking up again, so I'll go back to lurking. But before I do, I wanted to try to explain what I'm worried about. I'd hate to see all the time, effort (and money) people have put in end up being for nothing.

But this stuff...

Every test is going to come under question regardless of the quality of the test or level of thrust gained. You could lift a car and they will say it's a trick with hidden wires. You launch a ship and they will say it's a Hollywood trick... like the moon landings.

(...Because anyone who offers criticism can never be convinced by evidence, and is on a par with Moon-landing-hoax believers.)

So why do I do it and fight for my right to? "Because I choose to dream. [...] Yes, I dream, for humanity."

(...Whereas anyone who offers criticism is anti-progress, trying to condemn humanity to stay in the caves, an enemy to be "fought".)

Good for you standing your ground on this matter.

(...Because listening to critics is the same as giving up.)

It doesn't matter what naysayers say. [...]

This stuff is what worries me. The growing tribalism. Us vs Them. I've seen it in every alt.science and many fringe science fields for the decades I've been interested in this kind of thing. It's a common pattern that marks them out from actual science.

Nothing Tetrakis (or myself) said indicated dismissal of the possibility of a genuine effect, or of real novel physics. But the reaction from many "supporters" suggests that that's how they read any criticism. If you aren't a supporter, you are a mindless naysayer, an enemy to be vanquished to protect "the dream".

Do you want your research, the result of your huge personal efforts, to be valued outside of a bubble of approved admirers? 'cause that ain't doing it.

Psychological effects (confirmation bias, "commitment-blinkers", etc,) are at least as powerful as the proposed confounding physical effects. And like those physical effects, it needs to be accounted for in the experiments. But some of the comments suggest not only is it not being taken into consideration, but that there's an active hostility towards the very idea of doing so.

One of the things that always impressed me about Paul March was that he didn't sound like that. The guy always seemed to drink in criticism like it was his fuel. Not just engaging with critics, but making shifts in research direction based on the points raised by critics. Critic:"You haven't eliminated [...]" March:"Hey that's a great thought, we can try this [...] in the next round" Critic:"You'll need to [...] or else [...]" March:"Hmmm, first we'd need to know the size of [...]" That pattern is common in science, but completely unlike the the culture that develops in alt.sci.

What worries me is that some in this thread are choosing the other path.

--

CITOKATE: Criticism Is The Only Known Antidote To Error. [Brin]

Because, the easiest person to fool is yourself. [Feynman]
« Last Edit: 10/12/2015 07:38 PM by Paul451 »

Offline Tetrakis

  • Member
  • Posts: 82
  • Liked: 67
  • Likes Given: 9
If you want to be helpful here's some questions:
1) what is shell and rfmwguy not doing well enough to counter the "well known" thermal effects? Shell's experiment is removing heat sources from the frustum, and Dave's ran control on the thermal expansion. Now that they're both thinking about and working on tests is the time to show your stripes.

2) what can be done to counter the "well known" thermal effects when this experiment is moved to vacuum? Just because there isn't air doesn't mean there isn't heat to deal with, no? Where does that heat go? Do you have a large sized vacuum chamber you can let somebody borrow?

I don't think its possible to completely eliminate thermal effects in air. Sure, there are things that can be done to reduce those effects, but at the force levels seen so far there is just no way to state with confidence that any observed forces are due to new physics. The level of experimental quality needed to make such a claim is very high.

I'll also say that I am not an expert on small force measurements in vacuum. There are people out there that have that expertise. However, I think that the simplest approach is to build a test rig entirely out of metal or ceramic components and to minimize the use of soft parts anywhere near heat sources or the measured mass. Its also going to be important to conduct the tests at a sufficiently high vacuum that low pressure gas-effects (see Crookes radiometer) become negligible (microtorr). Sadly I don't have access to a sufficiently large UHV apparatus to lend out. I'm a chemist, and we use these pressures for gas handling and other small-diameter applications.

Understand that my goal here isn't to antagonize or insult anyone, just to encourage DIY experimenters to do their science as if they were preparing to submit a paper to Nature or Science. Holding yourself to that standard greatly improves the overall quality of your work even if in the end you fail to get sufficiently high-impact results. Those standards have nothing to do with money, influence, or armies of PhDs. Its about discovering something new by asking Nature expertly posed questions.


I couldn't disagree more in making this vacuum testing the first step. You forget that this is my first step and that first step not only runs a test of the frustum, but it also irons out any other issues I might have with the design of the test bed. To me this isn't only about seeing or getting thrust it's about starting the process to define the why, something I've stated many times. A careful choreographed sequence of well thought out steps.

A vacuum chamber at this point in testing would only throw a series of unknowns into this first step. I've said before I'm here to pick apart the EMDrive and jumping up to a vacuum chamber right now when the entire test bed is untested is very unwise.

I'm not saying a vacuum chamber isn't in the plans for that would be not good planning on my part. To reinforce this thought I remember a test by a world class Professor and testing facility in Dresden that was sadly riddled with small errors. TU Dresden, Tajmar & Fiedler  tested his EMDrive and even with the assistance of Shawyer it still wasn't out of the errors. Design errors, equipment errors, thermal errors, were rampant. They may not have occurred if they would have taken small steps to ramp up instead of going for the vacuum chamber tests.

I do have contacts in the Semiconductor industry that I've looked into and foretasted cost layouts for a vacuum chamber plus the hardware I'd need to interface with it. It is doable, but not right now.

So my tests will take these first small steps to pick apart the why, it's no more complicated than that.

Shell

I'm glad to hear that. I'm not trying to say that nothing could be done in air at all, just that it worries me when certain DIYers make bold and strong statements from their in-air tests. I think many DIYers would benefit from a much more conservative approach to their data.  They (and I'm not calling anyone out specifically) should recognize that until they can confidently say that there is only a negligible chance of confounding factors affecting their experiments, they shouldn't start making bold claims and proclamations. I don't think there will ever be any ironclad evidence for the proposed "EMDrive effect" with in-air tests unless the magnitude of the effect is truly huge.

I'll also say that I admire your spirit and think you are doing good work. Best of luck to you and your ambitions.

The Eagleworks (EW) Lab ultimately works for the taxpayers of the USA and the data we are accumulating and vetting will be made public, but only after its been further vetted in a known peer reviewed journal, which is happening now, but sadly that process can take months to accomplish, so please be patient.  We are also preparing to test our copper frustum in another NASA test facility as part of an Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V) requirement mandated by JSC management, but again that is several months off, so it will take even more time to divulge those test results, pro or con. 

Glad to hear that your campaign is going well. What do you think the source of your thermal issues are at UHV pressures?

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2364
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 3089
  • Likes Given: 2659
Thread activity is picking up again, so I'll go back to lurking. But before I do, I wanted to try to explain what I'm worried about. I'd hate to see all the time, effort (and money) people have put in end up being for nothing.

But this stuff...

Every test is going to come under question regardless of the quality of the test or level of thrust gained. You could lift a car and they will say it's a trick with hidden wires. You launch a ship and they will say it's a Hollywood trick... like the moon landings.

(...Because anyone who offers criticism can never be convinced by evidence, and is on a par with Moon-landing-hoax believers.)

So why do I do it and fight for my right to? "Because I choose to dream. [...] Yes, I dream, for humanity."

(...Whereas anyone who offers criticism is anti-progress, trying to condemn humanity to stay in the caves, an enemy to be "fought".)

Good for you standing your ground on this matter.

(...Because listening to critics is the same as giving up.)

It doesn't matter what naysayers say. [...]

This stuff is what worries me. The growing tribalism. Us vs Them. I've seen it in every alt.science and many fringe science fields for the decades I've been interested in this kind of thing. It's a common pattern that marks them out from actual science.

Nothing Tetrakis (or myself) said indicated dismissal of the possibility of a genuine effect, or of real novel physics. But the reaction from many "supporters" suggests that that's how they read any criticism. If you aren't a supporter, you are a mindless naysayer, an enemy to be vanquished to protect "the dream".

Do you want your research, the result of your huge personal efforts, to be valued outside of a bubble of approved admirers? 'cause that ain't doing it.

Psychological effects (confirmation bias, "commitment-blinkers", etc,) are at least as powerful as the proposed confounding physical effects. And like those physical effects, it needs to be accounted for in the experiments. But some of the comments suggest not only is it not being taken into consideration, but that there's an active hostility towards the very idea of doing so.

One of the things that always impressed me about Paul March was that he didn't sound like that. The guy always seemed to drink in criticism like it was his fuel. Not just engaging with critics, but making shifts in research direction based on the points raised by critics. Critic:"You haven't eliminated [...]" March:"Hey that's a great thought, we can try this [...] in the next round" Critic:"You'll need to [...] or else [...]" March:"Hmmm, first we'd need to know the size of [...]" That pattern is common in science, but completely unlike the the culture that develops in alt.sci.

What worries me is that some in this thread are choosing the other path.

--

CITOKATE: Criticism Is The Only Known Antidote To Error.

Because, "the easiest person to fool is yourself."

Don't confuse my choice to dream with my research, as it's a dream that gives me the drive to test this device, if it's a flop then it's a flop, if it goes then great. You dream of a better job, you dream of a better future for your friends and family, you dream of discovering fire again, making more money. Of course you and we dream, it is in our nature.  We all dream, for that gives us the drive to achieve.

I was asked about using a vacuum in my testing and then told anything I gained from not doing it in a vacuum, wasn't worth while. I explained that wasn't in the cards  at this time but it was in the future. How is that not listening? Testing in a vacuum is a fine idea.

I have no reason to try to fool myself, it would be a fools choice. Shell

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2364
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 3089
  • Likes Given: 2659
If you want to be helpful here's some questions:
1) what is shell and rfmwguy not doing well enough to counter the "well known" thermal effects? Shell's experiment is removing heat sources from the frustum, and Dave's ran control on the thermal expansion. Now that they're both thinking about and working on tests is the time to show your stripes.

2) what can be done to counter the "well known" thermal effects when this experiment is moved to vacuum? Just because there isn't air doesn't mean there isn't heat to deal with, no? Where does that heat go? Do you have a large sized vacuum chamber you can let somebody borrow?

I don't think its possible to completely eliminate thermal effects in air. Sure, there are things that can be done to reduce those effects, but at the force levels seen so far there is just no way to state with confidence that any observed forces are due to new physics. The level of experimental quality needed to make such a claim is very high.

I'll also say that I am not an expert on small force measurements in vacuum. There are people out there that have that expertise. However, I think that the simplest approach is to build a test rig entirely out of metal or ceramic components and to minimize the use of soft parts anywhere near heat sources or the measured mass. Its also going to be important to conduct the tests at a sufficiently high vacuum that low pressure gas-effects (see Crookes radiometer) become negligible (microtorr). Sadly I don't have access to a sufficiently large UHV apparatus to lend out. I'm a chemist, and we use these pressures for gas handling and other small-diameter applications.

Understand that my goal here isn't to antagonize or insult anyone, just to encourage DIY experimenters to do their science as if they were preparing to submit a paper to Nature or Science. Holding yourself to that standard greatly improves the overall quality of your work even if in the end you fail to get sufficiently high-impact results. Those standards have nothing to do with money, influence, or armies of PhDs. Its about discovering something new by asking Nature expertly posed questions.


I couldn't disagree more in making this vacuum testing the first step. You forget that this is my first step and that first step not only runs a test of the frustum, but it also irons out any other issues I might have with the design of the test bed. To me this isn't only about seeing or getting thrust it's about starting the process to define the why, something I've stated many times. A careful choreographed sequence of well thought out steps.

A vacuum chamber at this point in testing would only throw a series of unknowns into this first step. I've said before I'm here to pick apart the EMDrive and jumping up to a vacuum chamber right now when the entire test bed is untested is very unwise.

I'm not saying a vacuum chamber isn't in the plans for that would be not good planning on my part. To reinforce this thought I remember a test by a world class Professor and testing facility in Dresden that was sadly riddled with small errors. TU Dresden, Tajmar & Fiedler  tested his EMDrive and even with the assistance of Shawyer it still wasn't out of the errors. Design errors, equipment errors, thermal errors, were rampant. They may not have occurred if they would have taken small steps to ramp up instead of going for the vacuum chamber tests.

I do have contacts in the Semiconductor industry that I've looked into and foretasted cost layouts for a vacuum chamber plus the hardware I'd need to interface with it. It is doable, but not right now.

So my tests will take these first small steps to pick apart the why, it's no more complicated than that.

Shell

I'm glad to hear that. I'm not trying to say that nothing could be done in air at all, just that it worries me when certain DIYers make bold and strong statements from their in-air tests. I think many DIYers would benefit from a much more conservative approach to their data.  They (and I'm not calling anyone out specifically) should recognize that until they can confidently say that there is only a negligible chance of confounding factors affecting their experiments, they shouldn't start making bold claims and proclamations. I don't think there will ever be any ironclad evidence for the proposed "EMDrive effect" with in-air tests unless the magnitude of the effect is truly huge.

I'll also say that I admire your spirit and think you are doing good work. Best of luck to you and your ambitions.

Thank you, I never took you differently than willing to help and offer us your professional thoughts. 

The funds simply don't exist right now to go up to the level I'd like to be, that bothers me greatly, but I am trying to build the best I can with the few thousand contributed with my gofundme account. I hope and it is with the help of many here to be able to push this test up to a level that the effect shows above the noise and good data pulled. We'll see what happens and that's the best I can hope for.

Shell


The Eagleworks (EW) Lab ultimately works for the taxpayers of the USA and the data we are accumulating and vetting will be made public, but only after its been further vetted in a known peer reviewed journal, which is happening now, but sadly that process can take months to accomplish, so please be patient.  We are also preparing to test our copper frustum in another NASA test facility as part of an Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V) requirement mandated by JSC management, but again that is several months off, so it will take even more time to divulge those test results, pro or con. 

Glad to hear that your campaign is going well. What do you think the source of your thermal issues are at UHV pressures?

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2166
  • Liked: 2684
  • Likes Given: 1124
Time Out - It might be a good time to insert this link again to the 2015 South African Science fair gold winner for his DIY EMDrive accomplishments:

https://www.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/3odlez/science_fair_complete/

...and to remind critics that even the most humble DIY experiments can lead to great things.

Not all DIY experiments are going to be gold standards, and they don't have to be. For there is no perfect experiment. Might I suggest that we need to moderate gold scientific standards to allow people like Paul to get involved in DIY work and not become discouraged. Opinions and terms like "never", "amateur" and "cannot" when applied to DIY work is not only counterproductive, it could be terribly wrong and potentially discourage another Paul in the making.




« Last Edit: 10/12/2015 08:28 PM by rfmwguy »

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9326
  • UK
  • Liked: 1654
  • Likes Given: 183
I think both sides, how depressing that it has come to sides, will need to be patient as I imagine it will not be until 2016 that we hear more results from groups such as EW.

Offline not_a_physicist

  • Member
  • Posts: 13
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 3
I don't think its possible to completely eliminate thermal effects in air. Sure, there are things that can be done to reduce those effects, but at the force levels seen so far there is just no way to state with confidence that any observed forces are due to new physics. The level of experimental quality needed to make such a claim is very high.
I am curious: if someone did a setup like rfmwguy's, with the drive trying to move down, and it actually moved measurably down, would you consider that convincing evidence that thermal effects aren't the cause? Unless I am misunderstanding something, thermal effects would only move it upwards, so that would mean the drive overcame them and then some.

Online Giovanni DS

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 199
    • ChibiOS/RT Project
  • Liked: 55
  • Likes Given: 183
I am curious: if someone did a setup like rfmwguy's, with the drive trying to move down, and it actually moved measurably down, would you consider that convincing evidence that thermal effects aren't the cause? Unless I am misunderstanding something, thermal effects would only move it upwards, so that would mean the drive overcame them and then some.

There are thermal effects that could push it down, asymmetric expansion of the scale arms for example, the hotter arm would expand more than the colder one.

Offline Prunesquallor

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 174
  • Currently, TeV Brane Resident
  • Liked: 157
  • Likes Given: 73
Brainstorming time...airflow up into and above magnetron is the cause of thermal lift. Thinking about a cold air induction "downward moving" system on top plate of frustum, perhaps offsetting lift.

So, make a solid "fence" around mag...sucking cold air down onto top side of frustum plate (a few inches away from mag) and the horizontally over to base of mag which will then rise up after heating.

Tying to cheat mother nature here. As it is now, cold air is drawn into mag from below and horizontally. Divert this cold airflow to an intake from top of frustum away from mag.

Uhhh, am I delusional?

It seems to me that rather than introducing additional forces trying to counteract disturbances, it might be more productive to characterize the disturbances, then analytically eliminate them from the measurements. In other words, is there a way to induce the thermal effects into the apparatus in a way guaranteed NOT to produce thrust, measure them, then subtract them from a full test run and see if there are any forces remaining?
Retired, yet... not

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2166
  • Liked: 2684
  • Likes Given: 1124
Brainstorming time...airflow up into and above magnetron is the cause of thermal lift. Thinking about a cold air induction "downward moving" system on top plate of frustum, perhaps offsetting lift.

So, make a solid "fence" around mag...sucking cold air down onto top side of frustum plate (a few inches away from mag) and the horizontally over to base of mag which will then rise up after heating.

Tying to cheat mother nature here. As it is now, cold air is drawn into mag from below and horizontally. Divert this cold airflow to an intake from top of frustum away from mag.

Uhhh, am I delusional?

It seems to me that rather than introducing additional forces trying to counteract disturbances, it might be more productive to characterize the disturbances, then analytically eliminate them from the measurements. In other words, is there a way to induce the thermal effects into the apparatus in a way guaranteed NOT to produce thrust, measure them, then subtract them from a full test run and see if there are any forces remaining?
Yes, I characterized lift on 3 test runs. There were anomalies in mag power ON/OFF time block comparisons. In OFF mode, lift continued a (fairly) linear rise to its peak (around 200 deg C meg temp). When mag ON, this (upwards) lift was disrupted, sometimes by a momentary downward force, sometimes with an attenuated lift rate. This was discussed alot towards the end of Thread 4 and some nice data analysis was done. Basically, the mag ON introduced unexpected non-linearities in lift progression. Just a simple, basic experiment.

This is what some skeptics are trying to claim are experimental errors. I did do a system noise analysis on the LDS and A/D converter and it was random and very insignificant whether mag was ON/OFF. All other variables have been accounted for to the best of my abilities. The test stand only had one source of data readings, the LDS which had insignificant noise levels as mentioned above.

On of the spreadsheets that illustrate this was wallofwolfstreet's analysis of Flight Test 2B. It showed a statistically different set of numbers mag ON to OFF periods:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=38203.0;attach=1070977

Glennfish also did some fine analysis as well (FT 2C). So while my Test Report claimed lift anomalies between mag ON & OFF, I labeled this as the emdrive effect which albeit small, was not attributable to system errors.

Online sandrot

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 749
  • Motown
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 5
How hot does the frustum get during an experiment?
"Paper planes do fly much better than paper spacecrafts."

Offline glennfish

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 388
  • Liked: 281
  • Likes Given: 169

Uhhh, am I delusional?

IMHO yes, that is delusional.   :)

I think the issue is veritcal vs. horizontal.  If you know you will have veritical lift, then measure horizontally, i.e. rotational.  Put a nice vertical stopper so anything up or down doesn't get measured.  Get one of those gizmos that allows a 180 degree flip so you go clockwise or counter clockwise by flipping the whole gizmo on demand.  Not sure what that means in an actual implementation, but if you can flip 180 degrees and measure something horizontally, all the hot air balloon arguments go away, or at least, should go away.

IMHO

Offline RotoSequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 906
  • Liked: 648
  • Likes Given: 829
...if you can flip 180 degrees and measure something horizontally, all the hot air balloon arguments go away, or at least, should go away.

They won't. There are too many people (not necessarily here) who are emotionally invested in these experiments being false positives for any experiment to satisfy them. I don't think any publisher short of Nature or Physical Review Letters will convince them that there's a real effect.
« Last Edit: 10/12/2015 11:31 PM by RotoSequence »

Offline glennfish

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 388
  • Liked: 281
  • Likes Given: 169


PS: If I do decide to ramp my testing up to a point where it would be a business would that fact make it not as amateurish?

Actually, having done a few startups in my time, and having a bunch of vultural capitalists in tow, I could make you a "scientist" with a wave of the magic wand,  but it might turn you into a business lady.

The investment issues here is that there are pre-existing patent pendings, few if any physicists that think any of this is real, and no one who's written a business plan detailing how to get a 100 to 1 return on investment at a 30% probability if they invest.

I could sell this to a VC on the following conditions:
1.  The "experimentor" has prior startup experience
2.  The "experimentor" has a solid business plan if it works.
3.  The "experimentor" won't get their ass in court for patent infringement.
4.  The "experimentor" has something that either as patentable or has a trade secret that is unique.
5.  The "experimentor" has data that looks fantastic in a power point presentation (doesn't have to be real)
6.  The "experimentor" is willing to lose control of their company on demand and bow and scrape before a "hot" CEO who has no clue what's happening and will most likely tank the business.

Absent the above, everyone is back to "Go Fund Me"

Two quotes I've personally lived through to keep in mind.  :)

1.  It doesn't matter what is that counts, it only matters what people think it is that counts.
2.  In 30 years of investment banking, I've never heard a bad story.

Offline glennfish

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 388
  • Liked: 281
  • Likes Given: 169
...if you can flip 180 degrees and measure something horizontally, all the hot air balloon arguments go away, or at least, should go away.

They won't. There are too many people (not necessarily here) who are emotionally invested in these experiments being false positives for any experiment to satisfy them. I don't think any publisher short of Nature or Physical Review Letters will convince them that there's a real effect.

Aw come-on.  I thought I had a brilliant idea.  Are you the dark lord of winter?  :)

Offline RotoSequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 906
  • Liked: 648
  • Likes Given: 829
...if you can flip 180 degrees and measure something horizontally, all the hot air balloon arguments go away, or at least, should go away.

They won't. There are too many people (not necessarily here) who are emotionally invested in these experiments being false positives for any experiment to satisfy them. I don't think any publisher short of Nature or Physical Review Letters will convince them that there's a real effect.

Aw come-on.  I thought I had a brilliant idea.  Are you the dark lord of winter?  :)

A bit glum after a few too many "frauds," "meme-drives," "no credible research group is attempting to replicates," and "they'll never get signal above the noise floors." Sorry to be a Debbie Downer. :(
« Last Edit: 10/12/2015 11:44 PM by RotoSequence »

Tags: