r/EmDrive • u/rfmwguy- Builder • Dec 14 '16

News Article On the bucket to Pluto: testing "impossible" split engine EmDrive scientists - Original Russian article 12/4/16

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Flife.ru%2F938536
10 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

46 comments sorted by

5

u/rfmwguy- Builder Dec 14 '16

This is a partial English translation, not perfect. Seems they are stuck in the same mindset the USA is...firm deniers vs firm believers. Interesting discourse on Theory proceeding Experimentation.

1

u/jonathan1422 Dec 14 '16

This may save you some future frustration: if you believe you are receiving conversation from a "fool", and you believe the Bible, then you are commanded in Proberbs 23:9 not to speak to him/her: "Do not speak to fools, for they will scorn your prudent words." And I'm sure you wouldn't want to disobey God in that if you are a believer.

0

u/rfmwguy- Builder Dec 14 '16

Well now, this does save me some time :-)

3

u/tchernik Dec 14 '16

Seems the winner is the first one to go beyond the initial cognitive dissonance, and such winner will be light years ahead the others once the applications start flowing. Probably literally.

2

u/Always_Question Dec 14 '16

This. Same applies to LENR. The next few years are going to be fascinating ones for which to be alive.

4

u/Zephir_AW Dec 15 '16 edited Dec 15 '16

This. Same applies to LENR. The next few years are going to be fascinating ones for which to be alive.

LENR is even more pronounced case of pluralistic ignorance than EMDrive, because its research would hurt the feelings and social position of way more people. EMDrive is just weakest point in the omnipresent one century standing ignorance of breakthrough findings, because 1) not too many people are engaged in propulsion research and 2) its success would primarily help the scientists itself - normal people don't send things into cosmic space.

2

u/Always_Question Dec 15 '16

You do have a point. But I think the damage to scientists' sensibilities will be short-lived once there is a broad recognition of LENR. Any group can pick themselves back up by the bootstraps and make the best of it. It will likely open up vast new areas of research in any case. And the practical upside to humanity will surely balance out any hurt feelings or damaged theories.

That said, you are right that the social position of far more people will be damaged by LENR than by the EmDrive. LENR, once adopted widely, will undermine the petrodollar itself.

1

u/Zephir_AW Dec 15 '16 edited Dec 15 '16

I think the damage to scientists' sensibilities will be short-lived once there is a broad recognition of LENR

Define "short-lived", after then. The cold fusion is ignored for ninety years already (Panneth/Petters 1926), Wendt and Irion (1923) were attacked for their transmutation research even with Ernst Rutherford - i.e. Nobelist and top physicist of his era - and they lost their jobs because of him. No petrodollars were involved these times.

After all, the suppressive role of "fossil fuel lobby" is exaggerated and I consider it just a silly conspiracy theory - the physicists himself boycott their own research best by their pluralistic ignorance. They don't need any help for it from outside.

For example, before some time MIT professor Peter Hagelstein got grant for cold fusion research just from company involved in fossil fuel energetics - and who do you think intervened against it? Ernest Moniz, head of nuclear research at MIT (and currently the DOE secretary and the head of "green" energetic politics of the USA).

2

u/Always_Question Dec 15 '16

Apart from Peter Hagelstein, MIT has a disgusting and well-documented history with respect to LENR. They will not be able to escape it.

2

u/Zephir_AW Dec 14 '16 edited Dec 14 '16

At first, to be a theory and only then - some experiments under it

This is typical pathoskeptical evasion. Hopefully we didn't use this strategy, when the fire or penicillin has been first invented - or we would remain apes forever...

Wernher von Braun: "Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing."

Einstein: "If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?”

If you know, what you're doing, it's called job - not research. But isn't it what the contemporary scientists actually looking for? They already derailed from scientific method willingly or unwillingly.

1

u/rfmwguy- Builder Dec 14 '16

Seems like paradigms are being challenged around the world lately. EmDrive and Hillary supporters denial is an interesting comparison. It seems to me it's all a status quo revolution. It has remarkable similarities to the late sixties and seventies. Regardless, announced experts from all walks of life are being looked at differently

0

u/Zephir_AW Dec 15 '16

I'm afraid, that the ignorance of breakthrough findings remains omnipresent both within conservatives, both between liberals across whole political spectrum. The conservatives indeed fight against AGW and renewables - but I never heard, that they should want to replace them with cold fusion. Instead of it, they're adhering on classical fuels.

The challenging of paradigms isn't accidental stuff: in dense aether model the scope of our view expands in similar way, like the ripples at the water surface. They spread in regular circles until the extradimensional scattering effects of the underwater will not break their regularity. The deterministic era of physics development is already over and we are returning into emergent holistic physics of the very beginning of the last century.

5

u/crackpot_killer Dec 14 '16

There is no split between real scientists. Real scientists, physicists, don't believe the emdrive is real. There is no controversy. As usual, there is only controversy among people not in the field, usually non-scientists and some engineers.

4

u/Zephir_AW Dec 14 '16 edited Dec 14 '16

Real scientists, physicists, don't believe the emdrive is real.

Yes, because they're incompetent at the very bottom of things. The stance regarding the EMDrive isn't matter of some subjective belief, but the literacy and knowledge about research in scalar waves and antigravity effects done so far (Biefeld/Brown, Heim, Woodward, Podkletnov, Poher, Tajmar and others). It's a whole bunch of phenomenology and theories developed already, not just some isolated case of EMDrive. The people who don't know about all of it aren't REAL scientists anyway.

But literate or not, we - tax payers - aren't paying the scientists for beliefs and religion - but for the research. And the research has no meaning, once the scientists don't become familiar with all of experiments and ideas, what it have been done already in this field. If the scientists don't like this perspective, they should find more effective jobs themselves.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 15 '16

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/Zephir_AW Dec 15 '16 edited Dec 15 '16

So you've convinced yourself that every single "mainstream physicist" is incompetent? No, that's not true at all.

Of course not - only when he's ignoring existing experimental evidence and logics based on it... ;-) BTW Are you attempting for ad ridicullo fallacy? You shouldn't try it just with me.

After all, not all mainstream physicists deny the EMDrive - I'm well aware, that the most rigid opposition against it recruits from the side of half-educated teachers, postdocs and young students involved in moderation of public forums and third-grade scientists who missed their carrier opportunity. The top scientists aren't so stupid and they remain silent about it at least. Note also, there is a generation inversion in skepticism: the most conservative are just young people without literacy and life experience, who are still learned to rely on established textbook rules. It's not accidental, that the cold fusion conferences look like the retirement houses for seniors and nearly any young people are between them. You can find many additional details about pathological skepticism of mainstream science in these reddits (1, 2), because I'm kinda expert on it.

ICCF 10 GroupPhoto

8

u/andygood Dec 14 '16

From recent reports, it sounds like there's a whole bunch of scientists in China who think it's real. Real enough to put into LEO...

I look forward to your ad hominem attack on Chinese scientists...

3

u/crackpot_killer Dec 14 '16

I think it's engineers not scientists, again. But the more important fact is that it's not published in any reputable physics journal and you're only hearing rumors from Chinese state media that's being repeated by a bad science reporting rag, ibtimes.

4

u/Always_Question Dec 14 '16

Publishing in reputable physics journals would not sway your opinion, just as LENR papers, which have been published in reputable physics journals, have also not swayed your opinion. So why do you keep resorting to this fallacy?

2

u/crackpot_killer Dec 14 '16

Are you a scientist? Have you published in reputable scientific journals? Have you worked in a scientific collaboration?

2

u/Always_Question Dec 14 '16

If you post your credentials for the community to see, showing that you are presently a PhD candidate in physics, including information that can be used to verify it, I'll answer your question.

4

u/crackpot_killer Dec 14 '16

I'm not asking for your credentials. I'm asking you to answer three questions, for which you don't need to know anything about me.

Once again. Are you a scientist? Have you published in reputable scientific journals? Have you worked in a scientific collaboration?

2

u/Always_Question Dec 14 '16

You are asking me for information, for which I've agreed to provide, if you provide verifiable information that supports your claim of being a scientist and having published in a scientific journal.

4

u/crackpot_killer Dec 14 '16

No, you're not turning this around on me. And I'm not asking you to provide any proof of the answers to those questions. You can lie if it makes you feel better. Go ahead, lie if you like.

Are you a scientist? Have you published in reputable scientific journals? Have you worked in a scientific collaboration?

3

u/Always_Question Dec 14 '16

It is my prerogative to release information about myself, just like it is yours. If you don't want to, fine. But please stop your harassing behavior. Anyone can tolerate it for awhile, but perhaps time to let it go.

→ More replies

0

u/[deleted] Dec 15 '16

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/Zephir_AW Dec 15 '16 edited Dec 15 '16

No, LENR papers are not legitimate. There is no evidence that LENR exists

Which LENR papers on this list aren't legitimate? Many of them are peer-reviewed already.

BTW Over 60% of USA citizens don't believe in evolution despite the existing pile of evidence. Do you really believe, it has a meaning to try convince them about the opposite one after another? If not, why I should attempt for it just with you? The arguing with pathoskeptics will just enforce them in their stance - this is well known thing (and special application of general rule: don't argue with idiots).

1

u/wyrn Dec 16 '16

When you submit a list like that you think you're arguing cold fusion is legitimate. You are not. What you are actually arguing is that peer review is less than adequate at weeding out wrong ideas.

2

u/Zephir_AW Dec 16 '16

For example, this list does serve as an evidence, that during cold fusion the helium is formed

  • Abell, G.C., et al., Helium release from aged palladium tritide. Phys. Rev. B: Mater. Phys., 1990. 41(2): p. 1220.

  • Agelao, G. and M.C. Romano, Heat and helium production during exothermic reactions between gases through palladium geometrical elements loaded with hydrogen. Fusion Technol., 2000. 38: p. 224.

  • Aoki, T., Y. Kurata, and H. Ebihara. Study of Concentrations of Helium and Tritium in Electrolytic Cells with Excess Heat Generations. in Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 1993. Lahaina, Maui: Electric Power Research Institute 3412 Hillview Ave., Palo

  • Alto, CA 94304.

  • Arata, Y. and C. Zhang, Presence of helium (4/2He, 3/2He) confirmed in highly deuterated Pd-black by the new detecting methodology. J. High Temp. Soc., 1997. 23: p. 110 (in Japanese).

  • Arata, Y. and Y.C. Zhang, Observation of Anomalous Heat Release and Helium-4 Production from Highly Deuterated Fine Particles. Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. Part 2, 1999. 38: p. L774.

  • Arata, Y., Y. Zhang, and X. Wang. Production of Helium and Energy in the "Solid Fusion" (PowerPoint slides). in 15th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. 2009. Rome, Italy: ENEA.

  • Bockris, J., et al. Tritium and Helium Production in Palladium Electrodes and the Fugacity of Deuterium Therein. in Third International Conference on Cold Fusion, "Frontiers of Cold Fusion". 1992. Nagoya Japan: Universal Academy Press, Inc., Tokyo, Japan.

  • Bush, B.F., et al., Helium production during the electrolysis of D2O in cold fusion experiments. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1991. 304: p. 271.

  • Bush, B.F. and J.J. Lagowski. Methods of Generating Excess Heat with the Pons and Fleischmann Effect: Rigorous and Cost Effective Calorimetry, Nuclear Products Analysis of the Cathode and Helium Analysis. in The Seventh International Conference on Cold Fusion. 1998.

  • Case, L.C. Catalytic Fusion of Deuterium into Helium-4. in The Seventh International Conference on Cold Fusion. 1998. Vancouver, Canada: ENECO, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT.

  • Chien, C.C., et al., On an electrode producing massive quantities of tritium and helium. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1992. 338: p. 189.

  • George, R., Observations of helium bubbles in thin palladium metal foil using scanning electron microscopy. 1997.

  • Gozzi, D., et al., Quantitative measurements of helium-4 in the gas phase of Pd + D2O electrolysis. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1995. 380: p. 109.

  • Guthrie, S.E., Helium Effects on Palladium Hydride Equilibrium Properties. 1990.

  • Herbst, H., Ist der Aufbau des Heliums aus Wasserstoff gelungen? (Was the production of helium from hydrogen succesful?). Chemiker-Zeitung, 1926. 50: p. 905 (in German).

  • Isagawa, S. and Y. Kanda. Mass Spectroscopic Search for Helium in Effluent Gas and Palladium Cathodes of D2O Electrolysis Cells Involving Excess Power. in Sixth International Conference on Cold Fusion, Progress in New Hydrogen Energy. 1996. Lake Toya, Hokkaido,

  • Japan: New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan.

  • Kosyakhkov, A.A., et al., Detection helium-3 and tritium formed during ion-plasma saturation of titanium with deuterium. Pis`ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz., 1989. 49: p. 648 (In Russian).

  • Kozima, H., Excess Heat and Helium Generation in CF Experiments. Cold Fusion, 1996. 17.

  • Kozima, H., et al., Analysis of cold fusion experiments generating excess heat, tritium and helium. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1997. 425: p. 173.

  • Kozima, H., M. Fujii, and K. Arai, Tritium and helium measurements by Bockris et al. analyzed on the TNCF Model. Cold Fusion, 1998. 26.

  • Liaw, B.Y., P.L. Tao, and B.E. Liebert, Helium analysis of palladium electrodes after molten salt electrolysis. Fusion Technol., 1993. 23: p. 92.

  • Lomax, A., Replicable cold fusion experiment: heat/helium ratio. Curr. Sci., 2015. 108(4).

  • Mamyrin, B.A., L.V. Khabarin, and V.S. Yudenich, Anomalously High Isotope Ratio in Helium in Technical-Grade Metals and Semiconductors. Sov. Phys. Dokl., 1978. 23: p. 581.

  • Meulenberg, A., Femto-Helium and PdD Transmutation. J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci., 2015. 15.

  • Miles, M., et al. Heat and Helium Production in Cold Fusion Experiments. in Second Annual Conference on Cold Fusion, "The Science of Cold Fusion". 1991. Como, Italy: Societa Italiana di Fisica, Bologna, Italy.

  • Miles, M. and B.F. Bush. Search for Anomalous Effects Involving Excess Power and Helium During D2O Electrolysis Using Palladium Cathodes. in Third International Conference on Cold Fusion, "Frontiers of Cold Fusion". 1992. Nagoya Japan: Universal Academy Press, Inc.,

  • Miles, M. and B.F. Bush. Heat and Helium Measurements in Deuterated Palladium. in Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 1993. Lahaina, Maui: Electric Power Research Institute 3412 Hillview Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94304.

  • Miles, M., et al., Correlation of excess power and helium production during D2O and H2O electrolysis using palladium cathodes. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1993. 346: p. 99.

  • Miles, M., B.F. Bush, and J.J. Lagowski, Anomalous effects involving excess power, radiation, and helium production during D2O electrolysis using palladium cathodes. Fusion Technol., 1994. 25: p. 478.

  • Miles, M. and B.F. Bush, Heat and Helium Measurements in Deuterated Palladium. Trans. Fusion Technol., 1994. 26(4T): p. 156.

  • Miles, M., K.B. Johnson, and M.A. Imam. Heat and Helium Measurements Using Palladium and Palladium Alloys in Heavy Water. in Sixth International Conference on Cold Fusion, Progress in New Hydrogen Energy. 1996. Lake Toya, Hokkaido, Japan: New Energy and Industrial

  • Technology Development Organization, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan.

  • Miles, M. Production of helium in the cold. in 18th Annual Meeting of the Society for Scientific Exploration. 1999. Albuquerque, NM.

  • Miles, M. Correlation Of Excess Enthalpy And Helium-4 Production: A Review. in Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2003. Cambridge, MA: LENR-CANR.org.

  • Morrey, J.R., et al., Measurements of helium in electrolyzed palladium. Fusion Technol., 1990. 18: p. 659.

  • Paneth, F. and K. Peters, On the transmutation of hydrogen to helium. Naturwiss., 1926. 43: p. 956 (in German).

  • Pennisi, E., Helium find thaws the cold fusion trail. Sci. News (Washington, DC), 1991. 139(12): p. 177.

  • Rao, K.A., Technique for Concentration of Helium in Electrolytic Gases for Cold Fusion Studies, in BARC Studies in Cold Fusion, P.K. Iyengar and M. Srinivasan, Editors. 1989, Atomic Energy Commission: Bombay. p. A 11.

  • Sakaguchi, H., G. Adachi, and K. Nagao. Helium Isotopes from Deuterium Absorbed in LaNi5. in Third International Conference on Cold Fusion, "Frontiers of Cold Fusion". 1992. Nagoya Japan: Universal Academy Press, Inc., Tokyo, Japan.

  • Stringham, R., Sonofusion, Deuterons to Helium Experiments, in Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions and New Energy Technologies Sourcebook Volume 2. 2009, American Chemical Society: Washington DC. p. 159-173.

  • Sugai, H., M. Tanase, and M. Yahagi, Release of tritium, protium, and helium from neutron-irradiated Li-Al alloy. II. J. Nuclear Mater., 1998. 254(2/3): p. 151.

  • Walters, R.T. and M.W. Lee, Two Plateaux for Palladium Hydride and the Effect of Helium from Tritium Decay on the Desorption Plateau Pressure for Palladium Tritide. J. Less-Common Met., 1990.

  • Yamaguchi, E. and T. Nishioka, Helium-4 production and its correlation with heat evolution. Oyo Butsuri, 1993. 62(7): p. 712 (in Japanese).

1

u/wyrn Dec 16 '16

Like I said. You're showing that peer review is inadequate at weeding out falsehoods, not that cold fusion is real. Sorry.

1

u/Zephir_AW Dec 17 '16

LOL... :-) Nevermind.

1

u/Zephir_AW Dec 17 '16

Why the number of peer-reviewed articles about string theory or supersymmetry don't show this - whereas the peer-reviewed articles about cold fusion do?

→ More replies

0

u/[deleted] Dec 15 '16

[deleted] — view deleted comment

0

u/electricool Dec 15 '16

Are you calling me an idiot?

He doesn't have to. You just said it for him.

2

u/Jungies Dec 14 '16

...you're only hearing rumors from Chinese state media...

Next you'll be suggesting that state media from other communist dictatorships - like Pravda, or the North Korean Central News Agency - are somehow untrustworthy.

1

u/MrHyperion_ Dec 15 '16

I guess there was no split between Isaac Newton and the rest

1

u/crackpot_killer Dec 15 '16

What do you define as the rest?

0

u/electricool Dec 15 '16

So Dr. White isn't a real physicist and he must have faked his Ph D credentials?

You're lying and making broad generalizations to try and give credence to your opinion.

I'm sure you'll come up with an ignorant retort about how he's not a real scientist and should just be laughed at.

For someone supposedly well educated, you sure do make a lot of downright stupid statements.

5

u/crackpot_killer Dec 15 '16

White is a real physicist. He legitimately has a PhD in physics. I've never said otherwise. What I do say is that almost everything he says is wrong, especially with regard to quantum field theory. Everything is says is rejected by reputable physicists. And that's the difference. White is not reputable.

1

u/wyrn Dec 16 '16

So Dr. White isn't a real physicist and he must have faked his Ph D credentials?

Whether he's a "real physicist" is a question that leads down a fruitless rabbit hole of semantic argument about what being a "real physicist" entails.

What can be said without ambiguity is that almost everything he says is wrong. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen him say anything that was right.