Cannae/EmDrive

[Geschosskopf]

Is this a hoax? Space propulsion without reaction mass? Seriously?

http://www.cnet.com/news/nasa-tests-physics-defying-method-of-space-travel-em-drive/

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/

http://thepublicslate.com/2015/05/nasa-cracking-interstellar-travel/

What do you all think?

[Vanamonde]

I think we already have a thread for this. Some one, isn't it?

[Scotius]

Yes, we do. 60+ pages long And yes, apparently it's a thing. But we (community) have no idea how it works, why it works, and even if it really works.

[Vanamonde]

Okay, merged then.

[Geschosskopf]

Yes, we do. 60+ pages long And yes, apparently it's a thing. But we (community) have no idea how it works, why it works, and even if it really works.

Hmm. O.....K....... I now feel the whole universe wobbling as if Maxwell's Demon had just chopped away one of its main supports. A substantial part of me wants this to all go away. But OTOH, the possibilities if it does turn out to be true................ I think, should this prove to be a real thing, that the best part would be the irony. The image of the bargain-basement EM test rigs compared to the LHC .

Oh well. If none of the real brains in the world can explain how it works (if it really does), there's no point in me speculating. But I shall now keep an ear out for further developments.

[Mazon Del]

Hopefully Paul March will be able to give us small hints and tidbits now and then as time goes on. Otherwise we are pretty much as out of the loop as anyone else.

[Whirligig Girl]

No. Still just "poppycock".

http://www.wired.com/2015/05/nasa-warp-drive-yeah-still-poppycock/

[vger]

So, wait... what?

So there actually HASN'T been a hard vacuum-test now?

And multiple labs actually HAVEN'T tested and confirmed the results?

And now we have a claim that the test was INTENTIONALLY tampered with to produce false results?

Sorry, but I have to call poppycock on the poppycock story. The only reference they even 'cited' is the NASA forum post. This article was written by someone who wants it to fail just as badly as others want it to succeed.

[ZetaX]

And now we have a claim that the test was INTENTIONALLY tampered with to produce false results?.

You failed to read properly. For example, the article does not claim that there was any tampering to achieve false results; instead, it talks about the (well documented) experiment where they used a configuration that should not work, and yet it "did". And that is exactly what the article says about that. Nothing more, nothing less.

The article actually says nothing that wasn't already mentioned in this thread.

[Albert VDS]

No. Still just "poppycock".

http://www.wired.com/2015/05/nasa-warp-drive-yeah-still-poppycock/

What really sold it to me was this:

Eagleworks still only runs on $50,000 a year in funding. “That’s not enough to conduct a high-quality experimental research program,†says Davis. “They’d need $1.5 million, $2 million for five, six, seven years.

Now remember $50,000 isn't enough, no siree! You at least need $1.5 million, make it $2 million to be safe.

Now that's not enough though, you thought you're going to crack this thing in halve a year? No no no, none of those amateur times.

We need lots of time, make it 5 years! No... wait! 6 years, yeah that sounds good! ... Or.. no, make it 7.. just to be sure.

[magnemoe]

You failed to read properly. For example, the article does not claim that there was any tampering to achieve false results; instead, it talks about the (well documented) experiment where they used a configuration that should not work, and yet it "did". And that is exactly what the article says about that. Nothing more, nothing less.

The article actually says nothing that wasn't already mentioned in this thread.

This, the effect is tiny and its plenty of error sources. 10uN is identified and subtracted from the result. it might well be others.

Because it probably don't work they do it slow and cheap and one step a time.

[vger]

You failed to read properly. For example, the article does not claim that there was any tampering to achieve false results; instead, it talks about the (well documented) experiment where they used a configuration that should not work, and yet it "did". And that is exactly what the article says about that. Nothing more, nothing less.

The article actually says nothing that wasn't already mentioned in this thread.

Still doesn't explain why the author is specifically saying Eagleworks test results are being ignored by publishers when multiple labs are reporting consistent findings. Frankly, why not publish anyway, if it encourages more people to get on board to disprove it?

It isn't only important to prove or disprove the device itself. If it's a 'false prophet,' it's just as important to figure out what is being overlooked. I guess this is one of those times when the 'burden of proof' really becomes an unfair burden.

"We know it's wrong, but we're not going to disprove it. We're going to wait for you to raise tens of millions to disprove it yourself."

Edited May 7, 2015 by vger

[Crusher48]

I think the only way we will know for sure whether this works or not is by sending the device up to the ISS and seeing if it generates thrust up there.

[vger]

I think the only way we will know for sure whether this works or not is by sending the device up to the ISS and seeing if it generates thrust up there.

The next step should be to try it in a larger vacuum chamber. If the thrust decreases or disappears, that should be a pretty dead giveaway that it's not doing what we wish it was. And far cheaper then putting it into orbit.

Or just a different chamber for that matter. That was another claim the author made, that they failed to actually test it in a hard vacuum. Though even in a partial vacuum, shouldn't there be less thrust?

Edited May 7, 2015 by vger

[Crusher48]

I think I heard that the recent tests were in, for all intents and purposes, a hard vacuum (maybe 1 billionth of an atmosphere or something). Of course, I would still recommend spending a few more years working on improvements before even testing it in orbit.

[Geschosskopf]

No. Still just "poppycock".

http://www.wired.com/2015/05/nasa-warp-drive-yeah-still-poppycock/

I hesitate to touch this, but here I am, and I get paid for taking stupid risks, so here goes....

At present, the dogma of Dark Matter is mainstream, despite this being best described as explaining the unknown in terms of the unknowable, and seemingly directly analogous to the "luminefforous ether" of 100 years ago. OTOH, the competing theory of MoND, which manages to do a better job of explaining things in most cases than Dark Matter, and without invoking a deus ex machina, is considered heresy. Yet the same mainstream that embraces Dark Matter over MoND seems to reject EM out of hand without really looking at the results.

I admit to being a serious EM skeptic, having been raised devoutly orthodox in terms of the laws of physics. If you're going to undermine my understanding of the universe, I want proof. But that doesn't seem to be the issue here. As best as I can determine, we have corroboration from multiple independent sources with accuracies that exceed the known sources of error. So something does seem to be going on, unlike the "cold fusion" fad of my youth, which nobody could ever duplicate.

The source of EM's controversy, therefore, appears to be more in terms of why than of what. If there's no why given, then naturally there will be intense skepticism. But OTOH, focusing on the lack of a why ignores the existence of the known whats.

I hold it as a given that nothing can violate the laws of physics as presently understood, but at the same time we obviously don't have a full understanding of those laws. If we had a complete understanding, we'd have no trouble tying General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics together. Thus, we must acknowledge significant gaps in our knowledge and, therfore, can neither blindly accept nor reject out of hand observations that fall into the gray areas between them. What we must do is investigate further. If EM is really a thing, then it must both conform to what we're already pretty sure of and, where it differs, must provide an explanation of how it got there from where it started.

As I sit here, I imagine a world where gravitational lensing or some other relativistic effect was observed prior to Relativity being postulated. How would that sit with folks committed to a purely Netonian mindset? Photographic evidence of the phenomenon are there for the looking, but nobody can explain why they happen. Seems to be where we are with EM.

[jfull]

What's MoND?

you have me curious now

[NFUN]

What's MoND?

you have me curious now

Modified Newtonian Dynamics, which, last I heard, didn't work in several areas and explained things more poorly than the theory of Dark Matter. Its main advantage is that it doesn't absolutely require exotic undiscovered matter, though even it still needs some form of dark matter, according to the wiki.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics

[Leszek]

Sigh.

EmDrive probably doesn't work. It probably never worked. It has been point out time and again that there hasn't been a definitive test. I remember pointing out that they are near the limits of detection. I remember pointing out how dangerous that is for drawing conclusions.

People here keep insisting that "it is doing something we can't explain." NO IT IS NOT. That would be definitive already.

The experiment needs to be scaled up and run properly, they are working towards it. When they get there, if it works, you can celebrate. Everything up until now, every positive post, has been hopelessly optimistic.

You think the article is being biased against EmDrive? You are getting emotionally swayed from objective, you proved it when you thought it read "And now we have a claim that the test was INTENTIONALLY tampered with to produce false results?" And when that was pointed out to you, you didn't re-evaluate your position, you asserted more against the article.

NO ONE WANT'S EMDRIVE TO FAIL! Pointing out reality isn't the same thing!

IF the scaled up test does finally show something definitive, it will take several years and millions of dollars to complete the research. Think about it, it is a whole new propulsion system that we don't know how it works. We would need to build several versions of it, in several scales, with several other modifications just to explore the technology before we could put a real prototype on a satellite. Yes, we could cut that way in half and just slap the first definitively working version on a satellite and go, but that would be a pointless waste of money and time since we will not have any way to predict all the relevant variables needed to do a real mission to somewhere. The two million dollars and 6 years the article talks about strikes me as optimistic if anything.

"I guess this is one of those times when the 'burden of proof' really becomes an unfair burden. "

No, and the article doesn't say it is either. If you can't even demonstrate that it works, you don't have anything. Spaceships aren't powered by hope. These guys are working to scale up the device to produce performance that isn't near the limits of detection. When they get there, if it works, they will not hurt for funding. The 2 million dollars the article suggests will be given to them in a heartbeat. It is a drop in the bucket cheap.

Until then, the article is correct, they don't have anything yet. You might disagree, that is too bad, the still will not have anything yet. It isn't definitive until it is definitive. Period.

Now I am trying to be firm here but not rude. I should point out that this post is to be taken as mater of fact. It is hard to tell someone they are being overly optimistic without them taking offense. But just in case, you should not take offense because non is intended.

[vger]

You think the article is being biased against EmDrive? You are getting emotionally swayed from objective, you proved it when you thought it read "And now we have a claim that the test was INTENTIONALLY tampered with to produce false results?" And when that was pointed out to you, you didn't re-evaluate your position, you asserted more against the article.

Actually, the "asserted more" was already in my original analysis of the article. Being proven wrong on that one point isn't going to magically make me assume, "Gee, I must have misread the whole darned thing."

Feel free to pick apart the other points I made, if you wish. Some of the allegations the article made are just as vague as the concept it aims to debunk. Doesn't mean the conclusion is wrong. But I question some of the points being raised. And there may be other relevant data besides "will this take us through space faster than ever?" that could aid us in 'filling in the blanks' in our understanding of how the universe works.

How else can you interpret a statement such as this: "On top of that, there’s no way to be sure that the tests were run in a hard vacuumâ€â€because the only source of information is a post on an Internet forum."

There's only two ways you can take that. Paul March is either being accused of lying, or being accused of not knowing what "vacuum" actually means.

The article continues from there with, "Not a peer-reviewed published result, not even a one-off conference proceeding. Let’s not do science like that, OK?"

Gee, Ms. Palmer, you mean the peer-reviewed publications which, as you explained in the very next paragraph, REFUSE to publish any of the findings?

Yep, you need previous experience to get a job, but to get previous experience, you need a job.

Edited May 7, 2015 by vger

[SuperFastJellyfish]

... People here keep insisting that "it is doing something we can't explain." NO IT IS NOT. That would be definitive already. ...

I know you're trying to be scientifically neutral, but this makes no sense. What explanation exists for this device? There's a lot of conjecture and experimental evidence, yet 'it is doing something we can't explain.' Three separate labs in three separate countries have detected a signal above the noise in various different test setups. That's the whole reason this is getting so much attention(well, and NASA is involved even if it is just a small R&D lab).

[Leszek]

Actually, the "asserted more" was already in my original analysis of the article. Being proven wrong on that one point isn't going to magically make me assume, "Gee, I must have misread the whole darned thing."

Feel free to pick apart the other points I made, if you wish. Some of the allegations the article made are just as vague as the concept it aims to debunk. Doesn't mean the conclusion is wrong. But I question some of the points being raised. And there may be other relevant data besides "will this take us through space faster than ever?" that could aid us in 'filling in the blanks' in our understanding of how the universe works.

How else can you interpret a statement such as this: "On top of that, there’s no way to be sure that the tests were run in a hard vacuumâ€â€because the only source of information is a post on an Internet forum."

There's only two ways you can take that. Paul March is either being accused of lying, or being accused of not knowing what "vacuum" actually means.

The article continues from there with, "Not a peer-reviewed published result, not even a one-off conference proceeding. Let’s not do science like that, OK?"

Gee, Ms. Palmer, you mean the peer-reviewed publications which, as you explained in the very next paragraph, REFUSE to publish any of the findings?

Yep, you need previous experience to get a job, but to get previous experience, you need a job.

There is no need to accuse Paul March of lying or not. It is in a vacuum, trust me, doesn't work no matter who you are. You need to record the procedure and the data and show your results. If you don't, then it doesn't matter if it is in a vacuum, no one will take you seriously. It doesn't matter who you are. It doesn't matter how trustworthy you think you are. It just doesn't matter.

Now Paul March might have perfectly good reason to not release the full spiel. Perhaps they are making sure the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed. But until they do, no one is going to take them seriously and rightly so.

They can't get their stuff published in peer review journals, this is because they aren't accounting for all the sources of error that can cause a spurious result. Or at least they can't show they can. Like I said before they have to release all the data or no one is going to take them seriously.

When you are working near the margins of what can be detected, it is very hard to account for everything. You have to worry about things like traffic outside skewing your results. The EmDrive team is working to get around this by scaling things up to more detectable levels. Many possible sources of error disappear as you move away from the margins.

I am not saying the device doesn't work. Just that they haven't shown it to work yet. Until they do, they have nothing. Period.

I am not saying we shouldn't take them seriously. They are working to scale up the device and produce definitive results. Pseudoscientist do not do that, they stay in the margins.

I am saying is that until they have something real to show otherwise, the expectation is that the device almost certainly doesn't work. The odds are really stacked against it. I am not going to enumerate the reasons why yet again in this thread.

[vger]

Alright, I think you took my nitpicking a bit too far. I'm not arguing about the validity of the experiment. I'm only arguing what was in the article. And specifically in my last post, I was questioning the suggestion that we don't know if the test was in a vacuum. THAT is what the article said. If the writer was talking about other variables, then why suggest of all things, that the vacuum may not have really been a vacuum?

[Leszek]

I know you're trying to be scientifically neutral, but this makes no sense. What explanation exists for this device? There's a lot of conjecture and experimental evidence, yet 'it is doing something we can't explain.' Three separate labs in three separate countries have detected a signal above the noise in various different test setups. That's the whole reason this is getting so much attention(well, and NASA is involved even if it is just a small R&D lab).

There is nothing here. Nothing at all. Why?

Because N-Rays, that is why. Let me explain. (I have posted about this before but people like to forget posts they can't respond to.)

A scientist in France discovered N-Rays. They were at the margins of what we could detect. Many labs confirmed the result. (Not 3, but 120 scientists and approximately 300 published papers.) It turns out N-Rays do not exist. It is very dangrous to work near the margins of detection. If you are a scientist and you think you have found something novel, but it is at the margins, you have 2 choices. They are:

1) Work to find a way to make more sensitive equipment and push back the margins.

2) Work to find a way to make the effect more detectable and move out of the margins.

You do not have the choice to assume you are detecting something real. Not if you want everyone to take you seriously.

As for the whole reason this is getting so much attention. Is because it is sensational and it didn't fall flat after the first lab. And also because it is sensational. It defies commonly accepted science. And it is sensational. You will note that it is not because it has merit. This is because it hasn't yet been shown to have merit.

The bottom line is that as long as they stay on the margins of what is detectable, you can safely discount EVERY claim they come out with. It is just too easy to fool yourself and everyone else why you are in the margins.

[Sean Mirrsen]

/me looks up N-Rays on the Wiki.

Heh, this sounds familiar:

Following his own failure, self-described as "wasting a whole morning", the American physicist Robert W. Wood, who had a reputation as a popular "debunker" of nonsense during the period, was prevailed upon by the British journal Nature to travel to Blondlot's laboratory in France to investigate further.

<snip>

In the darkened room, Wood surreptitiously removed an essential prism from the experimental apparatus, yet the experimenters still said that they observed N rays. Wood also stealthily swapped a large file that was supposed to be giving off N rays with an inert piece of wood, yet the N rays were still "observed". His report on these investigations were published in Nature,[8] and they suggested that the N rays were a purely subjective phenomenon, with the scientists involved having recorded data that matched their expectations. By 1905, no one outside of Nancy believed in N rays,

If Eagleworks gave in to the same sort of thinking, they would have abandoned the project after the first experiment with the removed slits.

A proper scientist aims to find out what is happening, rather than disprove a specific claim and leave it there.