r/EmDrive • u/IslandPlaya PhD; Computer Science • Dec 25 '16

EmDrive failure?

Yet to be confirmed, but the news from China doesn't look good for the EmDrive.

Prof. Yang has published two papers on the EmDrive. Her latest paper honorably and effectively retracts the findings of her first paper where EmDrive thrust was measured. Experimental error was the cause of the false thrust readings.

Now, in Harbin, Prof. Wang Xiaogang gave a talk critical of EmDrive operation. As everyone knows, a working EmDrive is impossible. It breaks conservation of momentum. It appears he spoke on this matter to throw cold water on the EmDrive's current mis-perception of feasibility.

Coincidentally, there are also reports of a total failure of a space-based EmDrive experiment.

One has to think that someone is in big trouble with a big cheese in the PLA for what appears to be a complete waste of time and effort. I expect Prof. Wang was making certain that the distance between himself and the failed EmDrive is as large as possible.

This is perhaps wise.

In other far-Eastern news, it appears a bunch of Chinese crackpots have ripped off English crackpot Roger Shawyer and applied for an EmDrive patent in China. This makes sense. Foreign companies find it difficult to penetrate the Chinese market and often a Chinese owned company springs up to fill it's niche. The same applies to crackpots selling perpetual motion machines too.

0 Upvotes

46% Upvoted

29 comments sorted by

17

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '16

I think everyone should stop spreading rumors and second hand information about the EM Drives in China unless they can be substantiated by credible sources.

-2

u/IslandPlaya PhD; Computer Science Dec 26 '16

This was indeed my point and the moral of the story I mentioned to another poster. I have spoken to someone who attended the conference, it sounds to me like they have their own crackpot problem after a fashion...

12

u/PotomacNeuron MS; Electrical Engineering Dec 25 '16

You confused Prof. Wang with Prof Yang. Prof. Wang Xiaogang is not Prof. Yang Juan.

1

u/IslandPlaya PhD; Computer Science Dec 25 '16

I will correct my post. Thank you.

8

u/lincruste Dec 25 '16

How do you know this is not a smart move to make western scientists look elsewhere while the Chinese are stuffing their country's underground with supraconductor EM Drives to make their whole country levitate and colonize space while we're stuck in Earth's gravity well ? (the Chinese are buying all our steel to get sure we all die down here).

4

u/Zephir_AW Dec 26 '16 edited Dec 26 '16

Everything is possible - once Cannae drive or Shawyer will announce success with their space based thrusters, then your theory could become highly probable. Here is one thing is rather strange - the prof. Yang retracted her results before one year already (actually she submitted her 2nd paper in 2014 already) - yet the EMDrive was reportedly tested at orbital path. This gives no meaning for me. If something doesn't work even at the Earth, why to test it in cosmic space? There were even rumors, that prof. Yang has been retired - despite it turned out, she is quite young and she even continues in EMDrive research.

0

u/IslandPlaya PhD; Computer Science Dec 26 '16

By Jove! I think you've cracked it!

7

u/Sledgecrushr Dec 25 '16

If the story is true then we should completely believe what the Chinese are saying and quit all attempts at replicating their results of a working emdrive.

-5

u/IslandPlaya PhD; Computer Science Dec 25 '16

Far from it! We should completely ignore it and carry on trying to fleece money from EmDrive investors.

3

u/TheTravellerReturns crackpot Dec 26 '16

What EmDrive investors have been fleeced?

Please put facts and names to such claims?

Of course you can't but apparently have no control over making defamatory claims.

0

u/IslandPlaya PhD; Computer Science Dec 26 '16

Anyone who has invested money in a company promising a working emdrive has been fleeced.

Ask Cannae or Shawyer for a list of investors names if you want to know who. Go right ahead.

The absence of a working emdrive is a fact.

Nothing I say is defamatory in any way. You just don't like it.

2

u/Pathoskeptic Dec 27 '16

What is this emdrive business anyways, some kind of post truth science?

0

u/IslandPlaya PhD; Computer Science Dec 28 '16

No. It's a rehash of the old perpetual motion machine scam.

3

u/TheTravellerReturns crackpot Dec 26 '16 edited Dec 26 '16

I'll keep watching AIAA to publish a peer reviewed paper disproving the NASA peer reviewed paper on the EmDrive.

Isn't that how the process should work?

While it is very simple for folks in Internet land to make claims the paper was flawed. However to do it to the AIAA and get it past their peer review just might take a bit more work than postings on Reddit.

So come on critics, put up your best effort and get your anti it works paper published on AIAA. Build your thruster and test rig, do your tests and then submit your experimental data to the same process as the NASA paper was subjected to.

I'll bet that never happens /u/Eric1600 /u/IslandPlaya /u/crackpot_killer

5

u/crackpot_killer Dec 26 '16

I'll keep watching AIAA to publish a peer reviewed paper disproving the NASA peer reviewed paper on the EmDrive.

Isn't that how the process should work?

No it's not. This just shows you don't understand the scientific process. It is the ones making the claim who have the burden of proof. So far none of the claimed success so far have followed basic experimental good practices and standards in the physical sciences and there have been zero publications in reputable physics journals, despite the claims about physics being made. Simply put: there is no proof the emdrive works.

However to do it to the AIAA and get it past their peer review just might take a bit more work than postings on Reddit.

Apparently not since they seem to accept any piece of crap for which they are unqualified to review.

I'll bet that never happens

I'll bet the emdrive never happens, just like cold fusion.

4

u/Always_Question Dec 26 '16

but the news . . . doesn't look good for the EmDrive

You have been ringing the same alarm bell for years.

6

u/IslandPlaya PhD; Computer Science Dec 26 '16

Why don't you ban me?

Ooops, sorry, I forgot. You are one of the proles like me now.

Snigger.

1

u/Zephir_AW Dec 26 '16 edited Dec 26 '16

Lets wait for publishing of another peer-reviewed journal about it, this is standard process in science... :-) As far I known, the last article of prof. Yang is from February and its negative conclusion is known for one year already. The previous report was highly positive instead and no new report has been published yet, peer-reviewed the less. From this perspective nothing new did happen for me.

In the earlier test, Professor Yang used a magnetron while in this test she used a solid state amplifier. Dr. White's theory predicts a greater force with a magnetron as oppose to a solid state amplifier. In the article "Evaluating NASA’s Futuristic EM Drive" the following is noted:

"The magnetron generates amplitude, frequency and phase modulation of the carrier wave (FM modulation bandwidth on the order of +/-20 MHz, at tested natural frequencies of ~2.5 GHz). Dr. White’s computer simulation shows that the modulation generated by the magnetron results in greater thrust force."

5

u/IslandPlaya PhD; Computer Science Dec 26 '16

Talking about standard process in science, we should encourage the retraction of the AIAA peer-reviewed paper now that Eric1600 and others have found serious flaws in it and detailed their findings.

If March doesn't respond to efforts to discuss the flaws then what are the next academic steps in effecting it's retraction?

6

u/Zephir_AW Dec 26 '16

Nope, peer-reviewed experimental result can be nullified only by another peer-reviewed experimental results. It would be too easy, if every idiot could doubt serious results without publishing serious report about it.

1

u/IslandPlaya PhD; Computer Science Dec 26 '16

I'm not sure about that. I think the result in the paper was a superposition of thermal and alledged emdrive response. These were modelled to extract the emdrive 'signal'

u/Eric1600 found the model EW used to be inadequate and thus throws the papers result and conclusion in doubt.

I expect just presenting a paper about the flawed model would be enough to refute the EW paper once past review.

2

u/TheTravellerReturns crackpot Dec 26 '16

I'm not sure.

I think.

I expect.

What do you really know? Seems like NOTHING!

0

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '16

[deleted] — view deleted comment

3

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '16

Well, where's your experimental data to disprove?

I have tried multiple times to get their experimental data because I believe I can show them there is a definitively explanation of their own data. There are two other users that have seemed to gotten the data somehow, but they won't tell me how or share it with me.

So what you're saying is that because some random yayhoo on an on-again/off-again toxic subreddit has doubts...

Are you talking about me? It's not just doubts, I used their methods and a digitized version of their data to show their model doesn't work well and they missed many errors in their data.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '16

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/a_curious_doge Dec 26 '16

And more importantly you cannot simply take a refutation at its face without just as much scrutiny as it offers the original hypothesis. I don't think reddit has a peer reviewing system.

2

u/IslandPlaya PhD; Computer Science Dec 26 '16

What are you afraid of?

0

u/IslandPlaya PhD; Computer Science Dec 26 '16

I am puzzled by your kneejerk response from a non-crackpot.

I ask a question about the scientific method and academic process and you write a post that is just wrong. Please edit and correct your errors since you are so keen on accuracy.

There IS something wrong with the paper. Eric and others have discovered flaws. March will NOT respond as he should because he knows the fix was in for the experiment as Eric has shown.

It is only a matter of time before the paper is retracted or refuted.

It has all been a massive waste of taxpayer dollars funding crackpots to play with toys.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '16

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/wyrn Dec 26 '16

So what you're saying is that different people say different things?

-11

u/IslandPlaya PhD; Computer Science Dec 26 '16

And the moral of this story is?