Slashdot Mirror
Final NASA Eagleworks Paper Confirms Promising EM Drive Results (hacked.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Hacked: Earlier this month Hacked reported that a draft version of the much expected EmDrive paper by the NASA Eagleworks team, had been leaked. Now, the final version of the paper has been published. The NASA Eagleworks paper, titled "Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio-Frequency Cavity in Vacuum," has been published online as an open access "article in advance" in the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)'s Journal of Propulsion and Power, a prestigious peer-reviewed journal. The paper will appear in the December print issue of the journal. The final version of the paper is very similar to the leaked draft. In particular, the NASA scientists confirm the promising experimental results: "Thrust data from forward, reverse, and null suggested that the system was consistently performing at 1.2 +/- 0.1 mNkW, which was very close to the average impulsive performance measured in air. A number of error sources were considered and discussed." The scientists add that, though the test campaign was not focused on optimizing performance and was more an exercise in existence proof, it is still useful to put the observed thrust-to-power figure of 1.2 mN/kW in context. "[For] missions with very large delta-v requirements, having a propellant consumption rate of zero could offset the higher power requirements. The 1.2 mN/kW performance parameter is over two orders of magnitude higher than other forms of 'zero propellant' propulsion, such as light sails, laser propulsion, and photon rockets having thrust-to-power levels in the 3.33--6.67 uN/kW (or 0.0033--0.0067 mN/kW) range."
In other words, a modest thrust without having to carry fuel can be better, especially for long-distance space missions, than a higher thrust at the cost of having to carry bulky and heavy propellant reserves, and the EmDrive performs much better than the other "zero propellant" propulsion systems studied to date.
What's the usual format of an EM drive? Does it go on a satellite for maintaining orbit instead of a chemical thruster that'll one day run out of fuel? On an interplanetary probe for long-term acceleration, like solar sails might? How big should it be for useful propulsion, and what levels of power does it require -- given that heat dissipation is a perpetual issue for small spacecraft?
Isn't Elon Musk into this ?
What would a spacecraft operating an EM drive at peak efficiency look like? Say, a Star Wars Star Destroyer going from low-earth to geocentric orbit in 'reasonable' time (30 minutes). Would the relative size of EM engine to Star Destroyer body be 1:10? Or 100:1?
They say that they have looked at outgassing, and assumed that its not relevant due to slow temp rise not producing rising force. But that does not cover possibility that the electromagnetic resonances are somehow vaporising and ejecting structure at much higher speeds. At .0012N thrust with 1kW input (and 100% efficiency) a rocket would need exhaust velocity of 1.6e6 m/s and consume around 0.8ng per second - damned difficult to weight with required sensitivity and hard to spot except by looking for evidence in the gases within the chamber as metals will condense out quickly.
Donald who?
Donald who?
Donald Duck!
Do we have any idea how this works? And do we know if we will be able to optimize this at all to get better performance?
put this on top of a rocket and have the thing move around upstairs: from low earth orbit round the moon and back should convince most people. It might take a few months to make the trip, that does not matter.
I've been following this for a year or so - very interesting. Over at Nasa Space Flight board there are a lot of people making these EM drives in their back yard, with varying results. A lot of this comes from the original work by Roger Shawyer. He has stated that he will show a drone running EM drive in 2017. If that works ...that would change everything. Cheap access to space would mean space-based solar arrays for terrestrial use. Here's an article about his patent.
There's also some very strange results with laser timing through an EM drive cavity. Almost like spacetime is being warped.
... are more or less the same ones than before (= very unclear setup, situation very unlikely to represent the claimed break of the conservation laws, highly restricted conditions not telling much, etc.).
Summary of my impressions after quickly reading this paper:
- The actual methodology generating the thrust isn't clearly explained, 95% of this paper is about the testing conditions (measurements, sources of error, assumptions, etc.). Although I assume that detailed explanations on this front might drive to a level of clarity similar to the one of the tests, as explained in the next point.
- Complex testing setup which is very difficult to be adequately understood from outside. It seems that only people with actual experience under these specific conditions (and, ideally, with physical access to an equivalent setup) are in a position to critically analyse these tests and be specific about the (very likely IMO) source(s) of error.
- Even by ignoring the two aforementioned points, plainly believing that everything is fine and just analysing the results, there are various issues which are somehow against the reliability of this experiment and related out-of-proportion assumptions. Examples in fig. 9: a maximum displacement below 0.005 micrometres (extrapolating such a top performance to interstellar travels is sensible?!); assuming that the error in the measurements remain constant under different conditions (?!); testing just 3 different scenarios (40, 60, 80 W) and getting counter-intuitive results (30/40 = 0.75; 106/60 = 1.76; 76/80 = 0.95; 60 W delivering the best performance?!).
Fig. 19 is even more descriptive by showing a tremendous variability of the measurements; in the best-performing 60 W scenario, they vary from 130 to 45 micronewtons!! With only a few cases being similar enough (85 and 92); out of all the about 20 cases, there are only a few which are identical under the given conditions.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
who was aware of the review process said that NASA sat on this paper until after the election. This is appalling, why is basic science research being held back because of a presidential election?
> The actual methodology generating the thrust isn't clearly explained, 95% of this paper is about the testing conditions
Well duh, this paper is about proving existence. It's a physical test, it doesn't have to explain why it works. If the models don't fit reality then it is the models that are wrong, not reality. Hence the details about the test infrastructure. That results don't have to make sense, they just need to show that existing models are invalid.
Just imagine this gizmo powered with cold fusion!
this paper is about proving existence. It's a physical test, it doesn't have to explain why it works.
Sorry, perhaps I wasn't too clear. I meant that the EM-drive setup (what generates the claimed thrust) wasn't properly explained and that it is probably like the testing setup anyway (i.e., too complex and intrincate to be reproduced/properly understood by anyone other than those with actual access to these installations).
That results don't have to make sense
In fact, they do have to make sense. Making sense is what differentiates science (common sense, logic, properly-understood phenomena, etc.) and other "fields" like magic, blind-trust-based ideas, luck, I-repeat-what-cannot-understand-because-it-sounds-cool or similar.
Our current understanding might certainly be wrong, but after so many years and having confirmed/dismissed so many things, the most logical proceeding is assuming that something looking like a complete nonsense is a complete nonsense. More specifically, the most logical interpretation of bad-looking results generated under a highly-restricted and unclear setup with no justification other than "I don't understand it" is that they are wrong.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
The explanations are plausible (exploitation of more of those weird quantum mechanical effects). If it works out, we get to cheat Newton, basically stealing momentum from the universe's underlying framework. Or the simulation engine, if that's what it is.
After that, it's an engineering problem to make it efficient. You'll still have to get out of the gravity well some other way, but after than, you can flit about anywhere nearly for free.
I'm trying to remain skeptical, but this really is what every sci-fi nerd has been waiting for.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Some very crude calculation by someone (me) who has a weak grasp of physics and an even weaker (nonexistent) grasp of nuclear reactors and designing space vehicles. 1.2 mN per kW. The S8G nuclear reactor powers Ohio class nuclear subs and has a capacity of 220 MW(thermal) and weighs 2750 tons. So, let's say that we can use 80% of that power and that the ship it is in is only 10 times larger than the reactor - an Ohio class sub's submerged displacement is 18500 tons, so 10x is in the ball park. Ok some simple math gives us a force of 200 Newtons or 8E-06 m/s acceleration for that mass. With 31 million seconds in a year, the speed imparted after one year will be 260 m/s or 600 mph. The estimated life-time is 25 years so after 12 years the speed will be 7,000 mph. At that speed the trip to alpha centuri will take only 3.7 billion hours or 430,000 years.
My guess is the "propulsion" is an artifact of the test protocol, but that's a cheap shot - backing established physics is the obvious bet. The extent to which the EagleWorks team shielded their test is the question, but there are several things we know they could *not* shield it from. So, the extent to which the team balanced the things it could not shield from is the next question. Obviously they should have done the test in all 6 orthogonal orientations, and at 4 (or perhaps 8) points in the Earth's orbit around the Sun. I'm betting on established physics, but I'm hoping for some new physics here.
Just to put the numbers in perspective. A force of 1.2mN/kW is equivalent of a force of 0.12 gram.
A Tesla SP85 has a maximum effect of 350KW. This would (in theory) produce a force of roughly 40 grams, the weight of 10 sugar cubes.
A Nuclear submarine is able to produce an effect of 100MW, giving a theoretical force of 10kg.
A medium nuclear power plant is producing roughly 1000MW, and a force of 100kg.
This is documentation of a TEST.
It is not trying to make sense - it is trying to provide data.
Making sense comes later.
Science doesn't have to make sense to be science. The Michaelson-Morley experiment made no sense at the time. The classic double-slit light experiment made no sense, particularly when applied to the single photon level. Many relatavistic phenomena make no sense and if you think they do, that's because you're a product of a time when we're conditioned to accept them as truth. Dark Matter makes no sense (and doesn't exist) but it is used to demonstrate that our existing models don't properly handle reality. Science sometimes makes sense only after a theory is crafted and proven to account for observed phenomena. The EM Drive is currently in the state of being an observed phenomena (in large part because of Eagleworks), so it's an early-state science that has no theory yet. A few hypotheses, but nothing that's been proven.
Major shifts in scientific understanding come about *because of* experiments that break common sense and properly-understood phenomena. It's true that the most likely interpretation of the EM Drive's apparent success is that there's been an error somewhere, but that doesn't make it less sciency. That also doesn't mean it's wrong. The reason they're focusing so much on the test setup is they're trying to disprove sources of error. They're not providing a theory of functionality, they're methodically eliminating the possibility of error. Maybe someone will come along and find a source of error they didn't consider, and maybe someone will come along and make a hypothesis about why the EM drive works and how to predict the outcome of experiments that have not yet been performed.
Concluding that 'this is illogical therefore wrong' is wildly unscientific. Concluding that it's worth further investigation because it hasn't yet been demonstrated false, is part of science.
It is not trying to make sense - it is trying to provide data.
Experimental data have also to make sense. Senseless data are useless (or useful to conclude that continuing on this line is useless). You can support not-too-clear tests with solid theory or against-theory behaviours with solid experimental results. Faulty (counter-intuitive, non-reproducible, under too restrictive conditions, etc.) tests going against solid theories are only indicative of high likelihood of measurement errors.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
Science doesn't have to make sense to be science
I fully disagree with this statement. So, I will better not get involved in a discussion with you because our positions are too different.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
N Rays anyone?
> Say, a Star Wars Star Destroyer going from low-earth to geocentric orbit in 'reasonable' time (30 minutes). Would the relative size of EM engine to Star Destroyer body be 1:10? Or 100:1?
Without actually doing the math, the drive would be at least millions to trillions of times bigger than the ship. There is so little thrust that it's extremely difficult to tell if there is any thrust.
Bearing in mind that all this is just a fun exercise, and there's no reason to believe that the 1.2 mN/kW thrust will scale to megawatts of power, here's how long it would take to get to Mars if this finding scales to a practical spaceship drive:
foo mane padme hum
The Law of Conservation of Energy applies to closed systems. The universe is probably not a closed system.
No, experimental data simply has to be consistent or anomalous. Anomalous requires investigation into possible errors. "Making sense" is a matter of interpretation, which is part of theoretical research, not empirical research.
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
Here is the odd one, I thought science was the question, not the answer. Prove the question true or false. And why that is.
The only thing you need is a repeatable experiment and if it does not agree with theory then theory is not useful.
"Making sense" is a generic statement which is expected to be understood within the given context. My point should be perfectly clear to the only readers about whom I care (the properly-understanding ones). Feel free to start a purist argument about whatever issue you like, but please don’t count me in.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
Ok here is the situation.
You are a caveman who finds two rocks that seem to stick together when they touch each other. This seems strange so you decide to see what might make this happen. Your first idea is there is tree sap on the rocks making them sticky so you wash the rocks off in the stream, but the rocks still stick together. Then you decide that the sun or the wind must be making the rocks stick together so you go into the darkest cave you can find. The rocks still stick together, and you go tell your best friend Ooge about the rocks. Ooge says did you try washing the rocks? And you say yes Ooge I am not an idiot. So now you have eliminated all the ways you know that would make the rocks stick together, but you don't know why they stick together. Since you are a scientist caveman you won't say it is magic you just write what you measured on the cave wall next to your pictures of the animals and go work on Ooge's banging rocks together to make fire theory. Later on we figure out it was magnetism and Ooge wins the noble prize for fire.
I agree with you, but you seem to have misunderstood my point. With "not making sense", I didn't mean that it contravenes a very specific theory, but that goes against virtually everything (including the most adequate way to set up a solid first step via experimental measurements). Equivalently to what happens with "you made a mistake" vs. "this is pure nonsense", I expect people to understand my intention without additional clarifications.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
That's what Mexicans often yell during hunting season in the state of New York. "Donald! Duck!".
Later on we figure out it was magnetism and Ooge is awarded a patent for fire.
FTFY.
A nearly identical patent is awarded to Apple when they bang two iPhones together and append the phrsae "using the Internet" to their claims.
Have gnu, will travel.
The article referred to does NOT PROVE anything about the technology... The review's purpose was to validate the study's methods of measuring performance.. so stop salivating (for now!)
"There are 11 kinds of people: those who know binary, those who don't, and those who could not care less!"
I am not sure what I find more curious in your "contribution": having to rely on a (caveman) example to explain what seems a pretty simple concept (= your childish misinterpretation of my words + trying to transmit what seems your pretty limited understanding on many fronts, including what science is, how magnetism works and where to find ferromagnetic materials), thinking that I will ever have a friend called Ooge or losing track in your own example and having a confusing ending mixing fire and magnetism up. LOL.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
Admittedly, this probably isn't breaking physics, we just don't fully understand it. But I think the best way is to may build some small probes, launch them, and see what happens. I remember reading an article on here years ago about someone wanting to send probes the size of a can of pop to Titan and try and get through the ice cap and see what the hell is underneath. Personally I'd love to see this combined with better communication satellites (after all we are going to need wifi on Mars someday) so we can blast out a ton of probes and have them get us good data in a timely manner. I know putting satellites around say Jupiter might sound silly, but for a probe like Voyager I trying to phone home it has to look for something that is like 1/100 the brightness of a lightbulb, whereas if we had a network of comm equipment through the solar system I think it opens up a lot of exploration possibilities.
Just as a solid rocket motor has an optimum nozzle size for a given mass flow and pressure, this may have an optimum specific power or input power. Not enough is known about the Dirac Sea to prove or disprove the claim, but whatever the cause, there is an effect.
Apart from the open process and independently verified results
This is the problem though the results are not at all verified. Have you actually read the paper? It shows an appallingly low level of scientific methodology for a paper claiming to observe a phenomenon which violates the currently know fundamental laws of physics. For example at one point it is quoting a fit to 7 significant figures without giving any uncertainty range which suggests a position accuracy of ~1nm which is less than the size of an atom. I am unconvinced that they measure the position this accurately. While this ultimately will not affect the result they claim it shows sloppy practice which is not a good for inspiring confidence.
However most importantly when considering errors at no point do they see to consider charged particle emission as a source of thrust. They do worry about the components becoming charged which they say they fix by grounding but if you are emitting electrons grounding the engine just ensures that there is no charge build up which will allow the engine to continue to operate. Since you cannot ground a craft in space the charge would build up their until the engine's thrust stops.
So it's great that they publish their results openly but what there is to see there in no way inspires any confidence that they have observed some new, fundamental physics phenomenon. Instead of engineers they need to get some scientists involved because the paper shows a total focus on simply measuring the thrust and zero scientific investigation to investigate the cause of the thrust.
Burma Shave!
Understanding exactly how this works is going to be huge in revolutionizing physics if tests continue to verify the results.
I extremely doubt that. Read the paper. At no point do they consider charged particle emission. Instead they do worry about drive components becoming charged but they fix that by grounding...so if he drive was emitting charged particles it will not become charged which will let it continue to function. Since you cannot ground a space craft this explanation of the thrust would make the drive useless.
This is the problem with the paper, apart from the sloppy uncertainties, there is no investigation as to the cause of the thrust. They focus only on measuring it. By far the most likely outcome of this is that it will turn out to be particle emission of some sort which our existing physics can explain. If they want to convince anyone of anything else they need to focus on investigating possible causes and focus less on just measuring the thrust.
Depends what you mean by "work". Does it produce a thrust higher than just photon emission: yes clearly the evidence supports that. Is that thrust possibly explainable under the existing laws of physics for example by particle emission? Yes it very probably is. Read the paper: they focus entirely on measuring the thrust an not at all on measuring possible causes.
It isn't a misunderstanding of your words, I was trying to explain how science works at a level you might understand. I am wondering if you noticed the user ID numbers of the people trying to explain why you are wrong.... I wonder what that might indicate?
I was trying to explain how science works at a level you might understand.
??!!
you noticed the user ID numbers of the people trying to explain why you are wrong
???!!!!
Let's better be practical and don't talk to each again because our positions are very (but very, very) different.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
Let's hope they get flights working so we have a way to get the liberals away from this planet.
No, I would rather that they inherit the Earth. It's all they deserve.
https://xkcd.com/669/
I am wondering if you noticed the user ID numbers of the people trying to explain why you are wrong.... I wonder what that might indicate?
Woo! Let an AC (that's been reading a lot longer than your paltry ID) answer that one... it means argument from age, right? Another logical fallacy to check off in my spotters guide, thanks!
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. I would wait for a couple more independent tests before claiming proof.
Let's hope they get flights working so we have a way to get the liberals away from this planet.
No, I would rather that they inherit the Earth. It's all they deserve.
Like Elysium (the movie)?
If the models don't fit reality then it is the models that are wrong, not reality.
Except you are discounting the thousands of experiements which hav confirmed the current models, sometimes up to 10 significant figures.
If you have 10,000 independent experiemnts which all agree and a small handful of low buget, poorly equipped experiments which disagree, chances are the ones withthe bad kit are wrong, not the other 10,000.
That results don't have to make sense, they just need to show that existing models are invalid.
The trouble is the existing models are also backed up by experiemnts. So either those experiments are flawed somehow or the new one is.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
No... experimental data only has to be accurate. If it does not make sense, then that means there are mistakes in the assumptions we are making about the results, but that doesn't automatically cause the data to make sense until we know exactly why the assumptions we were making are wrong. If you want to argue that knowing that there are flaws in what we were expecting causes the apparently anomalous data to make sense, then I suppose you can argue that the data makes *some* sense from that standpoint, but in general, "making sense" suggests that you have an underlying reason for *why* something makes sense... and not knowing what to expect would not imply that getting something you didn't expect should make any sense at all. How could it?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I get the point they were trying to make. Science is concerned with two things:
Right now the EM Drive is on step one. We are trying to isolate all of the sources of error out of the experiment and make it as clear as possible as to what is going on so that the experiment can be reproduced by another lab. If the other lab can't reproduce it, it's not science and the original experiment is likely wrong. If they can reproduce it, then we can really get into part two and figure out why.
It's entirely possible that now that the article out there for scrutiny that it will end up like the Faster-than-light neutrino anomaly, but it is also possible that the drive is using something like the Mach effect to get the thrust. Completely within the bounds of known physics, but not really seen as a useful effect worth exploring.
I get your idea (and got the parent's one too; but I preferred to not extend a conversation going nowhere) and insist in the fact that you are misinterpreting my words by assuming that my "making sense" means "agreeing with a specific theory" what doesn't. I used a generic expression meant to be properly understood within each specific context (i.e., different meaning in a theoretical analysis than in an experimental one). I meant being sensible, practical, coherent, consistent, etc.; having the capability of distinguishing between clearly wrong and risky-but-perhaps-worthy; etc. By understanding this intention (how I think that everyone understands "making sense" on any context), science has to make sense because not making sense would be acting recklessly, fanatically, crazily, stupidly, etc.
I don't like getting involved in these discussions where the main focus is put on finding out the best way to phrase an idea, rather than on the idea itself. Please, understand my position and my zero interest in being part of certain of certain conversations.
(Would this post get a troll-prize too? Because the downvoting-anything-they-don't-like-or-including-any-not-nice-enough-word moderators are quite active today)
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
So it looks like this thing actually works! Hooray! Still lots of Doubting Thomases and questions. Me, I don't give a damn HOW or WHY it works. Put a few of them on the back end of a nuclear or solar power source, put it into orbit, orient it forward or outwards (no difference, right?), and see if the orbit changes. Bidda bing, bidda boom. If it changes, rename the whole damned thing the "Toad Drive" and get one headed for the nearest planet-orbited star.
Forget about the probes and getting to Alpha Centaury.
Properly-sized EM drive can make Mars inhabitable by pushing it into the lower orbit, or cool Earth by pushing it in the higher orbit.
I suggest start with Mars first, to test for bugs.
only has to be accurate
And what is the first step for something to even have the chance to be accurate? Is 5 accurate? No, 5 is nothing. Is 5 mm accurate? It depends. Is 5 mm when measuring a 6 mm length and with a 0.00001 mm tolerance accurate? Certainly not. Is 5 mm when . . . , etc. To know what accurate is you have to firstly know what you are measuring/doing. As explained in other posts, you are misinterpreting my words by assuming a meaning which they don't have. Making sense has to be understood within the specific context (i.e., experimental measurements here). As far as there is no theory, the measurements have to be reliable enough (more reliable than when just applying a working theory), this is what I meant with "making sense". Considering only 3 scenarios with very different behaviours; having a few (below 20) measuring points; observing a tremendous variability; etc. All this defines a not-making-sense-at-all situation under the current conditions (you can use any other expression to define this reality if you prefer).
This will be my last clarification on this front. Feel free (you or anyone else) to misinterpret my words in whatever way you want, but don't expect my answer.
(What do you think about this post, censoring-and-attacking-anything-you-don't-understand-or-share downvoters? Is it more undeserved-downvote-worthy than my previous comment or less?)
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
Mercury's orbit made no sense before relativity. Things that don't make sense are the main sources of scientific progress
I can feel right one of the purest forms of irony which I have ever experienced. Thanks, (other) AC.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
Well newtonian dynamics are not "flawed somehow" even though we discovered general relativity... They are a useful approximation that explains plenty of natural phenomena.
I am not sure about your argument validity.
I am talking about the exact same thing you were talking about.... you said that the data measured had to make sense, and the *ONLY* reason it will ever make any sense is when the data measured matches theoretical expectations. If the theoretical expectations are wrong, it is *impossible* for the data to make sense, but that doesn't invalidate the measurements, as long as the results are repeatable, it only means that more investigation into why the expected results are wrong may be required (but even that does not change that the underlying assumptions were wrong, as long as the measurements do not match up with predicted results but can nonetheless be confirmed as accurate in the first place).
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I see. I focused on your first "No... experimental data only has to be accurate" without reading the rest of your post. This is a horrible behaviour and I do apologise for it. In my defence, I am a bit tired after having dealt with quite a few people not willing to understand properly. In any case, note that I personally wouldn't see any problem with a theory built over a solid set of empirical results (perhaps breaking some theory, but not everything/the basics). So, matching an existing theory isn't an essential requisite for me (but without this, the quality of the measurements would have to be tremendously high).
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
You fully disagree because you are an idiot.
The drive works. They don't know why, but NASA is ruining experiments to try to ensure its bit measuring error.
This part of the science is making sure they aren't wearing their time reinventing the maths and coming all wasting their time.
Once they are certain that there is a force, it's not a weird error etc. THAT is when they rewrite the maths and explain it.
Was the thing electrically isolated from the chamber? Was it powered by cables or on-board battery? What about magnetic fields (Earth's, from test equipment, mains power...)? Just because you have a hammer...
The point being you could have thousands of experiments that show Newtonian dynamics is correct, and use that as a reason to reject an experiment that shows it is not correct as a mistake in your experiment, rather than the fact Newtonian dynamics is not the whole picture/incorrect and can be violated if you know what you are doing.
Obviously... and they've done so in this case. No actual laws of physics are being broken here, any more than laws of physics are being broken that light from a flashlight on a vehicle moving near the speed of light is still moving at the speed of light. It violates Newtonian physics, but Newtonian physics isn't 100% accurate
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
"Making sense" is a generic statement which is expected to be understood within the given context.
Except it was not understood within given context. What made sense is, the results did not fit the null hypothesis, and probably didn't fit H1, either. (Null: No thrust detected beyond a threshold of 80 watts of photon pressure. H1: Anomalous thrust generated proportional to input power, exceeding photon pressure.) This is just the scientists saying, "We can't yet rule this out as a crank. Please send more money."
To put perspective in perspective, remember that a photon drive requires 300 freakin' megawatts to get one lousy Newton of thrust.
The variations alone are a dead giveaway that they have some very large error source in there. Very likely this error source is the only thing they are measuring.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
This is also their way to say "We don't want to accept that this isn't the right direction. We should be honest to ourselves, to our sponsors, to the expectations we have created and to the scientific community and plainly recognise that our assumptions were wrong; that the main conclusion of our experiments was that nothing relevant could be found. Anyone interested in further funding our research should be fully aware about the fact that, at the moment, we have exactly nothing. But there are lots of money, hopes and reputations on stake; why losing all this? We don't need to be so extremely clear. We can publish our results and let everyone draw their own conclusions".
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
You fully disagree because you are an idiot.
I cannot argue against such a solid argument from what seems a marvellous human being; you are not just knowledgeable and reasonable, but also brave. Just one piece of advice: if anyone, at any point, ask you a question on the lines of "could you please define yourself with one sentence?", you should definitively use the aforementioned master piece. Thanks for existing.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
Does this suggests a link between em fields and gravity or a link between em fields and some sort of space fabric whether it is composed of something unknown or magnetic currents or something black?
And here I had managed to mostly forget that disaster. Thanks a bunch.
Clarification brought to you by even-the-slighest-bit-has-to-be-clarified-because-there-are-looooooots-of-stupid-people-around: this previous post was evidently my sarcastic way of saying "why on the hell, piece of crap, do you think that I care at all about your incoherent nonsense?".
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
The vast majority of human technology came about by experimenting, not formal models. Formal models are a nice bonus, but not necessary for making better tools.
If it proves itself in space, I'm sure a lot more attention will be given to the physics behind it.
Table-ized A.I.
Which laws of physics does it violate? None that I'm aware of.
Just because you are not aware of the laws of physics it violates does not mean it does not violate them! As the saying goes 'ignorance of the law is not a defence': in physics it is more the case that 'ignorance of the law does not mean you can just violate them'.
If it does operate without expelling any form of mass then it is immediately in violation of conservation of relativistic momentum. This is one of the most fundamental laws of physics because it comes from the symmetry that the laws of physics are then same no matter where you are. If you want to convince us physicists that this law is wrong you are going to need far better evidence than a single paper written by someone who does not understand error analysis and who has not ruled out far simpler explanations like charge particle emissions.
To draw a parallel reading this paper and concluding that this EM drive works as they claim would be like watching the act of your favourite magician and immediately concluding that magic is real. A world where magic is real might be really good fun and you might really want it to be true but while what you saw looked like magic I would hope that you would need far better evidence to rule out any possibility that what you saw was due to ingenious trickery before you went around telling everyone that magic was real. The same applies here: before we go and rewrite practically every physics textbook there is we are going to need far, far better evidence than one paper with sloppy uncertainties and no investigation of alternative sources of thrust.
I didn't mean complying with an existing theory, but just having proper results from which some worthy conclusions might be drawn. These tests are inconclusive (to say it softly) and don't prove anything.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
On the line of clarifying-each-single-bit-because-some-people-need-loooooooots-of-help-to-get-anything-straight which I started in one of my previous comments, I want to highlight that my aforementioned message to random/stupid/unfair/etc. moderators should be seen as a warning rather than as a complain. I am not compelled to come here and share my ideas, discuss with others, etc. I do it only because of feeling like doing it, because of liking this site and most of its visitors.
Those misusing moderation (here or in other sites; this is a relatively common practice in programming-based social media) are usually coming from the wrong understanding that they have to be tolerated. They are usually the kind of (bad) managerial types expecting other people to accept their (arbitrary) decisions. They come from an obsolete, ignorance-based way of life and deliver the only thing which they have ever known. Internet represents the worst environment for these people: lots of different options, the place where only the objectively-better alternatives should succeed. Surprisingly, these individuals seem to have been able to trick naive victims into seriously believing that their nonsense is required; that the specific option which they have contaminated with their sad actions is the only possible alternative; that their arbitrary and unfair behaviours have to exist. This isn't true, neither here nor anywhere else (in internet).
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
This is an excellent work. combine Plasma Thrust and electromagnetic Phenomena for propulsion.
A lot of combinations can be tried. PEM drive heralds new dimensional knowledge.
With the right power source we'll finally be able to have a real Back to the Future hoverboard.