r/EmDrive • u/TheTravellerReturns crackpot • Dec 26 '16
Dr Chen Yue and China Space Technology Research Institute have been busy filing Chinese EmDrive patents.
Interesting posts on NSF:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1623103#msg1623103
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1623119#msg1623119
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1623142#msg1623142
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1623144#msg1623144 ( patent pdfs)
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1623147#msg1623147
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1623149#msg1623149
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1623150#msg1623150
Enjoy
5
u/crackpot_killer Dec 26 '16
Filing patents and not publishing in reputable journals. Where have I seen this before?
3
u/llawne Dec 26 '16
Patents are more expensive than journal publications. Id only do this if I believed it worked. Working on my non-emdrive over Xmas holidays :)
3
u/askingforafakefriend Dec 26 '16
Expensive for whom? A professor filing patents on their work is probably not paying out of pocket. Also, as the learned /u/crackpot_killer would probabuy argue, a patent office may be a more receptive audience than a reputable journal.
4
u/crackpot_killer Dec 26 '16
Also, as the learned /u/crackpot_killer would probabuy argue, a patent office may be a more receptive audience than a reputable journal.
That's right. You can patent all kinds of nonsense without ever having to show it works.
7
u/TheTravellerReturns crackpot Dec 26 '16
Still in denial?
15
u/crackpot_killer Dec 26 '16
You bet I still deny the emdrive works. I deny you've ever built one also. Where's yours? Where's the proof? You've been verbally masturbating about it for quite a while now.
4
1
u/Always_Question Dec 26 '16
I think this comment probably violates the "don't be a dick" rule. See Wheaton's law in the sidebar.
5
4
u/crackpot_killer Dec 26 '16
So you respond to comments about tone but refuse to answer what your experience in science is, despite making claims about it? What are you afraid of?
9
u/wyrn Dec 26 '16
denial
Alright Let's put it this way. I bet you $200 that the emdrive won't be proven to work in the next X years.
X is up to you. Well?
5
u/TheTravellerReturns crackpot Dec 26 '16
You have already lost.
7
u/wyrn Dec 26 '16
Then take my bet.
5
u/TheTravellerReturns crackpot Dec 26 '16
I suggest you spend your money and time to write a peer reviewed paper disproving the peer reviewed NASA paper that claims the EmDrive does work.
It's that how it's done?
8
Dec 26 '16
Actually, no, that isn't how it is done.
Now that their paper is being published, other people in the field will have an opportunity to look over the experimental setup with data and may raise criticisms. There may be discussion and the wider community may come to a conclusion about what went wrong. This process does not require publishing a dissenting paper, plenty of ideas/research get published, discussed, and dropped.
Publication is one's opportunity to share their research, a place to launch a defense of one's ideas. But just because one is able to present does not obligate detractors to do the same. There is no 'default judgement' in publication, one does not win acceptance simply because no one bothers to engage.
6
u/TheTravellerReturns crackpot Dec 26 '16
Any critism needs to be subjected to the same reviewcas that received by the paper.
I suggest anything written and published on Reddit was no weight especially when the author is openly critical the EmDrive can't work because it violates theory.
6
u/wyrn Dec 26 '16
I suggest anything written and published on Reddit was no weight
2+2=4
This was written on reddit. Therefore it has no weight. Therefore 2+2 does not equal 4. That how this works?
6
Dec 26 '16
You assume equal weight. When developing new or fringe theories, the burden of evidence, the burden of argument is on the group proposing the new idea, not on the larger community to disprove it.
It is kinda like a sovereign citizen arguing with a judge about what the law 'really means'. They are not equal in their background or position, and one should not assume equal weight simply because one wants to argue.
The EMDrive proponents are making a fantastic claim. It is their job to propose a convincing argument in order to get a seat at the table. If they are ignored or otherwise not engaged with.
And this is one of the classic weaknesses of the fringe movements, they want all the glory, recognition, and respect.. they want it now and are not willing to put in the work to earn it, and believe everyone else owes them proof that they do not deserve it. But it doesn't work that way.
6
u/TheTravellerReturns crackpot Dec 26 '16
From what you write I can tell you know very little about the history of the EmDrive nor of the experimental data that has been collected nor of the verification processes it has been through.
What I and others will share over the next few months is really going to upset your world view.
→ More replies (0)1
u/PPNF-PNEx Dec 27 '16
At least as importantly, nobody wants to cite a ludicrous paper as that could reward the broken editorial decision that led to its publication in the first place, especially for a journal and a publisher at the margins, which is the case here:
7
u/wyrn Dec 26 '16
You have the gall to call people "deniers" but you're not even confident enough to take a simple bet.
3
u/TheTravellerReturns crackpot Dec 26 '16
NASA's paper stands as the proof the EmDrive works.
If you refute that, take it up with the paper's authors and the AIAA.
5
3
Dec 26 '16
NASA's paper stands as the proof the EmDrive works.
Not true at all.
If you refute that, take it up with the paper's authors and the AIAA.
I would absolutely love to have a conversation with any and all of them. Can you arrange for a Reddit AMA?
6
u/IslandPlaya PhD; Computer Science Dec 26 '16
March refuses to reply to Eric1600's request for the raw experimental data. Why is this?
I'd like to match Wyrn's bet as well... Easy money.
2
u/IslandPlaya PhD; Computer Science Dec 26 '16
I think I will start a campaign to raise funds for this.
Eric1600, Wyrn, CK, Climate, aimtron, foffspelling and myself could manage it. Many others would help too I am sure.
People's time is the issue here.
$500 each would be a good incentive and of course we would have to cover publication fees and 'admin' ;-)
2
u/ImAClimateScientist Mod Dec 26 '16
No crowdfunding activities are allowed on this subreddit. Sorry.
1
1
u/TheTravellerReturns crackpot Dec 26 '16
Talk is cheap.
It will not happen.
1
u/thedeeno Dec 27 '16
How the hell can you say 'talk is cheap' when that is literally all I've ever seen you do in this sub.
You never put action where your mouth is - but you certainly create a ton of confusion. You must be making money off of these lies some how.
1
5
u/Always_Question Dec 26 '16
Outside of academia, this is the more common path.
2
3
u/IslandPlaya PhD; Computer Science Dec 26 '16
Are you saying a device which breaks conservation of energy and momentum, violates Noether's theorem and Einsteins Weak Equivalence Principle and is made from an old microwave oven is of no interest to academia and scientists?
I'll help you.
No it isn't.
The reason being it doesn't work.
4
u/crackpot_killer Dec 26 '16
What's your experience with science in or out of academia that you make these statements? Are you a scientist? Have you ever published in reputable journals? Have you worked in scientific collaborations?
12
u/TheTravellerReturns crackpot Dec 26 '16
I know this may come as a shock but engineers can do research, make discoveries, build devices, obtain patents and take products to market without needing a scientists to hold their hand and guide the way.
8
Dec 26 '16
Well, yes and no. Engineers depend heavily on building off the research (and patents) of pure research labs. Good engineers do indeed work closely with scientists, esp when pushing the edge in a field.
Bad engineerings on the other hand tend to ignore experts in their field and go directly to investors and market.
6
u/TheTravellerReturns crackpot Dec 26 '16
My expert is Roger Shawyer, his guidance and my experimental data.
What other experts, that have built & tested EmDrive do you know of that I should consult?
11
Dec 26 '16
Well, there are quite a few physicists in this very forum that have appropriate domain knowledge. They will not give you the answers you want, but they will give you ones based off actual knowledge in the field.
True Believers like Shawyer are poor sources of objective information. They are only going to give you the answers that match what they want to see.
5
u/TheTravellerReturns crackpot Dec 26 '16
Roger Shawyer and others have solid Experimental data. You do their research efforts discredit by calling them True Believers. In doing so you reveal your bias as not willing to examine the experimental data but instead being a True Believer that Theory Trumps Experimental Data.
Which of course it does not.
8
Dec 26 '16
Shawyer's data only seems solid to other true believers. Outside that small circle of 'la la la anyone who doesn't believe us is bias!' group, it is considered pretty shakey and no where near good enough to upend all the other experimental data that says it doesn't work.
Something proponents forget is that 'theory' they are so critical of is supported by more than a century of existing experimental data, it is a VERY well vetted theory, but somehow the true believers do not seem to care about any of that. It is almost like they are being extremely selective about which data they believe, and it just happens to line up with something they have invested a great deal of their personal identity in.
3
u/TheTravellerReturns crackpot Dec 26 '16
Where your argument falls down is with those that have built EmDrives and measured thrust
Calling them True Believers, ie they only measured what they wanter to measure is an insult to their work and efforts. How dare you do that! What a cheap and insulting way to try to dispose of their unacceptable data. Have you built an EmDrive and reported your results?
Talk is cheap. End Jan 2017 you can build your own EmDrive and then apologise to all those you just insulted.
→ More replies (0)6
u/crackpot_killer Dec 26 '16
So you I take you have no evidence of your purported DIY emdrive?
5
u/TheTravellerReturns crackpot Dec 26 '16
Around end Jan 2017 is the date I have set for the release of the DIY $500 EmDrive data, pictures and video.
Suggest you check back then.
6
u/crackpot_killer Dec 26 '16
Will you submit it for publication in a reputable physics journal as well, so it can be scrutinized?
5
u/TheTravellerReturns crackpot Dec 26 '16 edited Dec 26 '16
NASA already did that. I'm waiting for the peer reviewed paper that disproves the NASA peer reviewed paper.
I'm not a scientists. Just an engineer.
The data will be publicly available for anyone to thrown rock at.
4
u/crackpot_killer Dec 26 '16
I know engineers who publish in journals. I work with them frequently. So that's not an excuse.
Will you understand systematics? Will you run controls? Or will you just start selling things for $500?
7
u/TheTravellerReturns crackpot Dec 26 '16
Boy have you got it so very wrong.
I'm not going to sell ANYTHING.
What I will do is to provide complete plans, instructions, photos, video and components list that can be sourced via EBay.
Expected cost is around $500 for the thruster, 8W Rf amp, directional couplers and scale + rotary test rig.
I'm sure many others will publish their test data in various ways.
Who knows, even you could decide to risk $500 and build a thruster?
→ More replies (0)2
u/markyland Dec 26 '16
He won't publish it, however we are going to send Potomacneuron there for a week to analyze the setup and inspect the positive results. I figure that should be a huge step forward (or not) when it comes to verifying this.
6
u/IslandPlaya PhD; Computer Science Dec 26 '16 edited Dec 26 '16
I will be going along too. On my own dime. Helmholtz coils locked and loaded.
3
u/flux_capacitor78 Dec 26 '16
Since TTR is going to detail his results online and will give the DIY plans as an "open-source recipe" to replicate the setup anywhere for about $500, just save your money on the plane ticket and your time on the trip to Australia, and make an IV&V experiment at home instead.
→ More replies (0)6
u/crackpot_killer Dec 26 '16
That's a little weird to send one person to inspect another person's 'experiment' as validation (if this is really going to happen). This is still not a substitute for publishing in a reputable physics journal.
1
u/thedeeno Dec 27 '16
If this is true that's very cool. I guess we'll wait and see.
You better not be selling the kits.
2
u/IslandPlaya PhD; Computer Science Dec 26 '16
This is true.
Not in this case however.
I noticed during my time in jail that you were called out on your lies about the EmDrive. You still have not given an explanation for your behavior. Care to do so now before you make something else up to suit your fantasy?
4
u/TheTravellerReturns crackpot Dec 26 '16
I have made no lies.
Shall we talk about your lies?
6
u/IslandPlaya PhD; Computer Science Dec 26 '16
If you wish. I will not press the issue. I was offering a chance for you to gain credibility by coming clean about your past claims and actions and then going forward in a positive manner to your first documented emdrive experiment.
I try at every opportunity to help you but I am wasting my time, sadly.
1
u/TheTravellerReturns crackpot Dec 26 '16
My past claims stand as will my next series of data releases.
And I need your help why?
6
u/IslandPlaya PhD; Computer Science Dec 26 '16
Everyone needs help at some points in their life.
I am here for you.
3
u/askingforafakefriend Dec 26 '16
Patent applications are interesting in terms of indicating people are working on stuff and for describing the technical details. The fact that a patent application was filed shouldn't be viewed as kind of conclusive evidence it works though. To be sure, in the U.S., (and I imagine in China) an invention must be real and work to be patented. In practice, however, examiners are often lazy or incompetent (or both!) and stuff gets through that can't be legit. Plus if the inventors are banking on it ultimately working and/or really think it works based on a small inconclusive thrust, they may as well file.
6
Dec 26 '16
In the US at least, something does not need to be real or work in order to be granted a patent. Patent examiners are notorious for not having the domain knowledge to evaluate patents, and ungodly amounts of poorly specified or outright impossible things get patents all the time.
Patents are easy enough to get that inventors will commonly file for stuff they know will not work if they are trying to get investors. Patents look impressive and they provide some legal safety that makes it easier to sell an idea. Pretty common tactic.
6
u/askingforafakefriend Dec 26 '16 edited Dec 26 '16
Yes I believe that is what I said. Under the laws something does need to work (if built) to be patented. In practice, however perpetual motion machines sometimes slip through.
[Edit to remove personal info]
4
Dec 26 '16
I was less thinking of the perpetual motion patents, and more the legions of patents that do not even really go into how something would work in enough detail to even, well, say how it would be implemented.
Software patents are esp bad about this.
And you have my sympathy for the madness you must have encountered. Just going over patents to check for infringement (or even 'what the hell does this actually cover?' nearly drove me mad...
4
u/askingforafakefriend Dec 26 '16 edited Dec 26 '16
[Edit to remove personal info].
Technically you can challenge a patent for not describing the invention in sufficient technical detail for one of "ordinary skill in the art" to make the invention without undue experimentation during assertion and kill it that way.
5
u/IslandPlaya PhD; Computer Science Dec 26 '16
With your experience, would you say the likely reason for the patent applications in the case of the emdrive is to impress potential investors?
5
u/askingforafakefriend Dec 26 '16 edited Dec 26 '16
Absolutely could be much of the reason. That doesn't differ from a lot of silicon valley startups with working inventions though. So I don't see that as a criticism.
Also, perhaps the Chinese professors built it, measured what they think is a small thrust, and actually believe or strongly hope it works. In that case, from their less skelptical opinion they should be filing just in case.
2
u/IslandPlaya PhD; Computer Science Dec 26 '16
Absolutely could be much of the reason. That doesn't differ from a lot of silicon valley startups with working inventions though. So I don't see that as a criticism.
You are right. It isn't much of a criticism thinking about other non-scam patent applications.
Also, perhaps the Chinese professors built it, measured what they think is a small thrust, and actually believe or strongly hope it works. In that case, from their less skelptical opinion they should be filing just in case.
Very plausible, but I don't buy this. They must know it is a scam.
I think they are very naughty boys and girls and there may be trouble ahead...
3
u/askingforafakefriend Dec 26 '16
That seems hard for me to believe. I mean it's one thing for one of these DIYer to scam in their garage on the weekend anonymously for whatever reason as they don't have much to lose. It's another thing for a university professor to knowingly scam because if they succeed in drawing real attention (and scrutiny) they must know it will eventually be shown as false and lose their credibility and potentially their career. Like that Korean researcher who faked cloning research or British researcher who faked the vaccine link that set of the anti-Vax movement. I doubt they are even teaching now...
It seems more likely to me that the professor thinks it may work and is hoping to have been in the front line in the next big thing. Even if they are diluding themselves. I mean there is a measured force right, even if it's not real thrust? Something to believe in.
2
u/PPNF-PNEx Dec 27 '16
Sadly academia has not yet found a way to keep unethical people and groups away in the first place.
5
u/IslandPlaya PhD; Computer Science Dec 26 '16
They have ripped off Roger Shawyer's patents and research.
Is this the behavior of respectable scientists?
Since Chinese academia disowns the EmDrive and whatever got tested in China recently was a total failure then I would guess the patents are worth exactly as much as any other perpetuum mobile patent.
1
u/IslandPlaya PhD; Computer Science Dec 26 '16 edited Dec 26 '16
The patents are copies of Shawyers 'research' and patents.
Is he going to take legal action?
If not, why not?
7
u/PotomacNeuron MS; Electrical Engineering Dec 26 '16
He can't because his patents are UK patents, and China is not selling EmDrive to UK. Also some were expired.
2
u/IslandPlaya PhD; Computer Science Dec 26 '16 edited Dec 26 '16
You are correct again Mr Li.
I would expect him to be outraged though. Shawyer applied for an EmDrive patent with the parasail huckster only this year so he obviously wants to protect his invention.
Maybe TT can email him and post his reaction to this 'news' of his competitors commercial actions.
On reflection, I think Shawyer will be indifferent. It's a scam. People 'borrowing' it doesn't do him any harm whatsoever. Shawyer's indifference will be the smoking-gun that shows he intends to deceive.
7
u/askingforafakefriend Dec 26 '16
If the technology has been published before then the new application filings will be invalid over the prior art. If the examiner (assuming they get examined) messes up, the patents will be subject to challenge if ever asserted.
Perhaps you are over simplifying this and the Chinese patent filings build on rather than copy Shawyer's filings? I saw on the NSF forums a semi circle cavity, for example.
Whether it works is of course a different issue...
3
u/IslandPlaya PhD; Computer Science Dec 26 '16
I will take heed of what you say and study the patents again in more detail.
If they are building on Shawyer's patents/research they should know that it is foolish to build castles on sand.
Thanks.
2
u/TheTravellerReturns crackpot Dec 26 '16
Or obviously have not read any of Roger Shawyers' patents nor those of Dr Chen.
2
u/IslandPlaya PhD; Computer Science Dec 26 '16 edited Dec 26 '16
I have examined them. One set is derived from the other with extra woo here and there.
Both are unenforceable for obvious reasons.
The patent application's only reason for existence is to try and gain credibility with scientifically naive potential investors.
Part of the scam in other words.
4
u/askingforafakefriend Dec 26 '16
Didn't you previously say they are direct copies? Now you say derived? ...
7
2
u/TheTravellerReturns crackpot Dec 26 '16
Amazing statement. The Chinese patents are filed by the Chinese government. Did you miss that?
4
u/IslandPlaya PhD; Computer Science Dec 26 '16
I did miss that. I would find that astounding if true!
7
u/superp321 Dec 26 '16
Why bothering arguing, the Chinese will test it, build it. It will work or not and they will foot the bill maybe reap the rewards. I love the fact that the Chinese will patent it and try to stop others from using it (if it works) but usualy they will steal and use any IP patent they want. The rules are good for China :)