-
#680
by
Flyby
on 18 Sep, 2016 08:14
-
........
It sounds like it is going to be greeaaaaaaaaaaaaaat !
.......
Damn...
Too bad it isn't in the EU, else i would jump in the car/train and drive to where ever I'd need to be.
But , regretfully, Colorado USA, that's just a bit too far...
I can only hope that the video's will soften the sentiment of a missed opportunity...
I'm sure that by now, the press will get notice of the event and scramble to be present also?
-
#681
by
TheTraveller
on 18 Sep, 2016 10:07
-
Good luck on your presentations Todd and Jose. I think that many of us sense that the world is about to change, for the better.
I think this will have been a great time to have been alive.
My wife tells me that I should be in Estes Park because it is so important to me. But I will be hosting a string quartet at my house on the 23rd. Somehow I think that beautiful music combined with beautiful physics is a symbiotic "resonance" that I can enjoy.
Yes Bob, the age of blowing stuff up and throwing it rapidly away to provide propulsion is now behind us. Ahead is a lot of engineering hours to deliver a 1g solar system wide transport system. It will happen as the doorway is now open.
Whatever theory you find the most comfort with, we humans can now convert electrical energy directly into kinetic energy. More revolutionary than when we 1st converted electrical energy directly into rotary energy.
Apparently from other EW experiments we can also now convert electrical energy into space time compression, similar to what we observe mass does.
What I find interesting is Roger Shawyer obtained his 1st propellantless thrust patent in 1988. That was 28 years ago. Imagine where we would be now if science had accepted he had discovered a new effect back in 1988?
-
#682
by
Star One
on 18 Sep, 2016 11:50
-
Good luck on your presentations Todd and Jose. I think that many of us sense that the world is about to change, for the better.
I think this will have been a great time to have been alive.
My wife tells me that I should be in Estes Park because it is so important to me. But I will be hosting a string quartet at my house on the 23rd. Somehow I think that beautiful music combined with beautiful physics is a symbiotic "resonance" that I can enjoy.
Yes Bob, the age of blowing stuff up and throwing it rapidly away to provide propulsion is now behind us. Ahead is a lot of engineering hours to deliver a 1g solar system wide transport system. It will happen as the doorway is now open.
Whatever theory you find the most comfort with, we humans can now convert electrical energy directly into kinetic energy. More revolutionary than when we 1st converted electrical energy directly into rotary energy.
Apparently from other EW experiments we can also now convert electrical energy into space time compression, similar to what we observe mass does.
What I find interesting is Roger Shawyer obtained his 1st propellantless thrust patent in 1988. That was 28 years ago. Imagine where we would be now if science had accepted he had discovered a new effect back in 1988?
You say all that but the wider scientific community is never going to think the EM drive is anything but nonsense without a cohesive & testable theory as to how it works.
You are also going to need more definitive and larger results or people are just going to keep dismissing it as experimental artefacts or explained by other known factors.
You know this yourself from the history of this device so far.
-
#683
by
TheTraveller
on 18 Sep, 2016 12:24
-
Good luck on your presentations Todd and Jose. I think that many of us sense that the world is about to change, for the better.
I think this will have been a great time to have been alive.
My wife tells me that I should be in Estes Park because it is so important to me. But I will be hosting a string quartet at my house on the 23rd. Somehow I think that beautiful music combined with beautiful physics is a symbiotic "resonance" that I can enjoy.
Yes Bob, the age of blowing stuff up and throwing it rapidly away to provide propulsion is now behind us. Ahead is a lot of engineering hours to deliver a 1g solar system wide transport system. It will happen as the doorway is now open.
Whatever theory you find the most comfort with, we humans can now convert electrical energy directly into kinetic energy. More revolutionary than when we 1st converted electrical energy directly into rotary energy.
Apparently from other EW experiments we can also now convert electrical energy into space time compression, similar to what we observe mass does.
What I find interesting is Roger Shawyer obtained his 1st propellantless thrust patent in 1988. That was 28 years ago. Imagine where we would be now if science had accepted he had discovered a new effect back in 1988?
You say all that but the wider scientific community is never going to think the EM drive is anything but nonsense without a cohesive & testable theory as to how it works.
You are also going to need more definitive and larger results or people are just going to keep dismissing it as experimental artefacts or explained by other known factors.
You know this yourself from the history of this device so far.
One day soon I may just write an article about the rampant denialism that has stopped the "Shawyer Effect" from being properly evaluated and evolved into a workable space drive.
There are much bigger results, just so convenient to deny their validity.
-
#684
by
Flyby
on 18 Sep, 2016 13:34
-
You say all that but the wider scientific community is never going to think the EM drive is anything but nonsense without a cohesive & testable theory as to how it works.
You are also going to need more definitive and larger results or people are just going to keep dismissing it as experimental artefacts or explained by other known factors.
You know this yourself from the history of this device so far.
One day soon I may just write an article about the rampant denialism that has stopped the "Shawyer Effect" from being properly evaluated and evolved into a workable space drive.
There are much bigger results, just so convenient to deny their validity.
TT, I think you're confusing "skepticism" with "denial". Skepticism is a healthy attitude as it is all about reflecting on the obtained results. Are they truthful? did we miss something? Is my interpretation of the data correct?
Unless you've seen more then we did, simple forum dwellers, I do subscribe the reluctance of StarOne : so far there isn't much to be positive about, except for some datasheets.
You yourself promised us a rotating demonstrator, but for an unknown reason you decided not to at the very last moment.
Don't fend your/Shawyer's position with cryptic graphs either, as they are impossible to verify on their accuracy. What is needed to convince us skeptics, is a working model. Nothing more, nothing less.
There needs to be an update on Shawyer's rotating rig, where the previously formulated remarks have been addressed. But that never came...
And please do not try to portrait "skepticism" as a dirty , nasty word. It is not about being non-believers, EMdrive haters, etc...
It is simply a healthy scientific reflex. Skepticism is what helps us find errors and in the long run, scientific progress really needs self criticism...
-
#685
by
tleach
on 18 Sep, 2016 13:41
-
Steady-state signal AND a High Impulse Cyclic Pulse Jerk Action (HICPJA)? At the same time? Can you control the frequency of said HICPJA?
Edit: BTW, an answer of "No Comment" is perfectly understandable 
That's the $64 thousand dollar question. 
Shell
Does if seem to you that both the steady state signal and the HICPJA are different manifestations of the same phenomenon? Or is it possibe that there's more than one mechanism at work here?
I mean, both warp and impulse from the same drive? Seems almost to good to be true...
-
#686
by
Star One
on 18 Sep, 2016 13:46
-
You say all that but the wider scientific community is never going to think the EM drive is anything but nonsense without a cohesive & testable theory as to how it works.
You are also going to need more definitive and larger results or people are just going to keep dismissing it as experimental artefacts or explained by other known factors.
You know this yourself from the history of this device so far.
One day soon I may just write an article about the rampant denialism that has stopped the "Shawyer Effect" from being properly evaluated and evolved into a workable space drive.
There are much bigger results, just so convenient to deny their validity.
TT, I think you're confusing "skepticism" with "denial". Skepticism is a healthy attitude as it is all about reflecting on the obtained results. Are they truthful? did we miss something? Is my interpretation of the data correct?
Unless you've seen more then we did, simple forum dwellers, I do subscribe the reluctance of StarOne : so far there isn't much to be positive about, accept for some datasheets.
You yourself promised us a rotating demonstrator, but for an unknown reason you decided not to at the very last moment.
Don't fend your/Shawyer's position with cryptic graphs either, as they are impossible to verify on their accuracy. What is needed to convince us skeptics, is a working model. Nothing more, nothing less.
There needs to be an update on Shawyer's rotating rig, where the previously formulated remarks have been addressed. But that never came...
And please do not try to portrait "skepticism" as a dirty , nasty word. It is not about being non-believers, EMdrive haters, etc...
It is simply a healthy scientific reflex. Skepticism is what helps us find errors and in the long run, scientific progress really needs self criticism...
Shawyer might be onto something for all anyone knows but because he can't give a cohesive theory on how it works plus the long gap on the results people are bound to doubt what he says. It's not because they are haters to use the modern parlance but because they need persuading.
-
#687
by
francesco nicoli
on 18 Sep, 2016 14:40
-
Prof. M. Tajmar (TU Dresden, Germany) and Paul March (NASA) are going to be reporting on their EM Drive experiments. Prof. Tajmar, acknowledged the advice of Shawyer (*), for his experiments. It is well known that Shaywer has a different viewpoint than Prof. Woodward. The fact that Dr. White (NASA) advocates a different theory (degradable QV (**) ) than Dr. Woodward (Sciama/Mach Effect from GR) (***), on which they disagree, is well known. Several other attendees and presenters with different viewpoints.
My understanding is that it will not be streamed live, but it may be video recorded and the video available at SSI at a later date.
That sounds awesome! I would love to watch any and all videos of/from the workshop! And I'm reasonably sure I'm not the only one 
Anything you can do or say to help convince the organizers to post those videos would be greatly appreciated!
1) The organizers (the Space Studies Institute (SSI)) have arranged for video recording the presentations and they are planning to make them available in their website (ssi.org) some time after the workshop.
2) Several presentations were scheduled (*) to report on experiments , for example:
A) Paul March (NASA): experiments on the EM Drive, in a vacuum chamber, to prevent the anomalous effect of thermal convection
B) Prof. M. Tajmar (TU Dresden, Germany): experiments on the EM Drive, in a vacuum chamber, to prevent the anomalous effect of thermal convection
C) Prof. J. Woodward and Prof. H. Fearn (California State, Fullerton) experiments on the Mach Effect Drive, in a vacuum chamber, to prevent the anomalous effect of thermal convection
D) Prof. D. Hyland (Texas A&M), "Experimental Dynamic Casimir Effect"
Also a number of researchers conducting experiments will be attending, for example SeeShells (very well known to readers of the EM Drive at NSF) and Nembo Buldrini (Austrian Institute of Technology) who has another Mach Effect device.
Also Todd Desiato ("WarpTech") (also well known to readers of of the EM Drive at NSF) has confirmed -today - that he is attending as well.
It sounds like it is going to be greeaaaaaaaaaaaaaat !
_______________
(*) We look forward to the actual workshop for the final list of presentations
quick toughts-
1) sounds awesome
2) looks like a spin-off of this forum somehow!
3) good luck!
-
#688
by
francesco nicoli
on 18 Sep, 2016 14:49
-
AFAIK,
Shawyer has:
- NO valid theory
- NO publicly verifiable & falsifiable experimental results
but only claims. SO, everything boils down NOT to Science, but to FAITH in the man who makes the claim.
No surprise he isn't on that panel.
---
Besides, honestly, i think this behaviour is rather stupid.
IF EM drive works for real, but someone else develops the theory or shares the conclusive results first, hw won't get any merit for it: it will be someone else's name that goes through history (more precisely, the name of the person who does the first public & accepted demostrations, along with the names of those publishing the precise theoretical explanation of what's happening in the drive).
IF EM drive doesn't work, everybody will call him a scammer even if that wasn't his purpose to begin with.
From any point of view, it's a very suboptimal line of action. With his behaviour, Shawyer is locking himself out of the benefits its invention may produce either way.
-
#689
by
Rodal
on 18 Sep, 2016 15:04
-
You say all that but the wider scientific community is never going to think the EM drive is anything but nonsense without a cohesive & testable theory as to how it works.
You are also going to need more definitive and larger results or people are just going to keep dismissing it as experimental artefacts or explained by other known factors.
You know this yourself from the history of this device so far.
One day soon I may just write an article about the rampant denialism that has stopped the "Shawyer Effect" from being properly evaluated and evolved into a workable space drive.
There are much bigger results, just so convenient to deny their validity.
TT, I think you're confusing "skepticism" with "denial". Skepticism is a healthy attitude as it is all about reflecting on the obtained results. Are they truthful? did we miss something? Is my interpretation of the data correct?
Unless you've seen more then we did, simple forum dwellers, I do subscribe the reluctance of StarOne : so far there isn't much to be positive about, accept for some datasheets.
You yourself promised us a rotating demonstrator, but for an unknown reason you decided not to at the very last moment.
Don't fend your/Shawyer's position with cryptic graphs either, as they are impossible to verify on their accuracy. What is needed to convince us skeptics, is a working model. Nothing more, nothing less.
There needs to be an update on Shawyer's rotating rig, where the previously formulated remarks have been addressed. But that never came...
And please do not try to portrait "skepticism" as a dirty , nasty word. It is not about being non-believers, EMdrive haters, etc...
It is simply a healthy scientific reflex. Skepticism is what helps us find errors and in the long run, scientific progress really needs self criticism...
Yes, skepticism is healthy and a
vital part of the scientific method !
http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/manifesto/http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/SkepticismIn 1999, Skeptical Inquirer magazine named their top ten and other notable skeptics of the 20th Century.
James Randi
Martin Gardner
Carl Sagan Paul Kurtz
Ray Hyman
Philip J. Klass
Isaac Asimov
Bertrand RussellHarry Houdini
Albert Einstein
Richard FeynmanJoe Nickell
Karl PopperH.L. Mencken
Richard Dawkins
Stephen Jay Gould
-
#690
by
TheTraveller
on 18 Sep, 2016 15:09
-
You yourself promised us a rotating demonstrator, but for an unknown reason you decided not to at the very last moment.
Have earlier updated my build progress and never said I would not demo a rotating EmDrive. Building 2 spherical end plate, very high Q frustums is not as easy as I or the fabricators expected.
Am reliably informed another EmDrive builder has achieved a rotating EmDrive. So one way or the other or both there will be at least 3 videos of EmDrives happily rotating on their test rigs.
Also have been informed that at least 3 other EmDrive builders are working to duplicate the spherical end plate EmDrive design I shared.
-
#691
by
TheTraveller
on 18 Sep, 2016 15:12
-
AFAIK,
Shawyer has:
- NO valid theory
- NO publicly verifiable & falsifiable experimental results
Depends on what you know.
-
#692
by
francesco nicoli
on 18 Sep, 2016 15:35
-
AFAIK,
Shawyer has:
- NO valid theory
- NO publicly verifiable & falsifiable experimental results
Depends on what you know.
depends on what has been shared with the public by him. So far, nothing that inficiates either claim. If he shared bits of either thing with someone else, but that person cannot share it with the public, I am afraid it only implies that we have to have FAITH in that other person instead of him.
Science doesn't work on faith.
-
#693
by
SeeShells
on 18 Sep, 2016 15:52
-
Steady-state signal AND a High Impulse Cyclic Pulse Jerk Action (HICPJA)? At the same time? Can you control the frequency of said HICPJA?
Edit: BTW, an answer of "No Comment" is perfectly understandable
That's the $64 thousand dollar question.
Shell
Does if seem to you that both the steady state signal and the HICPJA are different manifestations of the same phenomenon? Or is it possibe that there's more than one mechanism at work here?
I mean, both warp and impulse from the same drive? Seems almost to good to be true...
I don't know if they are but it deserves to be tested.
Shell
-
#694
by
TheTraveller
on 18 Sep, 2016 16:27
-
Science doesn't work on faith.
You have read the 2 very detailed engineering reports and 2 independent reviews on
www.emdrive.com ?
Next consider Boeing became a SPR licensee in 2007 with full IP transfer. Then after 2 years to examine and 1st hand test both the Experimental EmDrive using static thrust test rigs and the Demonstrator EmDrive using both static and rotary test thrust rigs, SPR was awarded in 2009 a contract to supply Boeing with a space rated Flight Thruster, which was delivered and paid for in 2010.
If the EmDrive didn't work, Boeing had 2 years of hands on time to find that out. I highly doubt Boeing would have awarded SPR a contract to build & supply the Flight Thruster if Boeing was not 100% certain that both the Experimental & Demonstrator EmDrives worked as claimed.
BTW Roger tells me Boeing is still a SPR licensee and regularly receives IP updates.
-
#695
by
RotoSequence
on 18 Sep, 2016 16:33
-
If the EmDrive didn't work, Boeing had 2 years of hands on time to find that out. I highly doubt Boeing would have awarded SPR a contract to build & supply the Flight Thruster if Boeing was not 100% certain that both the Experimental & Demonstrator EmDrives worked as claimed.
No offense meant here TT, but Boeing has gone on the record for denying continued involvement with SPR, which immediately pits their word against Shawyer's (through you). What all of us still lack is evidence that's stronger than the posts you've made to this forum. This is also true of Seashells; we've placed varyingly large amounts of trust in both of you that you're not just pulling our collective legs, because at this point, we still have not seen experimental demonstrations to cite.
-
#696
by
Johnnyhinbos
on 18 Sep, 2016 16:47
-
Please forgive the layperson ignorance of my question - this is definitely a thread where I can offer no input, but one I find extremely fascinating.
That said, my question is, with all the tremendous potential and anticipation, and with powerful statements like, "this will change everything - will change the world - will disrupt human destiny and lead us into the stars" (<- I'm paraphrasing a bit here). But with all this, what exactly is the next step?
Is the next step - the next leap forward - waiting for the publication of the peer-reviewed paper in December?
Is it waiting on some grand unveil from Boeing?
If it's so loaded with untapped potential, then I would assume some deep pocket speculator like Bezos would dump a few million in pocket change in the off chance it works. Has this happened?
There's a wise old statement that has one, uh, taking care of business or getting off the pot already.
When is EM getting off the pot? What will it take??
-
#697
by
SeeShells
on 18 Sep, 2016 17:33
-
If the EmDrive didn't work, Boeing had 2 years of hands on time to find that out. I highly doubt Boeing would have awarded SPR a contract to build & supply the Flight Thruster if Boeing was not 100% certain that both the Experimental & Demonstrator EmDrives worked as claimed.
No offense meant here TT, but Boeing has gone on the record for denying continued involvement with SPR, which immediately pits their word against Shawyer's (through you). What all of us still lack is evidence that's stronger than the posts you've made to this forum. This is also true of Seashells; we've placed varyingly large amounts of trust in both of you that you're not just pulling our collective legs, because at this point, we still have not seen experimental demonstrations to cite.
My reasons...
You're correct, although all I ask is this requires some faith on my capabilities as a engineer and builder.
I've posted pictures of my lab, test stand builds, drives, electronics and detailed out the directions I'm taking in my testing and why. The one time I was open on the first powered tests last December when saw a thrust anomaly I faced a month of heat. Critical that I didn't do it this way or that way. It wasn't nice, nothing was gained. I Figured out it's not good science to provide cannon fodder for either side of the debate before your done. When I have assured myself I've met my own engineering standards and even many critics by providing the best I data and build I can, then will I release it.
This project deserves it, no it demands it. Dr. Rodal has done
something and has some test data he and Heidi Fern have worked to get, should we have demanded he openly share his preliminary testing and data? Or EagleWorks (we know why they have elected to be quiet) to share all of theirs as they test? I'm aware of several tests going on that they have elected not to post or publish anything because of the sensitive nature of this.
Openness has its pitfalls. That said I try to be as open and as helpful as I can without adding gas to the fires on either side.
My Best,
Shell
Added: I'm sorry I can't scratch your itch for more right now.
-
#698
by
RotoSequence
on 18 Sep, 2016 17:56
-
You're correct, although all I ask is this requires some faith on my capabilities as a engineer and builder.
I've posted pictures of my lab, test stand builds, drives, electronics and detailed out the directions I'm taking in my testing and why. The one time I was open on the first powered tests last December when saw a thrust anomaly I faced a month of heat. Critical that I didn't do it this way or that way. It wasn't nice, nothing was gained. I Figured out it's not good science to provide cannon fodder for either side of the debate before your done. When I have assured myself I've met my own engineering standards and even many critics by providing the best I data and build I can, then will I release it. This project deserves it, no it demands it.
Dr. Rodal has done something and has some test data he and Heidi Fern have worked to get, should we have demanded he openly share his preliminary testing and data? Or EagleWorks (we know why they have elected to be quiet) to share all of theirs as they test? I'm aware of several tests going on that they have elected not to post or publish anything because of the sensitive nature of this.
Openness has its pitfalls. That said I try to be as open and as helpful as I can without adding gas to the fires on either side.
My Best,
Shell
Added: I'm sorry I can't scratch your itch for more right now.
Sorry for putting you on the spot like that. Honestly, I should be a lot more fair. You and Dave have both shown your apparatuses, as has Dr. Tajmir, and both Dave and Tajmir (among a few others) have shown their data and seem to replicate some of Eagleworks' data in whole or in part, though ambiguities remain - and those ambiguities are the bane of our collective existence. I have faith that you're doing your best to be honest and truthful with your experiments and data; you wouldn't be attending that propulsion conference to discuss your results otherwise!
-
#699
by
masterharper1082
on 18 Sep, 2016 17:56
-
You say all that but the wider scientific community is never going to think the EM drive is anything but nonsense without a cohesive & testable theory as to how it works.
You are also going to need more definitive and larger results or people are just going to keep dismissing it as experimental artefacts or explained by other known factors.
You know this yourself from the history of this device so far.
One day soon I may just write an article about the rampant denialism that has stopped the "Shawyer Effect" from being properly evaluated and evolved into a workable space drive.
There are much bigger results, just so convenient to deny their validity.
TT, I think you're confusing "skepticism" with "denial". Skepticism is a healthy attitude as it is all about reflecting on the obtained results. Are they truthful? did we miss something? Is my interpretation of the data correct?
Unless you've seen more then we did, simple forum dwellers, I do subscribe the reluctance of StarOne : so far there isn't much to be positive about, accept for some datasheets.
You yourself promised us a rotating demonstrator, but for an unknown reason you decided not to at the very last moment.
Don't fend your/Shawyer's position with cryptic graphs either, as they are impossible to verify on their accuracy. What is needed to convince us skeptics, is a working model. Nothing more, nothing less.
There needs to be an update on Shawyer's rotating rig, where the previously formulated remarks have been addressed. But that never came...
And please do not try to portrait "skepticism" as a dirty , nasty word. It is not about being non-believers, EMdrive haters, etc...
It is simply a healthy scientific reflex. Skepticism is what helps us find errors and in the long run, scientific progress really needs self criticism...
Shawyer might be onto something for all anyone knows but because he can't give a cohesive theory on how it works plus the long gap on the results people are bound to doubt what he says. It's not because they are haters to use the modern parlance but because they need persuading.
The wheel was used successfully for many centuries before the development of Newton's Laws. Engineering success does not require a viable theory. That being said, I want to see a working theory very badly. Refining these device testbeds will hopefully lead us to a sensor capable of identifying which of the theories best fits the data.
A viable theory will greatly improve the pace of innovation, as it guides the direction of search toward concepts that are more likely to be successful, and allows computer simulations to largely replace "cut, try, and repeat" physical prototypes.
On a philosophical note (forgive me if this is obvious), each of our physical laws is only a representation, a model, of reality, not reality itself. We get into trouble as scientists when we get lured into a false sense of security (or parochialism) that we have "arrived". General Relativity is a better model than Newton's Laws. One of the new theories will be better than General Relativity. Each refinement allows us to solve problems the previous model couldn't. It is likely that at each stage of refinement, we will find examples that can't be readily explained by the latest, best model. Rinse, lather, repeat. 😃
Anything you can do or say to help convince the organizers to post those videos would be greatly appreciated!