-
#1140
by
Bob Woods
on 30 Sep, 2016 21:37
-
Off topic, but I thought I'd post a link to the project of the young scientist that just won the Google Science competition. Very impressive. As are all the finalists.
http://bit.ly/29S1Uvo
-
#1141
by
Monomorphic
on 30 Sep, 2016 22:34
-
Magnetron Thermal Runaway and Vortex Shedding: In a last ditch effort to get good data from a standard microwave magnetron and prevent thermal runaway heating, I have developed a Phase Change Collar. The collar consists of three ice gel packs attached to aluminum U channel. Aluminum foil was tightly packed around the magnetron core heatsink to improve coupling with the phase change collar. The collar also allows me to seal the heatsink core to prevent vortex shedding turbulence - which obscures the last half of my data.
The collar is kept in the freezer until needed for testing, when it is slipped over the magnetron as shown. It is refrozen between tests.
-
#1142
by
meberbs
on 01 Oct, 2016 02:56
-
First, while Shawyer may have said the EMDrive is an open system, none of his theory supports that statement at all. He claims no new physics needed, and does not describe anything that the device pushes against, or any type of exhaust from the device.
I am not sure where you got 2/c, but the limit is 1/c from special relativity. I am guessing you may have been thinking about an external laser being reflected by the ship, but that is not a case of constant force, due to the doppler effect as the device accelerates. Photon recycling is completely different, because then you have another body involved on the other end, and you have to account for that in your calculations.
Rockets do not provide constant thrust for constant power. First, you have to define your system. If you take the whole rocket at the beginning (including fuel) then you will find that center of mass never moves, in that sense force is 0.
For a non-trivial example, Let's instead draw the box only around the payload (here I am including tanks, etc. as part of the payload), and exclude the fuel.
definitions:
mp = mass of payload
mf = initial mass of fuel
me = rate that mass is expelled (take this as a positive number)
ve = velocity that fuel is expelled at (ship frame, again positive number)
Using the rocket equation:
Force on payload as a function of time is: F = mp*ve*me / ( mp + mf - me*t)
While this is an increasing function of time, the power applied to the payload to cause the force is increasing faster:
dEp/dt = v*mp*ve*me / ( mp + mf - me*t)
where v = ve * ln( (mp+mf) / (mp + mf - me*t) )
The ratio of force to power is therefore 1/v, which is a function of time, not a constant.
The reason the increasing power is possible is because while the chemical energy (or electric for ion thrusters) per unit mass expelled remains constant, that expelled mass had gained kinetic energy from the previously expelled mass, some of which is transferred to the payload as the fuel is sent out the back.
I could post the rest of the energy balance equations, but equations are a pain to type and I think I have made my point.
Sorry but a rocket absolutely can provide a constant thrust for constant power, they do it all the time. I thought it was plainly obvious that I am referring to a flight regime where the mass change is trivial compared to the overall mass. Then it can be at or near a constant for a while. I really am not debating about the rocket equation over the whole trip. The main point is to compare it to the EmDrive which purports to have a constant thrust at a constant power. I'm not saying it must or it's always exactly thus but that it is possible. So, for my purposes, yes, the rocket has a constant thrust for a given power over some regime of flight.
...
Sorry, but I just showed that rockets do not provide constant thrust for constant power. Ever. There is no flight regime where neglecting the fact that rockets are throwing mass out the back is acceptable. If you neglect that, you have to neglect that it generates any force as well.
Yes, you can do twice as well with an external beam as propulsion than if you have the beam emitting from the rocket because you have twice the momentum change. No, the Doppler shift does happen but it's effect is very small until very high speeds are reached and that is not the main point we are debating. That's a second order issue.
Photon recycling does involve another body but not another energy source. So you can do better than 2/c over the whole trip. If fact if you recycle at an effective momentum of 4 * power/c you run into 'over unity' past c/2.
You don't get to pick and choose what laws you pay attention to, either include the Doppler shift and see that it is not constant force/power ratio, or get the wrong answer. And this is the point we are debating, because you keep trying to find constant force/power ratio systems with a value greater than 1/c, and I am showing you that none of the ones you are coming up with are.
For photon recycling, you have to account for Doppler shifts at both ends, and the acceleration of the reflector on the other end. As the spacecraft and reflector accelerate away from each other, force/power ratio decreases. Not constant force/power, so it does not break CoE.
-
#1143
by
OnlyMe
on 01 Oct, 2016 04:11
-
....
Sorry, but I just showed that rockets do not provide constant thrust for constant power. Ever. There is no flight regime where neglecting the fact that rockets are throwing mass out the back is acceptable. If you neglect that, you have to neglect that it generates any force as well.
....
meberbs, shouldn't that be
acceleration rather than
thrust?
I know this might be being picky about wording. Forgive me if I missed something in the earlier discussion and misunderstand your intent. For the better part of this year I have been unable to do much more than scan or skim posts.
As long as a rocket is either on or off, rather than being throttled, the thrust (force) should be constant, while as you mention the "changing mass".., and even location in the earth's gravity well, would result in a constantly changing rate of acceleration, the thrust or force produced by the rocket should be constant. Until the fuel is expended.
-
#1144
by
giulioprisco
on 01 Oct, 2016 05:36
-
I wish to ask everyone's opinion on why EM Drive and related (Woodward etc.) research draws so much hostility.
I mean, there are some surprising experimental results, which some labs confirm and others don't, and some tentative theoretical explanations, over which scientists argue.
What else is new? That's how scientific research has always been, messy, uncertain, and ultimately glorious.
Clearly, what is called for is more experimental and theoretical work. But EM Drive (etc.) discussions in online communities, with a few exceptions like this one, are mostly name calling and accusations of "pseudoscience," without scientific arguments related to the ongoing experimental and theoretical work.
The "Sociology of EM Drive research" is fascinating. Why so many people are so passionately against something good? I don't know how to answer my question, but I have the impression that powerful emotional and most likely political factors are involved. Thoughts welcome.
-
#1145
by
Tellmeagain
on 01 Oct, 2016 06:01
-
I wish to ask everyone's opinion on why EM Drive and related (Woodward etc.) research draws so much hostility.
I mean, there are some surprising experimental results, which some labs confirm and others don't, and some tentative theoretical explanations, over which scientists argue.
What else is new? That's how scientific research has always been, messy, uncertain, and ultimately glorious.
Clearly, what is called for is more experimental and theoretical work. But EM Drive (etc.) discussions in online communities, with a few exceptions like this one, are mostly name calling and accusations of "pseudoscience," without scientific arguments related to the ongoing experimental and theoretical work.
The "Sociology of EM Drive research" is fascinating. Why so many people are so passionately against something good? I don't know how to answer my question, but I have the impression that powerful emotional and most likely political factors are involved. Thoughts welcome.
I am one of the skeptics. I am mostly not hostile at all. I am friendly to all the DIYers, trying to help them to make their experiments better. I myself do experiments. If I have somehow hostility, it is toward Cannae, which like the E-Cat, is likely a deliberate fraud.
The experiments are all problematic. I have published about that. The experiments are not pseudoscience, they just have problems. Most theoretic works are pseudoscience. Some do not know what they are talking about. I have just analyzed a short paper by Professor Woodward so I know that.
EmDrive is not "something good". It started from a misconception by Mr. Shawyer. His "light reflected within frustum" explanation was directly simulated by an NSF user. After I debugged the code, the simulation generated no thrust. EmDrive does not work, that's why so many people are against it. If you ask my motive, it is mostly like this:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.pngThere is unlikely political factors involved. If you believe in that, you might be one of those who believe moon landing is a fake.
-
#1146
by
giulioprisco
on 01 Oct, 2016 06:20
-
EmDrive is not "something good".
There is unlikely political factors involved. If you believe in that, you might be one of those who believe moon landing is a fake.
Achieving dramatic improvements in space propulsion would be "something good." (I hope everyone here agrees on that). EmDrive is one of many proposal on the table. I don't know which one (if any) will be ultimately successful, but I most certainly hope at least one will be.
Political factors: I would reverse your analogy and compare (most of) the skeptics to those who believe moon landing is a fake. Regardless of whether moon landing is or isn't a fake, or whether the EmDrive works or not, I am interested in why one would
want to believe such things.
-
#1147
by
meberbs
on 01 Oct, 2016 06:47
-
....
Sorry, but I just showed that rockets do not provide constant thrust for constant power. Ever. There is no flight regime where neglecting the fact that rockets are throwing mass out the back is acceptable. If you neglect that, you have to neglect that it generates any force as well.
....
meberbs, shouldn't that be acceleration rather than thrust?
I know this might be being picky about wording. Forgive me if I missed something in the earlier discussion and misunderstand your intent. For the better part of this year I have been unable to do much more than scan or skim posts.
As long as a rocket is either on or off, rather than being throttled, the thrust (force) should be constant, while as you mention the "changing mass".., and even location in the earth's gravity well, would result in a constantly changing rate of acceleration, the thrust or force produced by the rocket should be constant. Until the fuel is expended.
In this case, I was analyzing just the force on the ship and payload (which have constant mass) while excluding the remaining fuel in the tanks, so neither force nor power was constant. If I included the remaining fuel, the force would have been constant, but it would have been trickier to define the power, since the system of interest would no longer have constant mass. The point was just demonstrating that rockets don't have the constant force/power issue that breaks CoE for propellantless thrusters.
-
#1148
by
meberbs
on 01 Oct, 2016 07:41
-
I wish to ask everyone's opinion on why EM Drive and related (Woodward etc.) research draws so much hostility.
I mean, there are some surprising experimental results, which some labs confirm and others don't, and some tentative theoretical explanations, over which scientists argue.
What else is new? That's how scientific research has always been, messy, uncertain, and ultimately glorious.
Clearly, what is called for is more experimental and theoretical work. But EM Drive (etc.) discussions in online communities, with a few exceptions like this one, are mostly name calling and accusations of "pseudoscience," without scientific arguments related to the ongoing experimental and theoretical work.
The "Sociology of EM Drive research" is fascinating. Why so many people are so passionately against something good? I don't know how to answer my question, but I have the impression that powerful emotional and most likely political factors are involved. Thoughts welcome.
I am one of the skeptics. I am mostly not hostile at all. I am friendly to all the DIYers, trying to help them to make their experiments better. I myself do experiments. If I have somehow hostility, it is toward Cannae, which like the E-Cat, is likely a deliberate fraud.
The experiments are all problematic. I have published about that. The experiments are not pseudoscience, they just have problems. Most theoretic works are pseudoscience. Some do not know what they are talking about. I have just analyzed a short paper by Professor Woodward so I know that.
EmDrive is not "something good". It started from a misconception by Mr. Shawyer. His "light reflected within frustum" explanation was directly simulated by an NSF user. After I debugged the code, the simulation generated no thrust. EmDrive does not work, that's why so many people are against it. If you ask my motive, it is mostly like this:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png
There is unlikely political factors involved. If you believe in that, you might be one of those who believe moon landing is a fake.
Similar for me.
The biggest issue is that things like the emDrive get surrounded by people with nonsense theories that are simply inconsistent or wrong. My recent discussions here trying to explain CoE are a good example.
The experiments are fine, although I think there can be a tendency for confirmation bias, because of various factors.
Scientists are out there looking for anomalous results all the time, but when they find a big one, instead of saying "I've found propellantless propulsion" they say "I got some weird results, can someone help me figure out why?" When neutrinos were detected moving faster than light, despite the media reports, their actual message to other scientists was "what did we do wrong?" Other scientists helped them figure it out, because they clearly understood that this was more likely a flawed experiment than FTL neutrinos. They still were hoping that it would pan out, but understood the low odds.
https://xkcd.com/955/Most experts hear about something like the EmDrive, take one glance at the mangled theory in Shawyer's papers, and the conclusion jumping of experimenters straight to the least likely outcome of radically new physics, and have no desire to look into it further. In part, that is because the amount of incompetent analysis and conclusion jumping makes it all the more likely the effect is just an overlooked experimental error, or obscure effect of known physics that the people doing the research don't understand well enough to recognize that it is not useful.
What I would like to know is what makes some people who don't understand basic physics concepts think they somehow know better than all of the professional physicists. And why they are so stubborn when flaws in their theories are pointed out. (Besides occasional ones in this thread promoting completely wrong theories, there are even worse ones attracted by the emDrive who periodically post in this section, usually to have their threads deleted within a couple days.) From my perspective those are the people who do the most harm, by ensuring most physicists will not take the emDrive seriously by association.
-
#1149
by
Star One
on 01 Oct, 2016 08:33
-
I wish to ask everyone's opinion on why EM Drive and related (Woodward etc.) research draws so much hostility.
I mean, there are some surprising experimental results, which some labs confirm and others don't, and some tentative theoretical explanations, over which scientists argue.
What else is new? That's how scientific research has always been, messy, uncertain, and ultimately glorious.
Clearly, what is called for is more experimental and theoretical work. But EM Drive (etc.) discussions in online communities, with a few exceptions like this one, are mostly name calling and accusations of "pseudoscience," without scientific arguments related to the ongoing experimental and theoretical work.
The "Sociology of EM Drive research" is fascinating. Why so many people are so passionately against something good? I don't know how to answer my question, but I have the impression that powerful emotional and most likely political factors are involved. Thoughts welcome.
I am one of the skeptics. I am mostly not hostile at all. I am friendly to all the DIYers, trying to help them to make their experiments better. I myself do experiments. If I have somehow hostility, it is toward Cannae, which like the E-Cat, is likely a deliberate fraud.
The experiments are all problematic. I have published about that. The experiments are not pseudoscience, they just have problems. Most theoretic works are pseudoscience. Some do not know what they are talking about. I have just analyzed a short paper by Professor Woodward so I know that.
EmDrive is not "something good". It started from a misconception by Mr. Shawyer. His "light reflected within frustum" explanation was directly simulated by an NSF user. After I debugged the code, the simulation generated no thrust. EmDrive does not work, that's why so many people are against it. If you ask my motive, it is mostly like this:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png
There is unlikely political factors involved. If you believe in that, you might be one of those who believe moon landing is a fake.
Similar for me.
The biggest issue is that things like the emDrive get surrounded by people with nonsense theories that are simply inconsistent or wrong. My recent discussions here trying to explain CoE are a good example.
The experiments are fine, although I think there can be a tendency for confirmation bias, because of various factors.
Scientists are out there looking for anomalous results all the time, but when they find a big one, instead of saying "I've found propellantless propulsion" they say "I got some weird results, can someone help me figure out why?" When neutrinos were detected moving faster than light, despite the media reports, their actual message to other scientists was "what did we do wrong?" Other scientists helped them figure it out, because they clearly understood that this was more likely a flawed experiment than FTL neutrinos. They still were hoping that it would pan out, but understood the low odds. https://xkcd.com/955/
Most experts hear about something like the EmDrive, take one glance at the mangled theory in Shawyer's papers, and the conclusion jumping of experimenters straight to the least likely outcome of radically new physics, and have no desire to look into it further. In part, that is because the amount of incompetent analysis and conclusion jumping makes it all the more likely the effect is just an overlooked experimental error, or obscure effect of known physics that the people doing the research don't understand well enough to recognize that it is not useful.
What I would like to know is what makes some people who don't understand basic physics concepts think they somehow know better than all of the professional physicists. And why they are so stubborn when flaws in their theories are pointed out. (Besides occasional ones in this thread promoting completely wrong theories, there are even worse ones attracted by the emDrive who periodically post in this section, usually to have their threads deleted within a couple days.) From my perspective those are the people who do the most harm, by ensuring most physicists will not take the emDrive seriously by association.
I am slightly baffled by your post as you're talking as if there aren't some extremely sober theorists looking into this, some post about it in this topic. Also there are experimenters who are looking into this matter in a level headed way. I think you do both a disservice with this post of yours.
-
#1150
by
rfmwguy
on 01 Oct, 2016 13:48
-
I wish to ask everyone's opinion on why EM Drive and related (Woodward etc.) research draws so much hostility.
I mean, there are some surprising experimental results, which some labs confirm and others don't, and some tentative theoretical explanations, over which scientists argue.
What else is new? That's how scientific research has always been, messy, uncertain, and ultimately glorious.
Clearly, what is called for is more experimental and theoretical work. But EM Drive (etc.) discussions in online communities, with a few exceptions like this one, are mostly name calling and accusations of "pseudoscience," without scientific arguments related to the ongoing experimental and theoretical work.
The "Sociology of EM Drive research" is fascinating. Why so many people are so passionately against something good? I don't know how to answer my question, but I have the impression that powerful emotional and most likely political factors are involved. Thoughts welcome.
As a builder and former moderator of this forum, my perspective is simple...its not as much about hostility as it is fear. Fear of loss/diversion of research funds. For those keenly following EmDrive on these threads, it has recently been made obvious. Money (and perhaps ego) are most of the resistance to EmDrive.
I can tell you that Mr. Li, tellmeagain, has been a big supporter and contributed great information on my recent DIY build. While he is a skeptic, he has done the right thing and he, himself, conducted experiments, wrote a paper and advised me on how to avoid errors in EmDrive testing. He did far more than post opinions. He posted useful electro/mechanical advise.
I, too, was baffled by the apparent hostility. It is not hostility, it is fear IMHO.
-
#1151
by
Star One
on 01 Oct, 2016 14:33
-
I wish to ask everyone's opinion on why EM Drive and related (Woodward etc.) research draws so much hostility.
I mean, there are some surprising experimental results, which some labs confirm and others don't, and some tentative theoretical explanations, over which scientists argue.
What else is new? That's how scientific research has always been, messy, uncertain, and ultimately glorious.
Clearly, what is called for is more experimental and theoretical work. But EM Drive (etc.) discussions in online communities, with a few exceptions like this one, are mostly name calling and accusations of "pseudoscience," without scientific arguments related to the ongoing experimental and theoretical work.
The "Sociology of EM Drive research" is fascinating. Why so many people are so passionately against something good? I don't know how to answer my question, but I have the impression that powerful emotional and most likely political factors are involved. Thoughts welcome.
As a builder and former moderator of this forum, my perspective is simple...its not as much about hostility as it is fear. Fear of loss/diversion of research funds. For those keenly following EmDrive on these threads, it has recently been made obvious. Money (and perhaps ego) are most of the resistance to EmDrive.
I can tell you that Mr. Li, tellmeagain, has been a big supporter and contributed great information on my recent DIY build. While he is a skeptic, he has done the right thing and he, himself, conducted experiments, wrote a paper and advised me on how to avoid errors in EmDrive testing. He did far more than post opinions. He posted useful electro/mechanical advise.
I, too, was baffled by the apparent hostility. It is not hostility, it is fear IMHO.
Shouldn't people welcome new knowledge and possibilities rather than fear them as that seems illogical?
-
#1152
by
RotoSequence
on 01 Oct, 2016 14:40
-
Shouldn't people welcome new knowledge and possibilities rather than fear them as that seems illogical?
One the things from the original Star Trek that has withstood the test of time, history, and philosophy: humans are
not logical.
-
#1153
by
meberbs
on 01 Oct, 2016 14:54
-
I am slightly baffled by your post as you're talking as if there aren't some extremely sober theorists looking into this, some post about it in this topic. Also there are experimenters who are looking into this matter in a level headed way. I think you do both a disservice with this post of yours.
I probably should have been a bit more clear, I was talking generally from the perspective of a scientist who has not been following this closely. If the emDrive wasn't being discussed on this specific site, there is no chance I would have stuck around long enough to find that there are some people doing good experiments and are open to analysis of their design, but who still have anomalous results.
I of course recognize their are some good theorists looking into this, who have gotten past the nonsense to find their is some good work done, and obviously the other way around that there are people doing good experiments. I am sorry if my post implied otherwise.
As a builder and former moderator of this forum, my perspective is simple...its not as much about hostility as it is fear. Fear of loss/diversion of research funds. For those keenly following EmDrive on these threads, it has recently been made obvious. Money (and perhaps ego) are most of the resistance to EmDrive.
I can tell you that Mr. Li, tellmeagain, has been a big supporter and contributed great information on my recent DIY build. While he is a skeptic, he has done the right thing and he, himself, conducted experiments, wrote a paper and advised me on how to avoid errors in EmDrive testing. He did far more than post opinions. He posted useful electro/mechanical advise.
I, too, was baffled by the apparent hostility. It is not hostility, it is fear IMHO.
I don't think fear has any real part of it, at least the way you described. As I was describing most scientists would not believe there is a any chance that the emDrive works, so why would they be afraid of it? Even if it works I don't see it as something that would divert research funds as much as open up new funding sources.
If there is any money concern it is more that they are annoyed that people are wasting their time and money on something that "obviously" (from their perspective) doesn't work.
Maybe some of them are afraid of this being a sign of an epidemic of idiocy (remember to them this is just yet another perpetual motion machine). Since the emDrive also made some mainstream press, they also might be afraid of it tainting the public's perception of science. (I didn't see anything that hinted at good science in most of the mainstream press, which is bad at reporting science stuff to begin with.)
-
#1154
by
SeeShells
on 01 Oct, 2016 15:03
-
I don't post much here and on other forums not at all. Most of you know me and the work I have done over the last year on this "anomaly in a can". Some people have seen what they think as a thrust, some have had null results, some are still digging into it.
For 50 years I have built things that work, lol, why build something that doesn't work? It's a huge waste of time. From mainframe computers, to EPA gas analysis equipment, to building sonic equipment to find subs, to 4 Editor's Choice Awards in PC Mag, To imaging systems for particle colliders, digital video ad insertion equipment (when there wasn't any) to my own company building and designing equipment that make semiconductors. I never built things that didn't work, (well maybe they didn't work the first get go) lol. You know, it's easy to build something that doesn't work, a piece of cake. What's hard, is to build something that works. In the competitive world it better work and work better than anything else or you know what happens then.
The EDrive is very tough to build to work and easy to build to not work. My first one didn't work, my design had too many holes. (inside joke for those who have been following me this last year) The next 2 did, I got something, something strange. Do you understand what the DTYIers and Universities that are building are trying to do? We're building something that shouldn't work, to work (thrust), to prove why it does work. And why it does work could throw physics a curve ball, or not. The jury is still out.
You see it's important to build this drive to consistently work and to provide thrust, not to get people upset in stepping all over cherished known physics, but to understand why it does what it does, to find the answers.
Looking back this last year we all have made major strides to the conundrum of this drive and maybe soon will have some solid data. There is no bad data, just good science.
My Best,
Shell
-
#1155
by
zen-in
on 01 Oct, 2016 16:32
-
I wish to ask everyone's opinion on why EM Drive and related (Woodward etc.) research draws so much hostility.
I mean, there are some surprising experimental results, which some labs confirm and others don't, and some tentative theoretical explanations, over which scientists argue.
What else is new? That's how scientific research has always been, messy, uncertain, and ultimately glorious.
Clearly, what is called for is more experimental and theoretical work. But EM Drive (etc.) discussions in online communities, with a few exceptions like this one, are mostly name calling and accusations of "pseudoscience," without scientific arguments related to the ongoing experimental and theoretical work.
The "Sociology of EM Drive research" is fascinating. Why so many people are so passionately against something good? I don't know how to answer my question, but I have the impression that powerful emotional and most likely political factors are involved. Thoughts welcome.
If there is hostility to EM-Drive research you won't find it on this forum. The moderators remove any comments that are not up to their standards for civility. There is probably less criticism of experimental results than you would normally see at a scientic conference because of that. Lately this forum has devolved into philosophical musings on the EM-Drive. There are several DIY'rs who have built experiments yet we hear nothing about their tests. Earlier this month there was a conference and nothing has come out of that. I can only conclude that despite all the effort and talk there is still nothing to show.
-
#1156
by
SeeShells
on 01 Oct, 2016 16:54
-
I wish to ask everyone's opinion on why EM Drive and related (Woodward etc.) research draws so much hostility.
I mean, there are some surprising experimental results, which some labs confirm and others don't, and some tentative theoretical explanations, over which scientists argue.
What else is new? That's how scientific research has always been, messy, uncertain, and ultimately glorious.
Clearly, what is called for is more experimental and theoretical work. But EM Drive (etc.) discussions in online communities, with a few exceptions like this one, are mostly name calling and accusations of "pseudoscience," without scientific arguments related to the ongoing experimental and theoretical work.
The "Sociology of EM Drive research" is fascinating. Why so many people are so passionately against something good? I don't know how to answer my question, but I have the impression that powerful emotional and most likely political factors are involved. Thoughts welcome.
If there is hostility to EM-Drive research you won't find it on this forum. The moderators remove any comments that are not up to their standards for civility. There is probably less criticism of experimental results than you would normally see at a scientic conference because of that. Lately this forum has devolved into philosophical musings on the EM-Drive. There are several DIY'rs who have built experiments yet we hear nothing about their tests. Earlier this month there was a conference and nothing has come out of that. I can only conclude that despite all the effort and talk there is still nothing to show.
There are several DIY'rs who have built experiments yet we hear nothing about their tests. Earlier this month there was a conference and nothing has come out of that. I can only conclude that despite all the effort and talk there is still nothing to show
You did see Rfmwguy's and Monrphic's test results! Where they showed what appears to be thrusts, but they were pushed to a higher bar as many did me last December when I reported something. This level of detail to present good data with all the errors quantified and accounted for take time and money. I'm glad they are taking the engineering time with the work it demands to present solid data.
On the Advanced Propulsion Workshop, I was pleasantly surprised. They were not a bunch of Kool Aid drinkers spouting nonsensical information and theories. A quite serious, down to earth nuts and bolts meeting to present detailed analytical analysis of advanced propulsion systems. I understand that the video of the meeting will be presented after they do the immense amount of work needed so we all can view it.
Best,
Shell
-
#1157
by
Star One
on 01 Oct, 2016 18:12
-
I wish to ask everyone's opinion on why EM Drive and related (Woodward etc.) research draws so much hostility.
I mean, there are some surprising experimental results, which some labs confirm and others don't, and some tentative theoretical explanations, over which scientists argue.
What else is new? That's how scientific research has always been, messy, uncertain, and ultimately glorious.
Clearly, what is called for is more experimental and theoretical work. But EM Drive (etc.) discussions in online communities, with a few exceptions like this one, are mostly name calling and accusations of "pseudoscience," without scientific arguments related to the ongoing experimental and theoretical work.
The "Sociology of EM Drive research" is fascinating. Why so many people are so passionately against something good? I don't know how to answer my question, but I have the impression that powerful emotional and most likely political factors are involved. Thoughts welcome.
If there is hostility to EM-Drive research you won't find it on this forum. The moderators remove any comments that are not up to their standards for civility. There is probably less criticism of experimental results than you would normally see at a scientic conference because of that. Lately this forum has devolved into philosophical musings on the EM-Drive. There are several DIY'rs who have built experiments yet we hear nothing about their tests. Earlier this month there was a conference and nothing has come out of that. I can only conclude that despite all the effort and talk there is still nothing to show.
It has been explained why the presentations from SSI have not been put up yet. It's because volunteers are doing all the editing etc of the videos in their own time and again as has been explained in this thread the deadline for submitting papers presented at the conference for later publishing is December. Also the AIAA paper is not due to be published until December. So don't make the assumption that just because something isn't instantly available that it equals a negative.
-
#1158
by
Bob012345
on 01 Oct, 2016 18:33
-
I wish to ask everyone's opinion on why EM Drive and related (Woodward etc.) research draws so much hostility.
I mean, there are some surprising experimental results, which some labs confirm and others don't, and some tentative theoretical explanations, over which scientists argue.
What else is new? That's how scientific research has always been, messy, uncertain, and ultimately glorious.
Clearly, what is called for is more experimental and theoretical work. But EM Drive (etc.) discussions in online communities, with a few exceptions like this one, are mostly name calling and accusations of "pseudoscience," without scientific arguments related to the ongoing experimental and theoretical work.
The "Sociology of EM Drive research" is fascinating. Why so many people are so passionately against something good? I don't know how to answer my question, but I have the impression that powerful emotional and most likely political factors are involved. Thoughts welcome.
If there is hostility to EM-Drive research you won't find it on this forum. The moderators remove any comments that are not up to their standards for civility. There is probably less criticism of experimental results than you would normally see at a scientic conference because of that. Lately this forum has devolved into philosophical musings on the EM-Drive. There are several DIY'rs who have built experiments yet we hear nothing about their tests. Earlier this month there was a conference and nothing has come out of that. I can only conclude that despite all the effort and talk there is still nothing to show.
It has been explained why the presentations from SSI have not been put up yet. It's because volunteers are doing all the editing etc of the videos in their own time and again as has been explained in this thread the deadline for submitting papers presented at the conference for later publishing is December. Also the AIAA paper is not due to be published until December. So don't make the assumption that just because something isn't instantly available that it equals a negative.
Since a number of folks from this group were there, can someone at least say if anything earth shattering as far as evidence was presented? Thanks.
-
#1159
by
Bob012345
on 01 Oct, 2016 18:40
-
I wish to ask everyone's opinion on why EM Drive and related (Woodward etc.) research draws so much hostility.
I mean, there are some surprising experimental results, which some labs confirm and others don't, and some tentative theoretical explanations, over which scientists argue.
What else is new? That's how scientific research has always been, messy, uncertain, and ultimately glorious.
Clearly, what is called for is more experimental and theoretical work. But EM Drive (etc.) discussions in online communities, with a few exceptions like this one, are mostly name calling and accusations of "pseudoscience," without scientific arguments related to the ongoing experimental and theoretical work.
The "Sociology of EM Drive research" is fascinating. Why so many people are so passionately against something good? I don't know how to answer my question, but I have the impression that powerful emotional and most likely political factors are involved. Thoughts welcome.
I am one of the skeptics. I am mostly not hostile at all. I am friendly to all the DIYers, trying to help them to make their experiments better. I myself do experiments. If I have somehow hostility, it is toward Cannae, which like the E-Cat, is likely a deliberate fraud.
The experiments are all problematic. I have published about that. The experiments are not pseudoscience, they just have problems. Most theoretic works are pseudoscience. Some do not know what they are talking about. I have just analyzed a short paper by Professor Woodward so I know that.
EmDrive is not "something good". It started from a misconception by Mr. Shawyer. His "light reflected within frustum" explanation was directly simulated by an NSF user. After I debugged the code, the simulation generated no thrust. EmDrive does not work, that's why so many people are against it. If you ask my motive, it is mostly like this:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png
There is unlikely political factors involved. If you believe in that, you might be one of those who believe moon landing is a fake.
I'm working on a response to your analysis of Woodward's paper but need a little more time. I think I see some logical flaws in your arguments.
