-
#940 by Rodal on 30 Dec, 2015 15:50
-
......
________
(*) Also Dr. White at NASA carefully distanced himself and his project from the unaccepted theories of Yang and Shawyer, who he never embraced, as they are obviously incompatible with well-known physics.
Dr. White's QV-virtual plasma thruster theory? does not exactly conform to any currently accepted understanding of either the QV or Gravity.
It is difficult to justify criticisms of any theory attached to the publication of any experiment, whether published or presented for purposes of funding. As someone mentioned earlier, when dealing with what is New Physics, journals expect an included theory of operation and not many venture capitalists are going to be willing to provide funding, in the early stages of any technological development without some explanation, of how/why it might work. In neither case does the attached theory have to have been proven a realistic explanation.... No, all that is required is that it be acceptable to the reviewing(s) parties. If theory had to be proven before being published, there would be no theoretical physics, at all.
It is unreasonable to reject experimental claims based solely on an attached theory of operation.., or without all of the facts contributing to any claims made based on experiment. Shawyer, Yang and even Eagleworks have not provided sufficient detail of their experimental design that anyone could just duplicate their tests, without a great deal of trial and error. Rejecting experimental claims based on incomplete detail, or the lack of specific design detail, is valid.., but in that case you are rejecting their reporting or experimental design. The actual engineering and physical design...
Until the dust settles on any proposed new technology, rejecting claims based on faulty theory is bad science. There seems to be a great deal of confusion, of just where the line between engineering and theory is, where the EMDrive is concerned. Most of what I have seen is an engineering effort, aimed at reproducing and testing past claims, and a healthy dose of theoretical speculation. It is the engineering that drives the experimental design, not so much what we imagine the theory of operation might be.
As I have said before, It would be far better to catch the rabbit.., replicate or experimentally refute the claimed results before, cooking it!.., chasing the theory of operation. Engineering is based on what we know and trial and error, while any theory of operation would seem to be obviously New Physics and not entirely explainable by any inherited or aquired theoretical bias, based on past experience.
It is not my impression from reading any of these authors, (White, Shawyer, Yang,de Aquino or Woodward who explains the NASA EM Drive forces as due to the dielectric insert Mach effect ) that they intended their explanations as just aQuotehealthy dose of theoretical speculation
. On the contrary, the impression is that they are very serious about it. For example one thing I have never understood is why don't they modify their explanations? (Other people continuously modify their theories, particularly to accommodate well articulated criticisms and experimental evidence)
Of course, the readers are free to interpret them as "healthy speculation"
.
-
#941 by rfmwguy on 30 Dec, 2015 15:55
-
I like this line of reasoning, being theory-lite myself so to speak. What I've humbly learned about academia and professional scientists (which I am not) is that there seems to be a great reluctant to venture off the beaten path, and those who do, are subject to...lets say...vigorous challenges (to put it mildly).
......
________
(*) Also Dr. White at NASA carefully distanced himself and his project from the unaccepted theories of Yang and Shawyer, who he never embraced, as they are obviously incompatible with well-known physics.
Dr. White's QV-virtual plasma thruster theory? does not exactly conform to any currently accepted understanding of either the QV or Gravity.
It is difficult to justify criticisms of any theory attached to the publication of any experiment, whether published or presented for purposes of funding. As someone mentioned earlier, when dealing with what is New Physics, journals expect an included theory of operation and not many venture capitalists are going to be willing to provide funding, in the early stages of any technological development without some explanation, of how/why it might work. In neither case does the attached theory have to have been proven a realistic explanation.... No, all that is required is that it be acceptable to the reviewing(s) parties. If theory had to be proven before being published, there would be no theoretical physics, at all.
It is unreasonable to reject experimental claims based solely on an attached theory of operation.., or without all of the facts contributing to any claims made based on experiment. Shawyer, Yang and even Eagleworks have not provided sufficient detail of their experimental design that anyone could just duplicate their tests, without a great deal of trial and error. Rejecting experimental claims based on incomplete detail, or the lack of specific design detail, is valid.., but in that case you are rejecting their reporting or experimental design. The actual engineering and physical design...
Until the dust settles on any proposed new technology, rejecting claims based on faulty theory is bad science. There seems to be a great deal of confusion, of just where the line between engineering and theory is, where the EMDrive is concerned. Most of what I have seen is an engineering effort, aimed at reproducing and testing past claims, and a healthy dose of theoretical speculation. It is the engineering that drives the experimental design, not so much what we imagine the theory of operation might be.
As I have said before, It would be far better to catch the rabbit.., replicate or experimentally refute the claimed results before, cooking it!.., chasing the theory of operation. Engineering is based on what we know and trial and error, while any theory of operation would seem to be obviously New Physics and not entirely explainable by any inherited or aquired theoretical bias, based on past experience.
This seems to be a natural part of the process, but my psychology radar identifies another possible component: NIH. Not Invented Here. There is quite a thing about being first and being correct. Look at the names we've memorized over the centuries.
Soooo, we should probably realize that a lot is at stake for professionals which is why "citizen scientists" are more free to try something JUST BECAUSE.
They all meet here on NSF...probably an unusual venue for such diversity compared to brains interacting in hallowed/restricted halls of science.
When I get annoyed at people like Doc for being on the (professional) conservative side, I also must appreciate his different place in the big scheme of things its his profession, not mine. We are fortunate to have this mix here...contentious at times, but manageable I think.
-
#942 by OnlyMe on 30 Dec, 2015 16:10
-
It is not my impression from reading any of these authors, (White, Shawyer, Yang,de Aquino or Woodward who explains the NASA EM Drive forces as due to the dielectric insert Mach effect ) that they intended their explanations as just aQuotehealthy dose of theoretical speculation
. Of course, the readers are free to interpret them as such.
Of course not! But everything any of us post or publish, is an artifact of our inherited and acquired bias. We all see the world, through the goggles of our past experience and associated biases.
Theoretical papers are published all of the time that stray from the accepted, or mainstream consensus view... Where ever we touch on the unknown, we imagine what might be, in the form of theory, until we discover what is. The EMDrive right now is somewhere between the two.
I'll step a little further into the fray and say that I have not found the theories presented by Shawyer, Yang or Dr. White convincing, for different reasons. I'll even go so far as to say, I have seen no theory of operation, includingsome ofmy own speculations, that are convincing.... It also seems clear, to me at present, that there is no explanation based on anything currently accepted as settled science, that explains the claims that have been made... Yet I have been slowly moving from, full skeptic, to hopeful that there is some New Physics.., to believing!.. Where believing is not really the same as knowing, because I am several layers removed from any direct experience and there has not yet been any fully credible publication of all of any experimental results.
-
#943 by Rodal on 30 Dec, 2015 16:30
-
...
Elsewhere, RFMWGUY, you had criticized people posting general statements, but here you are repeating your view that academia and professional scientists "exhibit a great reluctan[ce] to venture off the beaten path".
I like this line of reasoning, being theory-lite myself so to speak. What I've humbly learned about academia and professional scientists (which I am not) is that there seems to be a great reluctant to venture off the beaten path, and those who do, are subject to...lets say...vigorous challenges (to put it mildly).
...
This, up to now has been a general statement you have made that runs directly opposite the specific experiences of several of us in the forum (as discussed elsewhere there are countless examples in Cambridge MA, Palo Alto, etc. that have inventions "off the beaten path"). (*)
Care to lead by example by making your up to now general statement more specific? What academic experience with professional scientists are you referring to? At what University specifically? in what specific academic scientific program? Making the statement specific will help understand it better, as to what specifically you are referring to.
The fact that venturing off the beaten path means "vigorous challenges ", is something I agree with, but the reason why scientists and engineers are willing to do it is because together with the vigorous challenges come great rewards (if the person is proven right).
So yes, there is (and has always been) a group of people at Universities that are willing to go off the beaten path, in order to reap the greater rewards associated with it.
R&D is like an option, people will be willing to buy a way out-of-the-money option if the rewards are commensurate with the risks. In other words, the price of the option has to make sense to potential buyers. There is opportunity cost: there are several other options, and at present researchers see more value working in other promising concepts
The reason why there are so few people interested in the EM Drive at Universities (e.g. Tajmar) has not only to do with the fact that theory does not support it, but most importantly has to do with the very meager (up to now) experimental results in vacuum
If somebody were to show results in vacuum commensurate with the proposed claims, I bet you that you would see much more interest in the EM Drive. -
#944 by OnlyMe on 30 Dec, 2015 17:24
-
...
Elsewhere, RFMWGUY, you had criticized people posting general statements, but here you are repeating your view that academia and professional scientists "exhibit a great reluctan[ce] to venture off the beaten path".
I like this line of reasoning, being theory-lite myself so to speak. What I've humbly learned about academia and professional scientists (which I am not) is that there seems to be a great reluctant to venture off the beaten path, and those who do, are subject to...lets say...vigorous challenges (to put it mildly).
...
This, up to now has been a general statement you have made that runs directly opposite the specific experiences of several of us in the forum (as discussed elsewhere there are countless examples in Cambridge MA, Palo Alto, etc. that have inventions "off the beaten path"). (*)
Care to lead by example by making your up to now general statement more specific? What academic experience with professional scientists are you referring to? At what University specifically? in what specific academic scientific program? Making the statement specific will help understand it better, as to what specifically you are referring to.
The fact that venturing off the beaten path means "vigorous challenges ", is something I agree with, but the reason why scientists and engineers are willing to do it is because together with the vigorous challenges come great rewards (if the person is proven right).
So yes, there is (and has always been) a group of people at Universities that are willing to go off the beaten path, in order to reap the greater rewards associated with it.
R&D is like an option, people will be willing to buy a way out-of-the-money option if the rewards are commensurate with the risks. In other words, the price of the option has to make sense to potential buyers. There is opportunity cost: there are several other options, and at present researchers see more value working in other promising concepts
The reason why there are so few people interested in the EM Drive at Universities (e.g. Tajmar) has not only to do with the fact that theory does not support it, but most importantly has to do with the very meager (up to now) experimental results in vacuum
If somebody were to show results in vacuum commensurate with the proposed claims, I bet you that you would see much more interest in the EM Drive.
Simply stated: if it cannot be shown to work in vacuum, it don't work for Spaceflight applications.
The vacuum tests are what we hope EW will be providing.
Aside from that I tend to disagree with the why of no credible labs or universities, EW aside, taking on the subject. The fact that Shawyer did not publish enough information to duplicate his early tests and presented a theory that was easily challenged, put the EMDrive itself on a similar footing as say, the aether and shadow gravity! Taboo subjects for any respected mainstream lab.., at least within the context of those headings.
As I said, when I first heard of Shawyer's work I looked at it looked at the critiques available at the time and dismissed it as a curiosity... But when I discovered, through the EW conference paper that Yang had published supporting Shawyer's claims, though still a solid skeptic I fully supported the need for EW continuing their experiments and in vacuum... But then NASA and EW are in a very different position than most university labs, they routinely explore fringe science claims. That is the business they are in, explore all possibilities, in the hopes anything will shake out. And they risk nothing in the way of credibility in doing so, because they are openly funding exploration of the fringe!
-
#945 by RotoSequence on 30 Dec, 2015 17:33
-
Neutrality in these matters (which are still unresolved) has been losing some ground to advocacy over the past couple of pages. Vouch for quality data above all else.
-
#946 by Rodal on 30 Dec, 2015 18:08
-
...
Well, again the claim made about "University reluctance" is a general statement made by RFMWGUY, he has not specified what specific Universities and specific University programs he was referring to.
The vacuum tests are what we hope EW will be providing.
Aside from that I tend to disagree with the why of no credible labs or universities, EW aside, taking on the subject. The fact that Shawyer did not publish enough information to duplicate his early tests and presented a theory that was easily challenged, put the EMDrive itself on a similar footing as say, the aether and shadow gravity! Taboo subjects for any respected mainstream lab.., at least within the context of those headings.
As I said, when I first heard of Shawyer's work I looked at it looked at the critiques available at the time and dismissed it as a curiosity... But when I discovered, through the EW conference paper that Yang had published supporting Shawyer's claims, though still a solid skeptic I fully supported the need for EW continuing their experiments and in vacuum... But then NASA and EW are in a very different position than most university labs, they routinely explore fringe science claims. That is the business they are in, explore all possibilities, in the hopes anything will shake out. And they risk nothing in the way of credibility in doing so, because they are openly funding exploration of the fringe!
By statingQuoteNASA and EW are in a very different position than most university labs, they routinely explore fringe science claims.
I interpret you stating that an EM Drive can be classified as a "fringe science claim" in your viewpoint. (please correct me if my interpretation is incorrect)
But I don't know what else constitutes a "fringe science claim" in your view, to counter the argument that Universities are not going to be involved in such experimentation (if they deem it worthwhile, as a way-out-of-the-money-option).
For example, was (or is) cold fusion also a "fringe science claim" in your view? and if not, why not? (I pointed out several pages ago a long list of publications by MIT dealing with cold fusion experiments).
Also, as pointed out by zen-in and by myself, MIT students (particularly in independent research projects and in UROP and other programs) routinely engage in such experimentation. For example. MIT students still hold the world record for distance for a man-powered airplane, which was researched and built on their own time. (I recall in the 1970's a Professor in Aero&Astro at MIT showing a proof that a man-powered airplane was impossible, this rather than act as a dissuader to MIT students was taken as a challenge to be overcome, upon careful examination of the derivation and the ability to use composite materials to enable a man-powered airplane. Similar with a man-powered helicopter).
I also imagine that any "fringe science" when adequately researched, proven and explained at a University, ceases to be "fringe science", but when (as in the case of cold fusion) it doesn't, it continues to be fringe science. So obviously a human-powered airplane is not fringe science now, and in retrospect can be seen simply as an engineering challenge. Ditto for heavier-than-air machines: Lord Kelvin said that they were impossible, now everybody knows otherwise, and we know that the reason is because Lord Kelvin did not take properly into account the Navier Stokes equation terms and only used inviscid fluid theory.
An example going the other way is the aether. The aether at one time was not "fringe science" . The Michelson experiment was meant to prove its existence. Maxwell, Poincare and many other great scientists did not think that the aether was "fringe science".
The fact is that the EM Drive has already been researched at Universities:
1) for several years by Prof. Yang at Polytechnical University, College of Aeronautics, Xi'an, China (until her project was halted because Yang could not get recognition of the academic committee, as per latest information )
2) at TU Dresden, Aerospace Department, Germany (by Prof Tajmar)
3) Zellerium's EM Drive Undergraduate Student Project at California Polytechnic State University.
4) The Western Canadian University EM Drive Senior Undergraduate Student Project involving very large power input.
How many counterfactuals are needed to show that Universities are not precluded from conducting such research ?
In order to justify further R&D in the EM Drive, positive data (or a satisfactory theory) will have to become available (*), simply because at the present time there are many other options that appear to be much more worthwhile to research (particularly given the very low experimental results for the EM Drive experiments in vacuum)
__
(*) Looking forward to NASA Glenn performing experiments.
-
#947 by SeeShells on 30 Dec, 2015 18:17
-
Neutrality in these matter (which are still unresolved) has been losing some ground to advocacy over the past couple of pages. Vouch for quality data above all else.
There is no set theory. Simply we are trying to explain something that defies conventional knowledge. There is no solid reason this should work in GR or even QED or any other branch of science we have a grasp of.
When I started my build I figured this will only take a few months a few dollars, some copper and a old microwave surplus oven. That has drastically changed for I've been shown that good quality data is not only needed but demanded. Demanded to make any kind of impact or progress.
This last test showed me that it needs to be taken up another level... again. It wasn't a failure by any means, it showed me where my mistakes in the build were and where I fell short and where I didn't. So, I'm rebuilding it better than before with digital data in the acquisition of pressure and movements of the EMDrive. More cross checks and more controls. This is not a race this is well defined scientific pursuit of something unknown happening. This is for the data.
To the group here and my supporters who remain lurkers or who just know me, thank you for you inputs, your help brain wise and pocket wise. This is getting very very close, I can feel it.
Here I thought I retired. If I was sitting on a beach daydreaming, I'd be dreaming of doing something like this. It doesn't get better then doing what I'm doing.
Shell
-
#948 by rfmwguy on 30 Dec, 2015 18:39
-
You can do it Shell. One thing I think you, I and Phil understand is this is being done for the experience as much as the potential rewards of the technology. We're in a good situation...no fear of peer rumblings in the halls of academia or corporate boardrooms...Its just us, by ourselves, with lots of quiet supporters.Neutrality in these matter (which are still unresolved) has been losing some ground to advocacy over the past couple of pages. Vouch for quality data above all else.
There is no set theory. Simply we are trying to explain something that defies conventional knowledge. There is no solid reason this should work in GR or even QED or any other branch of science we have a grasp of.
When I started my build I figured this will only take a few months a few dollars, some copper and a old microwave surplus oven. That has drastically changed for I've been shown that good quality data is not only needed but demanded. Demanded to make any kind of impact or progress.
This last test showed me that it needs to be taken up another level... again. It wasn't a failure by any means, it showed me where my mistakes in the build were and where I fell short and where I didn't. So, I'm rebuilding it better than before with digital data in the acquisition of pressure and movements of the EMDrive. More cross checks and more controls. This is not a race this is well defined scientific pursuit of something unknown happening. This is for the data.
To the group here and my supporters who remain lurkers or who just know me, thank you for you inputs, your help brain wise and pocket wise. This is getting very very close, I can feel it.
Here I thought I retired. If I was sitting on a beach daydreaming, I'd be dreaming of doing something like this. It doesn't get better then doing what I'm doing.
Shell
Regarding advocacy, I do advocate people with interest and experience taking a swing at this until we get definitive results somewhere that its an experimental error. Yeah, we should strive to provide NIST traceable results and data, but here's the catch. We are individuals on a small budget, mostly self-funded...so the readership has to understand we'll do what we can.
Looks like Dresden and Nasa are the only scientific institutions left exploring the emdrive after the retirement/lack of funding at NWPTI. Well, so be it. I'll probably stop if both NASA and Dresden say its experimental error (_________). Until then...I continue...even with the uncertainties.
-
#949 by OnlyMe on 30 Dec, 2015 18:52
-
@Dr. Rodal,
Yes, at present I would say the EMDrive remains on the fringe scientifically. We cannot explain it!
We wait (or I wait) for the builders to provide credible data that can then be used to re-evaluate, what we do understand of any applicable science and hopefully explain the engineered results. But without, me seeing.., a credible working device, credible published DIY data, or credible and complete peer reviewed and published experimental results...
To me the fringe in this case is not a dirty word, it just denotes the edge of what we can confirm and explain.
-
#950 by OnlyMe on 30 Dec, 2015 18:56
-
I should add that my goal post is likely a bit stiffer than some. I said earlier we need to see from DIY efforts double and preferably triple digit mN. I'll soften that just a tad and add mN/Kw.
-
#951 by rfmwguy on 30 Dec, 2015 18:58
-
@rodal "What academic experience with professional scientists are you referring to? At what University specifically? in what specific academic scientific program? "
I spent about 35 years with MSEE types at the same peer level at three RF and Microwave (DC-18 GHZ) manufacturers. The institutions from which many came from were varied, but the individual that made the most impression on me was from Cal Berkeley in Electromagnetics/Math (his specialty). He is a real person and we spent about 20 years working together in a mentorship role at 2 companies. He was ABD.
So good doctor, I have given you what wanted, which I find completely unnecessary and counterproductive, despite the fact I've never asked anyone on this forum anything like this...nor would I. -
#952 by Rodal on 30 Dec, 2015 19:01
-
@rodal "What academic experience with professional scientists are you referring to? At what University specifically? in what specific academic scientific program? "
The context of the question is not giving in your snipet. The context of what I wrote was:
I spent about 35 years with MSEE types at the same peer level at three RF and Microwave (DC-18 GHZ) manufacturers. The institutions from which many came from were varied, but the individual that made the most impression on me was from ....
So good doctor, I have given you what wanted, which I find completely unnecessary and counterproductive, despite the fact I've never asked anyone on this forum anything like this...nor would I.QuoteElsewhere, RFMWGUY, you had criticized people posting general statements, but here you are repeating your view that academia and professional scientists "exhibit a great reluctan[ce] to venture off the beaten path".
This, up to now has been a general statement you have made that runs directly opposite the specific experiences of several of us in the forum (as discussed elsewhere there are countless examples in Cambridge MA, Palo Alto, etc. that have inventions "off the beaten path"). (*)
Care to lead by example by making your up to now general statement more specific? What academic experience with professional scientists are you referring to? At what University specifically? in what specific academic scientific program? Making the statement specific will help understand it better, as to what specifically you are referring to.
in reply to your post, a snipet of which is as follows:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.msg1467400#msg1467400Quote from: RFMWGUYWhen I get annoyed at people like Doc for being on the (professional) conservative side
where I assumed (please correct me if I'm wrong) that by being annoyed "by people like Doc" you were referring to being annoyed at "people like" me.
Based on your answer, we obviously had different experiences with different people at different places, regarding to what you call "risk aversion by scientists in academia". -
#953 by Prunesquallor on 30 Dec, 2015 19:22
-
...
None of Yang's reported experimental results where performed in a vacuum. Space flight applications (the subject of this thread) takes place in a vacuum.
...
If I interpret this statement correctly, I think you are making some unwarranted conclusions. If for some bizarre reason the EMDrive operated more efficiently in a pressurized environment, this would not necessarily preclude its application to spaceflight.
-
#954 by Rodal on 30 Dec, 2015 19:31
-
...
None of Yang's reported experimental results where performed in a vacuum. Space flight applications (the subject of this thread) takes place in a vacuum.
...
If I interpret this statement correctly, I think you are making some unwarranted conclusions. If for some bizarre reason the EMDrive operated more efficiently in a pressurized environment, this would not necessarily preclude its application to spaceflight.
The reason for experimental force measurements being orders of magnitude smaller in a partial vacuum remains to be established (although the explanation that it is due to the same reason that radiation pressure experiments did not give good results until performed in vacuum, since Maxwell's time until the year 1900, is a likely reason: thermal convection effects). If the higher experimental values under ambient pressure are due to thermal convection effects (just as is the case with radiation pressure measurements), it certainly would be precluded from application to spaceflight.
My conclusion is that experimental results in a partial vacuum that are orders of magnitude smaller than in ambient conditions will certainly diminish interest from venture capital and from scientists, unless the reasons how to overcome this are adequately addressed (something which has not been done up to now). -
#955 by rfmwguy on 30 Dec, 2015 19:54
-
@rodal "Based on your answer, we are obviously relating different experiences with different people at different places, regarding to what you call "risk aversion by scientists in academia".
Amen. Its really that simple. At Purdue, I never encountered it personally, but I bailed before I got too far up the ladder (big mistake I made sure my kids didn't make).
I think you're connected via my linkedin page where my C/V resides along with peer recommendations, papers/books I've written, the non-fiction documentary I produced, blah, blah, blah. Its been a very unique journey. No two people are the same and I can respect that.
The risk aversion scenario has been written about by much more qualified people than me...I will endeavor not to throw down the gauntlet on this as often, its only my personal experience.
However, if it does compel a new university to seek out proof or explain the measurement error...I can live with that
-
#956 by Rodal on 30 Dec, 2015 19:59
-
@rodal "Based on your answer, we are obviously relating different experiences with different people at different places, regarding to what you call "risk aversion by scientists in academia".
Amen. Its really that simple. At Purdue, I never encountered it personally, but I bailed before I got too far up the ladder (big mistake I made sure my kids didn't make).
I think you're connected via my linkedin page where my C/V resides along with peer recommendations, papers/books I've written, the non-fiction documentary I produced, blah, blah, blah. Its been a very unique journey. No two people are the same and I can respect that.
The risk aversion scenario has been written about by much more qualified people than me...I will endeavor not to throw down the gauntlet on this as often, its only my personal experience.
However, if it does compel a new university to seek out proof or explain the measurement error...I can live with that
There is certainly some amount of risk aversion. Nobody is going to undertake the risk unless:
1) The uncertain payoff is large enough to justify the risk (this is a very subjective choice: some individuals are willing to bet in Vegas, other individuals are very conservative and will not even trade in stocks)
or
2) They love what they are doing and are willing to withstand the negative aspects of undertaking the risk involved
PS: Risk aversion is person-dependent and time-dependent: in the 1960's NASA was much more willing to undertake risks than it does nowadays
-
#957 by Prunesquallor on 30 Dec, 2015 20:03
-
...
None of Yang's reported experimental results where performed in a vacuum. Space flight applications (the subject of this thread) takes place in a vacuum.
...
If I interpret this statement correctly, I think you are making some unwarranted conclusions. If for some bizarre reason the EMDrive operated more efficiently in a pressurized environment, this would not necessarily preclude its application to spaceflight.
I was referring to the stated fact that the experimental force measurements were orders of magnitude smaller in a partial vacuum.
The reason for this remains to be established (although the explanation that it is due to the same reason that radiation pressure experiments did not give good results until performed in vacuum, since Maxwell's time until the year 1900, is a likely reason: thermal convection effects). If the higher experimental values under ambient pressure are due to thermal convection effects (just as is the case with radiation pressure measurements), it certainly would be precluded from application to spaceflight.
So, if experimental values in a partial vacuum are orders of magnitude smaller than in ambient pressure, the onus is on the researcher to show whether it is something that would not preclude its application in vacuum.
As I've stated before, in my mind the salient observation would be thrust in excess of a photon rocket when all significant error sources are removed. This would allow 1) serious investigation of underlying physics and 2) experimental variation of design parameters to understand operational characteristics and potential increases in efficiency. At this point, one can only estimate (as some have) the implications to spaceflight given assumptions of efficiency and operational characteristics.
I just wanted to make sure we weren't losing lock on the fact that the rationale for vacuum testing was to eliminate significant error sources, NOT because the EMDrive would need to be in a vacuum environment for spaceflight applications. -
#958 by Paul451 on 30 Dec, 2015 20:05
-
rfmwguy,
Now that this subject has its own section, might I suggest letting this topic spread its wings beyond a single thread?
I think it would be useful to separate some of the broad streams in this thread into their own threads.
Lock this thread and restart it as "EM Drive Construction and Experimentation", purely for the technical discussion side.
Start a thread for the more general "EM Drive theory and discussion", and another for the more specific "EM Drive results and updates (UPDATES ONLY)".
And, since it comes up so often, maybe a general "'New Physics' thrusters and the Conservation of Energy issue" topic.
There's probably more (MEEP howto?) but those 3-4 topics would be good to get started. -
#959 by Rodal on 30 Dec, 2015 20:09
-
...
As I've stated before, in my mind the salient observation would be thrust in excess of a photon rocket when all significant error sources are removed. This would allow 1) serious investigation of underlying physics and 2) experimental variation of design parameters to understand operational characteristics and potential increases in efficiency. At this point, one can only estimate (as some have) the implications to spaceflight given assumptions of efficiency and operational characteristics.
I just wanted to make sure we weren't losing lock on the fact that the rationale for vacuum testing was to eliminate significant error sources, NOT because the EMDrive would need to be in a vacuum environment for spaceflight applications.
That's reasonable, but you have to compete with a large number of alternative options for spacecraft propulsion.
A photon rocket is a very inefficient form of space propulsion: there is no present interest in photon rockets that I know of in any practical application with today's technology because there are better alternatives.
I would say that although it would be scientifically interesting to exceed a photon's rocket (as it would involve a scientific enigma how could that happen), that practical interest would mean a performance many times better than a photon rocket, of the order of what has been claimed by Shawyer and Yang and what has been used for conceptual missions to the outer planets by White (and there would be another puzzle to solve: constant acceleration at constant power input is presently an unresolved energy conservation enigma; if the performance is not scalable and force is not proportional to power input, the interest in the EM Drive may also dissappear).
At one point, shortly after the article that I co-authored with Mulletron et.al. in NSF, there was so much interest that a known venture capitalist was attracted to our discussions at NSF, to discuss an X-Prize, unfortunately there was a loss of interest in the X-Prize when it came to define on what merits to award it
The:
* poor results reported at TU Dresden, and Tajmar's remarks on the EM Drive
* news now that Yang's project came to a close in 2014 due to lack of confidence from Chinese academicians
acts as a further damper...
we need to hear from NASA Glenn.
.
