Cannae/EmDrive

[RainDreamer]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a22678/em-drive-cannae-cubesat-reactionless/

 

Well, working or not, we will see eventually when it is put to the test.

[KerikBalm]

8 hours ago, RocketSquid said:

I could find no information about the second test. Also, you claimed that the BOTH tests had failed.

Since you doubt my first source, here's another one.

I am NOT arguing that it does or does not work. I am arguing that people keep making the same mistake regarding an "error" that doesn't exist, and it's getting on my nerves.

Go back and read post number 4 about proper controls on this thread... nothing has changed since then.

 

That second link of yours is absolutely irrelevant and says nothing about their experimental tests.

You don't seem to understand what a proper control is, nor what a proper source/citation is.

Also I should note that measuring a force doesn't neccessarily mean they measured thrust. In the 2nd half of post number 4 on this topic, I started to slip up and refer to thrust when I should have only been saying force.

Edited September 3, 2016 by KerikBalm

[Streetwind]

14 hours ago, gpisic said:

I already posted a scientific paper here that clearly debunks it in a series of experiments. However you can't possibly do anything here to convince believers into non believing. Even if NASA officials would say it's not working people here would accuse them of conspiracy.

You accuse people here of picking and choosing to see only those results that support the EMdrive, but how can you be sure you yourself aren't picking and choosing to see only those results that discredit the EMdrive? I see no practical difference in your behavior compared to the so-called "believers" you mention.

Let's ask the opposite question, then: What would it take for you to "believe"? What kind of research paper would have to come out, and who should publish it, to make you reconsider your stance? To come to the conclusion that maybe those sources you mention that debunk the EMdrive were in fact wrong?

I'm not asking this because I'm a fervent fanboy of the EMdrive. In fact I have doubts that it'll ever amount to anything beyond a laboratory novelty... but then again, I am not a physicist. I now preciously little about all these things thrown around as possible explanations for why the test article produces thrust. It is not my place to decide whether it works or not; trained scientists are going to do that. The only thing I'm completely convinced about is that the phenomenon of this thing will be completely unraveled sooner or later, the thrust signature and the mechanics behind it fully explained. At that point, we will know whether it was a dud that relies on interaction with the test stand environment, or whther it actually turns out to be a reactionless drive. Either way, I will be fine with the result (though admittedly, having a reactionless drive would be the more exciting outcome).

That is the way this kind of thing should be approached. The scientific method asks us to be critical thinkers, and that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But it also asks us to be open for any new idea, no matter how outlandish, as long as we can prove it to be valid. We cannot arbitrarily discard an idea just because it is unlikely, or doesn't align with our own preferred worldview. As long as there is work left to do, the jury is still out.

[KerikBalm]

There;s not much to pick an choose from.

A chinese paper

A "nasa" study that wasn't done in a vacuum, where one of their controls failed

A german study where their only control failed.

....

yawn

[RainDreamer]

Guys, the guy making the drive is going to launch a few cube sats with a few prototype engines to test the thing. We will see soon enough, provided they could ensure that he is not cheating. He claims his sats will last in orbit for at least 6 months instead of 6 weeks. So if there is truly no cheating involved, it will be verified in the real world.

[RocketSquid]

5 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

Go back and read post number 4 about proper controls on this thread... nothing has changed since then.

 

That second link of yours is absolutely irrelevant and says nothing about their experimental tests.

You don't seem to understand what a proper control is, nor what a proper source/citation is.

I linked the wrong page.

I was attempting to link the original page where they first posted the results, where they specifically stated that the null article wasn't a true control, and that it was intended to test a specific theory as to how the EmDrive worked, not whether it worked.

Either way, this will all be moot as soon as they finished the in-space trial.

[magnemoe]

39 minutes ago, RainDreamer said:

Guys, the guy making the drive is going to launch a few cube sats with a few prototype engines to test the thing. We will see soon enough, provided they could ensure that he is not cheating. He claims his sats will last in orbit for at least 6 months instead of 6 weeks. So if there is truly no cheating involved, it will be verified in the real world.

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/09/cannae-will-launch-demo-cubesat-to.html
An link I found about this. 
Plan is to put it in an very low orbit so low it would deorbit without lots of trust to keep its attitude. 
Only way to cheat here would be to put in an ion engine of some sort instead, however it would be hard to hide.

An pretty dangerous test as you will need trust and orientation at all cost, doing an burn for higher orbit, circulate and then back or do an plane change would be safer and prove the same. 

[rtxoff]

I will just laugh watching it fail miserably. 
This drive is in the same category as the free energy machines.

[_Augustus_]

2 minutes ago, gpisic said:

I will just laugh watching it fail miserably. 
This drive is in the same category as the free energy machines.

Or solar roadways.

[magnemoe]

34 minutes ago, _Augustus_ said:

Or solar roadways.

Solar roadways fails as the requirements of roads and solar panels don't match at all. 
As stupid to try to integrate an toaster and an laptop. 

[PB666]

1 hour ago, gpisic said:

I will just laugh watching it fail miserably. 
This drive is in the same category as the free energy machines.

The attitude is notably ignorant. Its not about proving whether it works or fails, its about observation. 

Ignorance leads the result of an experiment with a conclusion. 

 

[rtxoff]

11 hours ago, PB666 said:

The attitude is notably ignorant. Its not about proving whether it works or fails, its about observation. 

Ignorance leads the result of an experiment with a conclusion. 

 

Exactly, ignorance leads exactly to that. The Chinese paper shows it, everybody here ignores it. Why? Because they are Chinese? So Chinese can't be good scientists? Such an attitude is pretty much "waisis".

[PB666]

25 minutes ago, gpisic said:

Exactly, ignorance leads exactly to that. The Chinese paper shows it, everybody here ignores it. Why? Because they are Chinese? So Chinese can't be good scientists? Such an attitude is pretty much "waisis".

This makes no sense.

[KerikBalm]

its not ignored, its one experiment that they couldn't replicate.

When 3 studies come out, one reports lots of thrust, the others report tiny tiny thrust that may just be measurement errors.

What do you conclude?

 

Hey, there was a study by Flieschmann and Pons about cold fusion. Our energy woes are gone!

*edit* also I looked for the chinese paper, one is in all chinese, the other is in some obscure journal behind a paywall. If it was a less obscure journal, I could get around the paywall as my uni probably would have a subscription... but since I can't even read this paper and two groups have failed to replicate their high thrusts, then I don't think I'll buy it.

Edited September 4, 2016 by KerikBalm

[SuperFastJellyfish]

The 'Chinese paper' by Yang was nullified.  She ran tests with the power source on the torsion pendulum and found that her previous large results were due to thermal expansion of the high voltage power wires, AFAIK.  Here's the abstract from the newest paper that found no significant thrust:

Quote

Abstract： In order to explore the thrust performance of microwave thruster，the thrust produced by micro⁃ wave thruster system was measured with three-wire torsion pendulum thrust measurement system and the measurement uncertainty was also studied，thereby judging the credibility of the experimental measurements.  The results show that three-wire torsion pendulum thrust measurement system can measure thrust not less than 3mN under the existing experimental conditions with the relative uncertainty of 14%.  Within the measuring range of three-wire torsion pendulum thrust measurement system，the independent microwave thruster propulsion device did not detect significant thrust.  Measurement results fluctuate within ±0.7mN range under the conditions 230W microwave power output，and the relative uncertainty is greater than 80%.

 

Edited September 4, 2016 by SuperFastJellyfish

[KerikBalm]

Well, there you go... 3 for 3 groups fail to detect thrust beyond what can be accounted for by measurement error.

There's one guy here getting a lot of hype for his free energy machine, with no data backing it up.

[PB666]

54 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

Well, there you go... 3 for 3 groups fail to detect thrust beyond what can be accounted for by measurement error.

There's one guy here getting a lot of hype for his free energy machine, with no data backing it up.

Its not one guy, your as bad as gpisic. 

[KerikBalm]

ok, its not one guy, you're right.

There's Shawyer's group, and Fetta's group...

But something that violates conservation of momentum also violates conservation of energy. A reactionless drive would in fact be a free energy device.

[KerikBalm]

On 9/4/2016 at 2:47 AM, PB666 said:

The attitude is notably ignorant. Its not about proving whether it works or fails, its about observation. 

Ignorance leads the result of an experiment with a conclusion. 

 

So then its ignorant for someone to laugh when a dropped apple falls down if the person dropping it was doing an "experiment" to try and prove that things don't fall?

If "the other side" had been appropriately cautious with their optimism, I might be sympathetic to your statement. When they hype it up so much and argue so much on the basis of essentially null results, laughing at failure after they built their hopes up over something backed neither by theory nor previous experimentation seems to be an appropriate response and expectation

[Vanamonde]

At some point in the future, when there's a clear verdict either way, we can resume the discussion of this topic. But since the thread has been largely personal argument and insults for several pages now, it's time to set this topic aside for a while. 

[Jonfliesgoats]

When I first learned of the EM drive two years ago, I was sure it was a pseudo-scientific ploy to separate a dumb venture capitalist from his money.  I am not convinced this thing works in any sense of the word yet, but it will be sent to orbit.  

As I understand this thing works in a vacuum, does not require nearby metal objects, etc.. I still think confirmation bias from hopeful nerds plays a role in the success of the EM drive, but, if this thing does genuinely produce thrust in a vacuum, we need it in KSP.

So what are people's thoughts on this thing?

[Aethon]

Here is a previous thread with many peoples thoughts.

 

[Scotius]

I'm hopeful. After five decades of stagnating in Earth's orbit it would be nice to get a lucky break in the form of a cheap, simple engine that can get us far an fast. But i will contain my enthusiasm until i see it flying for real.

[DDE]

I am even more skeptical since all the whackos in NASA are rallying around it. The warp drive team claims that the EmDrive's cavity produces a warped space-time metric of the kind they're looking for.

[SuperFastJellyfish]

Eagleworks' newest paper on it is supposed to be out in December.