Em drive good news...

[Steel]

This is situations where you have to sit back and say: Just because a government is throwing money at it, doesn't necessarily mean its not a load of crap.

Let's bare in mind that the NHS (and so indirectly the UK government) also spends millions a year funding homeopathic treatments which also have no foundation in science

EDIT: I can't believe I missed this earlier, but if it did magically work the way he claims, the force would push it in the opposite direction to the direction he is saying. He claims that there is a greater force on the larger end than on the smaller end. Thus, the net force would be acting towards the larger end. However, he then says that this pushes the drive in the opposite direction to the way the net force is acting.

Edited November 10, 2016 by Steel

[p1t1o]

8 minutes ago, Steel said:

This is situations where you have to sit back and say: Just because a government is throwing money at it, doesn't necessarily mean its not a load of crap.

Let's bare in mind that the NHS (and so indirectly the UK government) also spends millions a year funding homeopathic treatments which also have no foundation in science

I'd say it is sometimes a good idea for a government to do this, because if it does turn out to be a game-changer, you get a strategic advantage.

And as for the NHS, at least you get a lot of homeopathy for your money, and if it placebos a few thousand people out of the emergency room/GPs office, then all the better.

Having said that, I did see one study which tested homeopathic remedies against a placebo...and the placebo performed better!! Probably a statistical anomaly, but hilarious!

[Steel]

I have to say, this guy scares me a little. How on earth he managed to get jobs in aerospace and defense companies without a basic understanding of Newton's laws or basic mechanics is a mystery.

[magnemoe]

35 minutes ago, Steel said:

This is situations where you have to sit back and say: Just because a government is throwing money at it, doesn't necessarily mean its not a load of crap.

Let's bare in mind that the NHS (and so indirectly the UK government) also spends millions a year funding homeopathic treatments which also have no foundation in science

EDIT: I can't believe I missed this earlier, but if it did magically work the way he claims, the force would push it in the opposite direction to the direction he is saying. He claims that there is a greater force on the larger end than on the smaller end. Thus, the net force would be acting towards the larger end. However, he then says that this pushes the drive in the opposite direction to the way the net force is acting.

Homeopathy is the wrong parallel, that done because of political deals, some believe in it and you throw them an bone to get support in other cases. 
Plenty of politicians who have voted for stuff they admit has no effect at all. 

em-drive research is more that the pharmacy companies are doing, they spend billions testing things who don't work in hope of finding some who do.
NASA has an small budget for stuff like this however the majority is far more conversational.

So far they have had pretty good data, passed two milestones, first was is this nonsense. Second is do we have an effect of some type. 
 

[monstah]

2 hours ago, Steel said:

This is situations where you have to sit back and say: Just because a government is throwing money at it, doesn't necessarily mean its not a load of crap.

In this case, it seems to me that even the notion that NASA is sponsoring the research is media misunderstanding. As far as I can tell, the article linked merely states the researches work for NASA, not that they are conducting said research for NASA. And the closest I can get to "EM drive" on an actual NASA site is this: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/technology/warp/warp.html Doesn't look like much, either.

[Steel]

Just now, monstah said:

In this case, it seems to me that even the notion that NASA is sponsoring the research is media misunderstanding. As far as I can tell, the article linked merely states the researches work for NASA, not that they are conducting said research for NASA. And the closest I can get to "EM drive" on an actual NASA site is this: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/technology/warp/warp.html Doesn't look like much, either.

You're right, NASA has not directly commissioned the research AFAIK, these guys just have a remit to investigate niche propulsion technologies

[peadar1987]

And as someone (I think @K^2?) has said in the past, there's something interesting going on, and if the research uncovers something like a magnetic interaction with the test environment, it will allow us to improve our measurements in the future. In other words, there's something worthwhile to discover there, even if it's probably not reactionless propulsion.

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, peadar1987 said:

And as someone (I think @K^2?) has said in the past, there's something interesting going on, and if the research uncovers something like a magnetic interaction with the test environment, it will allow us to improve our measurements in the future. In other words, there's something worthwhile to discover there, even if it's probably not reactionless propulsion.

Magnetic interaction was the first thing I thought up, more of an issue in the vacuum chamber as you are inside an small metal tube, however the researchers also know this and it would be multiple ways to test if the effect is magnetic, move the test setup is one. 
 

[p1t1o]

On the topic of error sources, from the conclusion of the AIAA paper:

"The nature of the signals observed is still unclear. Additional tests need to be carried out to study the magnetic
interaction of the power feeding lines used for the liquid metal contacts. Indeed many more checks remain like
studying effects from outgassing, thermal effects from the magnetron, etc. Our test campaign can not confirm or
refute in any way the claims of the EMDrive but intends to independently assess possible side-effects in the
measurements methods used so far. We did find a number of side-effects in the previous setups that indeed can
produce large false signals. More work is needed to assess other error sources and the source of the signals that we 

have observed. Next steps include better magnetic shielding, further vacuum tests and improved EMDrive models
with higher Q factors and electronics that allow tuning for optimal operation. We believe that this is a good
education project to track down measurement errors and as a worst case we may find how to effectively shield thrust
balances from magnetic fields."

 

I also found this interesting from the body of the text:

"We were really puzzled by this large thrust from our control experiment where we expected to measure zero."

 

Full source:

https://tu-dresden.de/ing/maschinenwesen/ilr/rfs/ressourcen/dateien/forschung/folder-2007-08-21-5231434330/ag_raumfahrtantriebe/JPC---Direct-Thrust-Measurements-of-an-EM-Drive-and-Evaluation-of-Possible-Side-Effects.pdf?lang=en

 

 

There is also this paper:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=39772.0;attach=1113532

Which shows that no thrust was detected when the device was powered by an on-board battery instead of an external power supply linked by cable.

 

 

*Something* is going on, but I wouldnt put my money on reactionless forces, or even some other form of exotic propulsion. I *would* put money on it being a figment of increased instrument sensitivity and incomplete isolation from external influence.

They really need to give this thing to those boys that detected those gravity waves with that setup that detected a shift in length of half a proton-diameter, they'll know a thing or two about cancelling out unwanted interference!

 

Edited November 11, 2016 by p1t1o

[RedDwarfIV]

On 11/10/2016 at 5:20 PM, Steel said:

Let's bare in mind that the NHS (and so indirectly the UK government) also spends millions a year funding homeopathic treatments which also have no foundation in science

Sorry to be off-topic, but I had to respond to this.

The NHS only uses homeopathy for palliative care - in other words, to make someone who is already dying feel better. It is not used in lieu of actual effective medicine.

[sjwt]

And lets keep on track guys, 

 

Im sure we dont need to debate homeopathy here. 

[Kerbart]

On 11/10/2016 at 0:38 PM, Steel said:

I have to say, this guy scares me a little. How on earth he managed to get jobs in aerospace and defense companies without a basic understanding of Newton's laws or basic mechanics is a mystery.

In all fairness, this is where most scientist fail miserably in debunking perpetuum mobiles and inventions like these in the first place.

Crazy Inventor: Look at this! I have invented something THAT PROVES THE LAWS OF PHYSICS ARE WRONG! Eureka! IT WORKS!

Scientist: It violates Newton's laws of motion.

Notice that for the inventor, the scientist actually agrees with him. Yes, it does violate Newton's laws of motion. That's the brilliance of the invention!

It's marketing 101 why these people get so far because they feel they are not opposed by the scientists in their ivory towers. Sadly, most scientists are above taking that marketing 101 class. Which is why we end up where we are. Now, it's not their job to debunk PM inventors, so you cannot blame the scientists for that either, but if the story you're telling promises enough rewards it'll always be possible to find somebody to bankroll your attempts. Even with the chances of a reward so small, the rewards will be worth the attempt. Not realizing that the chances are zero...

[Darnok]

4 hours ago, Kerbart said:

In all fairness, this is where most scientist fail miserably in debunking perpetuum mobiles and inventions like these in the first place.

Crazy Inventor: Look at this! I have invented something THAT PROVES THE LAWS OF PHYSICS ARE WRONG! Eureka! IT WORKS!

 

Laws of physics are not set in stone, they are only our understanding of how world works today.
Our understanding may be wrong at many points and over time we can create new "laws" when we learn more.

Edited November 16, 2016 by Darnok

[p1t1o]

47 minutes ago, Darnok said:

Laws of physics are not set in stone, they are only our understanding of how world works today.
Our understanding may be wrong at many points and over time we can create new "laws" when we learn more.

Any scientist worth their salt knows that physical "laws" are mere approximations, and have many times n the past been improved and/or replaced by improved theory. 

Further, any scientist worth his salt knows that some laws are more easily revised than others.

And any human worthy of the name knows with great certainty, that many people desire attention for one reason or another, and one cannot fail to get attention by loudly claiming to have overturned something that many people think of as "set in stone".

So can we expect physical law to be changed occasionally? Potentially upsetting whole fields of science? Yes, of course.

Can we expect this to happen several times a year, largely originating from blogs and youtube posts? Heeeeeeeellllll Naaaaaaaww.

[monstah]

4 hours ago, p1t1o said:

Can we expect this to happen several times a year, largely originating from blogs and youtube posts? Heeeeeeeellllll Naaaaaaaww.

Facebook's legit, tho. It's got the best peer-review system ever designed, after all.

[razark]

On 11/9/2016 at 11:19 AM, monstah said:

nowhere did it give me the impression it's "a NASA paper". It's a paper by people who work at NASA, as far as I can see.

 

On 11/10/2016 at 1:26 PM, monstah said:

In this case, it seems to me that even the notion that NASA is sponsoring the research is media misunderstanding. As far as I can tell, the article linked merely states the researches work for NASA, not that they are conducting said research for NASA.

It's a "paper by people who work at NASA".

It's a paper about the research they're doing at a NASA facility, paid for by NASA, as part of their NASA duties.

It's a real NASA paper.

[magnemoe]

On 16.11.2016 at 2:58 PM, monstah said:

Facebook's legit, tho. It's got the best peer-review system ever designed, after all.

No as the peer preview is more based on popularity of poster and how sensational and cool it is. 
Lots of stuff who is obvious fake get lots of like and shares. This has been an issue during the recent US election. 
 

[p1t1o]

6 minutes ago, razark said:

It's a "paper by people who work at NASA".

It's a paper about the research they're doing at a NASA facility, paid for by NASA, as part of their NASA duties.

It's a real NASA paper.

Its done by a small group whose remit it is to investigate "fringe" theories, lets not pretend it says the same about its predicted impact as their research into say, Mars.

But, we are scientists here, we should not care where a paper comes from, we are interested in results, of which there is precious little as yet.

 

Just now, magnemoe said:

No as the peer preview is more based on popularity of poster and how sensational and cool it is. 
Lots of stuff who is obvious fake get lots of like and shares. This has been an issue during the recent US election. 
 

I think he may have been joking

[monstah]

1 minute ago, magnemoe said:

No as the peer preview is more based on popularity of poster and how sensational and cool it is. 
Lots of stuff who is obvious fake get lots of like and shares. This has been an issue during the recent US election. 
 

Your sarcasmioli detector must be broken. I'll send Bill to fix it.  

[razark]

1 minute ago, p1t1o said:

Its done by a small group whose remit it is to investigate "fringe" theories...

True.  But that small group is an official NASA group, publishing official NASA papers.

 

1 minute ago, p1t1o said:

lets not pretend it says the same about its predicted impact as their research into say, Mars.

But, we are scientists here, we should not care where a paper comes from, we are interested in results, of which there is precious little as yet.

I was not addressing the results or the impact, only the source of the paper, as that seemed to be questioned.  I'll be the first to admit that I'm in no way qualified to address the results.

[p1t1o]

6 minutes ago, razark said:

True.  But that small group is an official NASA group, publishing official NASA papers.

I was not addressing the results or the impact, only the source of the paper, as that seemed to be questioned.  I'll be the first to admit that I'm in no way qualified to address the results.

I think some of us were a little surprised that NASA was giving it any attention, to be honest.

[magnemoe]

55 minutes ago, monstah said:

Your sarcasmioli detector must be broken. I'll send Bill to fix it.  

Thanks, spent to much time other places there the discussion is on an way lower level. 

[Drethon]

22 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Thanks, spent to much time other places there the discussion is on an way lower level. 

Oh, so it sounds like you just need recalibration.  Sometimes a harder problem to detect.

[PortableGoogle]

Here is the peer reviewed paper if anyone is interested. 

http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/full/10.2514/1.B36120

[Green Baron]

Thanks. I do not understand everything, but i look forward to the discussion and reproductions.