-
#120
by
meberbs
on 03 Jun, 2017 21:53
-
So we're years on and I assume this magical device hasn't been proven still? Still a chance or do we send this to the room that has the anti-gravity machine that's collecting dust?
actually the effect is still anomalous but the signal is there. what hasn't happened despite everybody trying to do it is explain why it is there. or what spurious source of the signal is responsible. Also several sources of error have been eliminated or greatly reduced. Now correct me if i am wrong but i thought the scientific method involved a null hypothesis which (despite the years you have mentioned) has not been validated. Or contra-wise the experimental hypothesis has not been falsed.
In fact; current evidence points to the contrary of the null hypothesis. The experimenters have accounted for several proposed mundane sources of error by identifying potential sources of error/ spurious signals and designing the protocols and equipment to negate or to be able to filter them out of the data. The anomalous signal remains despite this effort.
That is the current status of the experiments. They are ongoing. It is premature to try to consign the effect to the dustbin.
EDIT: Besides the antigravity machine is not in some room collecting dust. My star cruiser's engineers run a clean engine room and it is inspected on a daily basis.
While I agree that it is too early to call it, and I would like to see this followed through to the end, I am confused as to how you find current evidence as pointing towards the emDrive working.
Demonstrating a working emDrive is something that is inherently easier than demonstrating that it doesn't work. To show it doesn't work, you need to get down to an experiment sensitive enough to measure the force due to thermal radiation coming off the device. You also then have to repeat it for enough different configurations of mode shapes, dielectrics, etc. There has been a significant lack of criteria defined for just how much of this needs to be done before it is accepted as not working. As error sources and noise have been removed from experiments, the anomalous thrust has also decreased, which means that even more minor of errors need to be accounted for.
I'd have to go back and check the original numbers, but I think there have been quite a few experiments at this point that have constrained thrust levels to significantly less than Shawyer's original claims. The only experiment that really came close to a replication of Shawyer (Yang's) was later determined to be an experimental error. At this point, even if the emDrive works, I think it could be shown that Shawyer never measured a real signal as his results would have been swamped by errors.
-
#121
by
Stormbringer
on 03 Jun, 2017 23:18
-
it is my understanding of most of the results shared here that a thrust signal remains after all known sources of spurious signals are eliminated, reduced or simply deducted out by mathematical magic. if the spurious signal in the data were to blame then there would be no signal in the data and the EM drive effect hypothesis would be falsed and a null hypothesis proven. That has not happened. therefore the evidence points away from a null hypothesis though it remains to be seen if this holds throughout the experimental process. OTOH. a (weak) signal remains. So far this is an indicator pointing towards the EM Drive effect. I thought what remains is getting above sigma five...or not.
-
#122
by
JonathanD
on 04 Jun, 2017 00:29
-
it is my understanding of most of the results shared here that a thrust signal remains after all known sources of spurious signals are eliminated, reduced or simply deducted out by mathematical magic. if the spurious signal in the data were to blame then there would be no signal in the data and the EM drive effect hypothesis would be falsed and a null hypothesis proven. That has not happened. therefore the evidence points away from a null hypothesis though it remains to be seen if this holds throughout the experimental process. OTOH. a (weak) signal remains. So far this is an indicator pointing towards the EM Drive effect. I thought what remains is getting above sigma five...or not.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. As as lurker here for a number of years I can't express how amazed I am at the determination, dedication, and professionalism of the testers and theorists in this series of threads. While there have certainly been the moments of disagreement and some cantankerous exchanges, compared to the state of the internet in 2017, this might possibly be the most civil exchange of ideas in recent history! I'll be glad to see this figured out one way or another, and irrespective of the result, kudos to all of you, wish I had the chops to help, but if nothing else I can wave a pom-pom.
-
#123
by
Req
on 04 Jun, 2017 01:39
-
Is it not the case that the main reason that this is "taking so long" is simply that nobody who is in the business of justifying major investments into science takes it seriously? Somebody brought up LIGO earlier... LIGO/VIRGO were funded to the tune of however many (hundreds of?) millions of dollars and a large talent commitment for many years because it was taken seriously by people who could justify it. Ditto LHC, and etc. These are also example of projects where one could say that "the desired outcome is uncertain", so the difference is really that only people with limited resources are taking it seriously. Right? How about the NSF's laser fusion ignition facility, how much money has been dumped into that to date without reaching the desired outcome?
Doesn't it seem strange to anybody that nobody who should be excited about this is? Where is the NSF, where are Musk and Bezos, etc? Part of the "institutional science cabal bent on preserving what they think" or somesuch? That sounds beyond absurd to me.
-
#124
by
Stormbringer
on 04 Jun, 2017 01:46
-
you mean the people who are staking their fortunes on conventional chemical rockets and whose business model relies on people buying space on their conventional launch vehicles? I know- I'll invest billions in chemical tech and then put a million or so in tech that would wipe out my entire business plan and render my prior investments null and void.
That sounds pretty unlikely to me.
-
#125
by
Req
on 04 Jun, 2017 01:47
-
you mean the people who are staking their fortunes on conventional chemical rockets and whose business model relies on people buying space on their conventional launch vehicles? I know- I'll invest billions in chemical tech and then put a million or so in tech that would wipe out my entire business plan and render my prior investments null and void. That sounds pretty likely to me.
And how do you explain ITS?
-
#126
by
Stormbringer
on 04 Jun, 2017 02:08
-
I don't know what this is and a google search is not helpful.
-
#127
by
Req
on 04 Jun, 2017 02:17
-
BFR/BFS, formerly known as MCT... The(presently) paper rocket/spaceship. My point with the question is that BFS is still in the CAD/etc stage, and as it's design in particular would be radically different(for the better) if EMDrive was a thing, you'd think that if he took it even remotely seriously, he would have been sending them up for quite some time now to prove it/increase TRL before he seriously considers sending fleets of hundreds or thousands of 150MT dry ships with massive tanks off every synod, each needing 4 launches. Moreover, how many college classes launch cubesat-sized payloads into orbit every year? You can pretend like Musk might be blinded by (insert reason here), but everybody who has routine access to space? Why doesn't anybody with routine access to space and enough resources to build a flight article do just that?
-
#128
by
Superfastjellyfish
on 04 Jun, 2017 02:22
-
-
#129
by
kenny008
on 04 Jun, 2017 02:27
-
Is it not the case that the main reason that this is "taking so long" is simply that nobody who is in the business of justifying major investments into science takes it seriously? Somebody brought up LIGO earlier... LIGO/VIRGO were funded to the tune of however many (hundreds of?) millions of dollars and a large talent commitment for many years because it was taken seriously by people who could justify it. Ditto LHC, and etc. These are also example of projects where one could say that "the desired outcome is uncertain", so the difference is really that only people with limited resources are taking it seriously. Right? How about the NSF's laser fusion ignition facility, how much money has been dumped into that to date without reaching the desired outcome?
Doesn't it seem strange to anybody that nobody who should be excited about this is? Where is the NSF, where are Musk and Bezos, etc? Part of the "institutional science cabal bent on preserving what they think" or somesuch? That sounds beyond absurd to me.
I think the difference between EM Drive and your examples is that there is sound, already understood physics explanations for the effects being sought at LIGO, LHC, etc. As of right now, the theoretical background for EM Drive is far less understood, agreed upon, or even believed. I'm happy to see the theoretical exchanges going on here (WAY over my head), but these discussions certainly would not be described as "mainstream." LIGO and LHC were more engineering exercises to prove or disprove widely-accepted alternatives to well-understood physics. IMHO, EM Drive theory isn't there yet.
I think I'm agreeing with you. Once a widely-accepted, testable theory is developed, OR an unequivocal experimental signal is seen, I think you'll see more financial interest in further experimental development. I don't think we need to look for conspiracy theories ("Musk has a vested interest in NOT developing EM Drive") to explain the lack of financial support.
-
#130
by
Req
on 04 Jun, 2017 02:46
-
Is it not the case that the main reason that this is "taking so long" is simply that nobody who is in the business of justifying major investments into science takes it seriously? Somebody brought up LIGO earlier... LIGO/VIRGO were funded to the tune of however many (hundreds of?) millions of dollars and a large talent commitment for many years because it was taken seriously by people who could justify it. Ditto LHC, and etc. These are also example of projects where one could say that "the desired outcome is uncertain", so the difference is really that only people with limited resources are taking it seriously. Right? How about the NSF's laser fusion ignition facility, how much money has been dumped into that to date without reaching the desired outcome?
Doesn't it seem strange to anybody that nobody who should be excited about this is? Where is the NSF, where are Musk and Bezos, etc? Part of the "institutional science cabal bent on preserving what they think" or somesuch? That sounds beyond absurd to me.
I think the difference between EM Drive and your examples is that there is sound, already understood physics explanations for the effects being sought at LIGO, LHC, etc. As of right now, the theoretical background for EM Drive is far less understood, agreed upon, or even believed. I'm happy to see the theoretical exchanges going on here (WAY over my head), but these discussions certainly would not be described as "mainstream." LIGO and LHC were more engineering exercises to prove or disprove widely-accepted alternatives to well-understood physics. IMHO, EM Drive theory isn't there yet.
I think I'm agreeing with you. Once a widely-accepted, testable theory is developed, OR an unequivocal experimental signal is seen, I think you'll see more financial interest in further experimental development. I don't think we need to look for conspiracy theories ("Musk has a vested interest in NOT developing EM Drive") to explain the lack of financial support.
Thanks for putting this in a more eloquent way than I could have. That being said, my opinion is that at least some people would still have made flight articles if they thought there was even the slightest shred of credibility, considering the massive reward side of the equation. It's not like this is new, and it's not like there's a high barrier to entry simply to make a copy of a design and send it up to find out whether the anomalous thrust is systemic or real. That would be extremely useful all by itself, forget understanding why. I posit that if anybody took this even remotely seriously, somebody would have done that already. I think it goes beyond simply "outside of mainstream" because the potential reward is just so huge for taking the risk, and the risk is very small as far as space experiments go.
Edit - Think about it this way. It would cost like 1/10th or 1/100th or something of the fairing reuse experiments.
-
#131
by
hyperplanck
on 04 Jun, 2017 04:02
-
at least some people would still have made flight articles if they thought there was even the slightest shred of credibility, considering the massive reward side of the equation.
You are making a serious assumption. First off, many gov't entities and others have experimented with it in those regards, so there is one aspect of observational selection and willful blindness in your argument that is blatantly fallacious, which in turn, makes me question the validity of any of your claims.
I don't think you understand the costs of running an experiment and putting something in orbit. Just because a bunch of high school kids design and work on cube sats doesn't mean they ever see the light of day. I think you need to follow up on your research to be conclusive about how much you are claiming. I also don't think you understand the complex socio-economic environment or the actual research involved so I would double check what you think you understand about propulsion, corporations interests, the physics community and the em drive.
In regards to LHC, I would argue you are using observational selection again in that one of their main missions is centered around the higgs of which has yet to be proven with all those billions of dollars invested. Though I'm not here to talk down on particle physics research or CERN because I appreciate their work. I would just be sure you look at your own biases and logic to see if you are making any fallacies in your argument before you hand wave sociological impacts and obtuse assertions.
-
#132
by
Req
on 04 Jun, 2017 04:06
-
You are making a serious assumption. First off, many gov't entities and others have experimented with it in those regards, so there is one aspect of observational selection and willful blindness in your argument that is fallacious in many regards. Which makes me question the validity of any of your claims.
Are you referring to what China supposedly did? I thought the latest on that was that they have not actually flown anything, and that blurb had been discredited. Am I missing new information?
I don't think you understand the costs of running an experiment and putting something in orbit. Just because a bunch of high school kids design and work on cube sats doesn't mean they ever see the light of day. I think you need to follow up on your research to be conclusive about how much you are claiming. I also don't think you understand the complex socio-economic environment or the actual research involved so I would double check what you think you understand about propulsion, corporations interests, the physics community and the em drive.
I do know that Cannae has plans for an inexpensive compact demonstrator. Are they also lacking in understanding, or are they just outright lying? I wonder what your idea of what it takes to design a re-entry/glide/landing profile and kit for fairings(my example) entails and costs, and how that compares to a EMDrive demonstrator? Re college cubesats, I didn't ask how many are built every year, I asked how many are launched every year, making your point superfluous.
In regards to LHC, I would argue you are using observational selection again in that their whole mission is centered around gluons and the higgs of which NEITHER have been proven with all those billions of dollars invested. Though I'm not here to talk down on particle physics research or CERN, etc, I would just be sure you look at your own biases and logic to see if you are making any fallacies in your argument before you hand wave sociological impacts and obtuse assertions.
I wonder if you realize that asserting that LHC still has not completed it's stated objectives actually reinforces my point. I'd also like to point out that I did not say that it has.
-
#133
by
hyperplanck
on 04 Jun, 2017 04:52
-
I don't like how this conversation is evolving into degrading highly funded physics research to prove the em drive research is legitimate. While I am a strong supporter fusion research, it has yet to prove that it has much if any return on energy. Though from your logic set, when fusion was 'well known', 10-20 years after its design, why weren't investors throwing down billions to support fusion research then? You see why you cant make analogies like that? There is a good lecture on the danger of analogies I linked.
I think its absolutely asinine that anyone in the physics community would think that rf waves don't induce thrust, in a cavity or without. I think its also just as ridiculous to think that you cant increase the reaction of this thrust.
I'm so tired of the people who come in here just to drop a few lines of hate,who don't understand biases and logical fallacies, and don't provide any constructive comments on physics.
list of cognitive biases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biasesThe backfire effect
http://bigthink.com/think-tank/the-backfire-effect-why-facts-dont-win-argumentsThe dangers of analogies
https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/scenario/analogy.htm
-
#134
by
Req
on 04 Jun, 2017 04:54
-
Though from your logic set, when fusion was 'well known', 10-20 years after its design, why weren't investors throwing down billions to support fusion research then?
They were, and continue to. See ITER, NIF, ARC/SPARC, Pollywell, Lockmart, the long history of tokamaks etc from past present and future.
I think its absolutely asinine that anyone in the physics community would think that rf waves don't induce thrust, in a cavity or without.
This is called a photon rocket, and anybody in the physics community who thinks otherwise only exists in your imagination.
You see why you cant make analogies like that?
No. But I've said my piece and I'll bow out.
-
#135
by
qraal
on 04 Jun, 2017 06:27
-
And still no NET energy generation...
Though from your logic set, when fusion was 'well known', 10-20 years after its design, why weren't investors throwing down billions to support fusion research then?
They were, and continue to. See ITER, NIF, ARC/SPARC, Pollywell, Lockmart, the long history of tokamaks etc from past present and future.
-
#136
by
spupeng7
on 04 Jun, 2017 07:04
-
After years of gentle persuasion the Astronomy Society of South Australia has published my emdrive article in the June 2017 edition of their Bulletin. See, patience is rewarded
-
#137
by
Tcarey
on 04 Jun, 2017 07:08
-
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. As as lurker here for a number of years I can't express how amazed I am at the determination, dedication, and professionalism of the testers and theorists in this series of threads. While there have certainly been the moments of disagreement and some cantankerous exchanges, compared to the state of the internet in 2017, this might possibly be the most civil exchange of ideas in recent history! I'll be glad to see this figured out one way or another, and irrespective of the result, kudos to all of you, wish I had the chops to help, but if nothing else I can wave a pom-pom.
I take issue with the statement "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Extraordinary claims require the same evidence as any other scientific claim. That phrase is catchy but it is simply not true.
All scientific claims require sufficient information to allow for replication and examination of possible sources of error. Notice that a theory explaining the claim or observation is not a requirement. A theory is nice and many people seem to think that it is a requirement. A theory that explains an observation is certainly helpful as a guide to further understanding an observation.
-
#138
by
Star One
on 04 Jun, 2017 10:45
-
Though from your logic set, when fusion was 'well known', 10-20 years after its design, why weren't investors throwing down billions to support fusion research then?
They were, and continue to. See ITER, NIF, ARC/SPARC, Pollywell, Lockmart, the long history of tokamaks etc from past present and future.
I think its absolutely asinine that anyone in the physics community would think that rf waves don't induce thrust, in a cavity or without.
This is called a photon rocket, and anybody in the physics community who thinks otherwise only exists in your imagination.
You see why you cant make analogies like that?
No. But I've said my piece and I'll bow out.
So what was all that about, were you just being a disruptive and non-constructive contributor to the thread then?
-
#139
by
LowerAtmosphere
on 04 Jun, 2017 13:54
-
@Star One
Don't jump the gun just yet. Hyperplanck is simply a critical theoretical physicist who has been very hard at work trying to compile down and explain a list of advanced topics which are necessary to understand the EM Drive. As with meberbs and Rodal, there is no need for coddling or babying of other contributors, especially those who throw out immature comments such as "why is it taking so long?" or "why does it not have funding?". Considering the difference in terms of theoretical robustness (again, I reference the reader to the Desiato-Rodal model among others), variety (gravity gradients, plasma pressures, doppler shifts, MiHsC etc) and experimental data (
an entire wiki's worth) between the first thread on this website and the current state of affairs, it is clear that there has been an explosion of interest and investment internationally. The EM Drive is held back only by dogmatic thought and a lack of understanding regarding the propulsion mechanism(s). So many people still see it as a box full of tennis balls, and this broken analogy is plainly inapplicable if you understand that the electron pressure and discrete energy quanta is mainly what determines thrust,
not the original input. Without understanding the retention of energy in phononic structures and the propagation of waves through different media and dimensions then you cannot possible hope to understand the "magic" inside the box.
I won't give too much information away, but it is my impression that some very intriguing theory posts are coming from Hyperplanck
That sounds pretty unlikely to me.
