Re: Dunno.

Post #401,376 by malraux 5/1/15 11:41:20 AM Reply	Re: Dunno. The null apparatus only removed the dielectric, from what I've read. It's not a true null. Also, there are two different drives being tested, but folks are conflating them. Comprehensive explanation here: http://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/34cq1b/the_facts_as_we_currently_know_them_about_the/ Again, running the test in a vacuum is just removing one of the objections. Likely it won't prove out in the end. If it does, however, there will definitely be some new physics from it. Keep in mind that the NASA testing is an attempt to validate the original inventor's claims, so it's not as if this is a lone crank. There are definitely methodology concerns, however, as Baez pointed out a year ago. Keep in mind that Eagleworks is there to look at stuff like this too: http://www.ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20110023492 Baez hasn't yet commented on the 2015 tests. Brian Koberlein is also unconvinced, but maybe not quite as vehemently as Baez. :-) https://briankoberlein.com/2015/05/01/when-i-see-an-elephant-fly/ Personally I'm excited to see the back and forth. This is how science is done, so long as the rigor of the testing continues to increase. My expectation is that at some point they will go, "oh... THAT'S why", and another mark in the column of "make sure you account for farblegranzens when testing RF thingies" will be made. The only test that will truly convince is putting one of these in a cubesat and sending it off to the Moon under thrust. However, I've read comments (unsubstantiated, so hearsay right now) that the inventors of the various drives (4 at last count) were all given the idea from observations of microwave communications satellites whose orbits were decaying faster than expected. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #401,380 by drook 5/1/15 12:36:27 PM Reply	Why I think there could be something there Wouldn't it be a remarkable coincidence to have been born into the exact moment in human history where everything we know about physics is correct? Hmm, here's a thought. Will there come a point where the amount of "unknown" will start to decrease? Can we ever know so much about how things work that new discoveries close gaps without raising more questions than they answer? -- Drew
Post #401,401 by Another Scott 5/1/15 3:12:27 PM Reply	Thanks for the linkies. The topic is interesting, and I wouldn't be surprised if some new type of propulsion technology eventually becomes reality, but what little I've read about this tells my gut that this isn't it. One doesn't claim violation of Newton's Laws lightly. The sloppiness of the initial conference paper and the (still) lack of peer review are warning signs. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.1063 (10 page .pdf): Culling Progress To avoid the extremes of reflexive dismissals and sensationalist hype common with revolutionary pursuits, it is recommended to focus on the rigor and objectivity of the concepts rather than trying to judge their feasibility. An impartial feasibility assessment on unfamiliar topics is as difficult as a research task unto itself. Instead, the level of rigor is easier to judge. Classic symptoms of non-rigorous work are reflected in Langmuir “pathological science” [3], Sagan’s “baloney detector” [4], Baez’s “Crackpot Index” [5], and the lessons from the NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project [1: Ch 22]. Representative symptoms from those sources include: • Selectively addressing supporting evidence while neglecting contrary evidence or the possibility of false-positives. • The magnitude of effect remains close to the limit of detectability, along with claims of great accuracy. • Drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes (Statistics of small numbers). • Confusing correlation with causation. • Lack of relevant reference citations. Yup. There are warning signs... Scott writes: The only test that will truly convince is putting one of these in a cubesat and sending it off to the Moon under thrust. However, I've read comments (unsubstantiated, so hearsay right now) that the inventors of the various drives (4 at last count) were all given the idea from observations of microwave communications satellites whose orbits were decaying faster than expected. It's a good idea, but I doubt that would be conclusive unless they find a way to get a decent amount of thrust out of them. (E.g. variations in the atomospheric density could swamp the thrust.) And if the satellites are broadcasting microwaves toward the Earth, shouldn't the "thrust" push them to higher orbits? IOW, isn't it backwards if there's some mumbo jumbo physics really happening? Careful science is really, really hard but it's necessary when one is trying to prove something tiny exists (or doesn't). Some of the Millikan's Oil Drop apparatuses were quite sophisticated in order to try to reduce possible errors. The same principles are used these days in the search for fractional charge: https://www.slac.stanford.edu/exp/mps/FCS/FCS_hist.htm It'll be interesting to see if they actually publish anything about the EM Drive... :-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #401,407 by malraux 5/1/15 4:32:42 PM Reply	Interesting if they publish That's the thing... most of this is media hype at this point. One of the scientists refuses to talk to the press at all because they aren't done with their testing. There hasn't been a real paper published yet, just some reports of findings. And so on. In other words, the team thinks it's worth pursuing, the media is hyping the bejeezus out of it, and until something actually gets published we're not going to know the full story. This team is also deliberately not investigating the why right now, just the if. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.

Welcome to IWETHEY!