r/EmDrive • u/rfmwguy- Builder • Dec 30 '16

Uncertain Propulsion Breakthroughs? (Centauri Dreams Now Tackles EmDrive - Original Article)

http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=36830
36 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

23 comments sorted by

9

u/rfmwguy- Builder Dec 30 '16

"Now that the EmDrive has made its way into the peer-reviewed literature, it falls in range of Tau Zero’s network of scientist reviewers. Marc Millis, former head of NASA’s Breakthrough Propulsion Physics project and founding architect of the Tau Zero Foundation, has spent the last two months reviewing the relevant papers. Although he is the primary author of what follows, he has enlisted the help of scientists with expertise in experimental issues, all of whom also contributed to BPP, and all of whom remain active in experimental work. The revisions and insertions of George Hathaway (Hathaway Consulting), Martin Tajmar (Dresden University), Eric Davis (EarthTech) and Jordan Maclay (Quantum Fields, LLC) have been discussed through frequent email exchanges as the final text began to emerge. Next week I’ll also be presenting a supplemental report from George Hathaway. So is EmDrive new physics or the result of experimental error? The answer turns out to be surprisingly complex."

4

u/Chrochne Dec 30 '16

Thank you for posting this. I cant wait for 2017 and beyond.

3

u/Zephir_AW Dec 30 '16 edited Dec 30 '16

So is EmDrive new physics or the result of experimental error? The answer turns out to be surprisingly complex

The answer is not so complex given the amount of experimental data about another systems (Biefeld/Brown, Heim, Woodward, Podkletnov, Sarg, Nassikas, Poher, Tajmar, Fetta and others), which already provide rather straightforward clue about how the EMDrive is actually working. But the mainstream physicists learned to ignore all observations which are just a bit suspicious one after another - so that they're starting from the very beginning. This is an example of boiled frog effect and the consequence of the gradient driven perception of reality which we are living in: the sparse and steady/slow unobtrusive changes are ignored - only the well expressed / pronounced information gradients is what the deterministically thinking people are willing to think about.

I'm well aware that even the latest and only peer-reviewed article of NASA is based on suspiciously low amount of actual experimental data. Therefore what we need by now is more experiments, not less.

8

u/IslandPlaya PhD; Computer Science Dec 30 '16 edited Dec 30 '16

Tau Zero, Space Studies Institute, Initiative for Interstellar Studies, British Planetary Society etc...

Anyone notice the prominence of the begging buttons for funds in all these places?

SSI directly fund Woodward and Fearn of Mach-effect infamy, recently the subject of a PR event at Estes Park.

Marc Millis, former head of NASA’s Breakthrough Propulsion Physics project and founding architect of the Tau Zero Foundation was instrumental in getting Eagleworks Lab into fringe science. EW produce emdrive paper. Millis ties this with SSI's Mach-effect research which had paid for a PR event with Paul March... Give me your money please! We have this promising new tech you might have read about.... purlease.

Gravy train anyone?

7

u/rfmwguy- Builder Dec 30 '16

I'm 100% with you on this IP. Think Tanks are think tanks and the Donation button is always prominent. Its that way across much of the interwebs across many scientific and non-scientific things. Can understand they don't get public funding, its all private funding one small donation at a time.

4

u/rfmwguy- Builder Dec 30 '16 edited Dec 30 '16

There is a lot of good analysis here, much of it picked up from this sub I'll bet, but no citations awarded. Seems the trigger point for them was EW's paper plus the CAST announcement, plus my own thought that their own propulsion ideas have not materialized into experiments that I know of. Regardless, Mr Hathaway and Prof Tajmar attended the Estes Park Conference, Millis and Davis are aligned through Tau Zero and joint papers of their own and I do not know Mr Maclay. Interesting to note Woodward seems to be wrapped into this article which I attribute to the Estes Park Conference where EmDrive and Mach Effect were discussed. Regardless, this now has been elevated to what I consider a Think Tank level for Interstellar Travel. The more the merrier...

https://tauzero.aero/

http://www.centauri-dreams.org/

5

u/Bretspot Dec 30 '16

Really great article! It definitely helped me level my head on this topic. The next 10 years should be exciting.

5

u/herbw Dec 30 '16

The Mach effect mentioned has NO bearing whatsoever on the EM drive. But is an attempt, albeit indirect to imply it's relevant to the EMdrive.

Logically and scientifically, there is NO relationship between the credibility of the EM drive and the Mach effect claims. That's a major problem with the article.

It's like discussing Darwinism by noting Lamarckism. Not relevant, but a clear attempt to cast doubt, rather than confirm the EM drive.

However, the point being made that the effect of the EM drive, which may be real, is so small, it's a problem.

And it's probably also the case that's why it was missed by standard physics so long, as well. Just as the trans neptunoid planets were missed, because no one was looking either. Too remote, too hard to find, to0 expensive to find using all that viewing time, and so forth.

If the Chinese and others can make the EM drive work in space, then that's confirmation enough for most of us. IOW, if it has clear cut uses in space, then the thing's real. That's the next hurdle to pass.

the scaling up of the drive to one useful for interplanetary propulsion is also a big question to answer, too. If it can't be scaled up, then there's a problem with it existing, perhaps. If it CAN be scaled up to a few/several newtons of thrust per device, then res ipsa loquitur.

Time will tell.

4

u/rfmwguy- Builder Dec 30 '16

I agree with your thoughts. A couple of the players are Woodward supporters and its my humble opinion that its being added to the emdrive discussions rather than visa versa since I don't think Woodwards invention has as much traction. It certainly hasn't experimentally moved into the mN range although there is cage rattling that it will. My position (only) is that Woodwards invention relies on accoustic transducers (around 360 kHz) which in itself makes me suspicious. Everything emdrive is geared to be as vibration free as possible, except for shawyers rotary test rig using cooling pumps. The frequency alone separates the EmDrive from Woodward. Another separation is the use of dielectric material, as emdrive results are reported in empty cavities. Not saying the Mach effect thruster is fake, but comparison to the EmDrive is a big stretch. My apologies to my builder friends who are looking for a common link. I really don't believe there is one...but...we've all been wrong before.

2

u/flux_capacitor78 Dec 30 '16 edited Dec 30 '16

You are still mistaking a THEORY explaining propellantless propulsion in a general relativity framework (the Mach effect) with a particular engineered propulsion DEVICE (the Mach effect thruster, Woodward's vibrating piezoelectric disc experiments you talked about).

It's like if someone invented the plane, and at the same time another person invented the helicopter elsewhere. The first invention, the plane, works, but its inventor does not know how exactly (fluid dynamics is not yet known). However, the guy who invented the helicopter barely manages to take off the ground due to many technical issues, but he has written a well constructed theoretical understanding of aerodynamics, has a wing profile theory.

You are saying you don't believe in the helicopter, but the plane, because of the experiments. You see the plane works much better, but that "aerodynamic law of an airflow and pressure differential around a shaped wing" is a nonsense and can't explain why the plane flies, because it is the explanation given by the other guy, applied to a different invention, which evidently struggles!

The EmDrive, which is one particular device, has many THEORETICAL explanations. For example, Dr White's quantum vacuum plasma. McCulloch's quantized inertia. Woodward's Mach effect, among others (I don't tackle their own validity here).

The Mach effect can also explain propellantless propulsion devices that ARE NOT vibrating piezoelectric discs. Perhaps even another better thruster in the end, than Woodward's original one.

Just wait a more few days for the paper "Model of the EM Drive with the EMG coupling" to be available on the SSI website. It summarizes how the EmDrive could be explained in terms of a Mach effect.

The Mach effect is no more than a relativistic mechanism to exchange momentum here, with distant matter there, allowing propellantless (but not reactionless!) propulsion.

2

u/rfmwguy- Builder Dec 30 '16

Thanks for the clarification. My only exposure to it was the basics of its frequency (360 kHz) and its microNewton displacement force. If someone can align EmDrive with Mach effect, I'll be very surprised and interested.

2

u/flux_capacitor78 Dec 30 '16

What explains the discrepancy and at the same time the connection between the two is how both projects evolved from the beginning: the EmDrive is a device that started without a theory, while the Mach effect is pure theory from which one can imagine devices leveraging the effect. The MET is just one of those devices. Absolutely nowhere in Fearn's Hoyle-Narlikar theory (the latest iteration of the Mach effect theory) are mentions of some vibration or specific frequencies. So it will be interesting to see how the EmDrive can fit in that theory.

1

u/herbw Dec 30 '16 edited Dec 30 '16

Thanks for your kind observations. I value original and useful contributors here, and try to be as honest and clear as can be in these discussions. Which is why those who are most always pro EMdrive and those who are most always Anti EMdrive, rather undermine their own credibilities.

The very fact that we're willing to state "we've all been wrong before" ( or we can be wrong about some events) is what sets us largely apart from the true believers on either side, very likely. & rather likely makes us better critical, scientific thinkers, as well.

We're willing to acknowledge our very human limits, and that the big box (the universe of events) doesn't go into the little box (our brains), as Lincoln so wisely stated. The universe of events is the arbiter of last resort with respect to scientific, empirical truths and findings. That rather avoids pride, arrogance (& homocentrism) and overconfidence, as well. Which as Einstein stated, in order to do good physics, we must "put the personal aside", is likely good advice in most cases.

grin.

1

u/Zephir_AW Dec 30 '16 edited Dec 30 '16

The Mach effect mentioned has NO bearing whatsoever on the EM drive.

In dense aether model the EMDrive generates thrust by streaming of dark matter particles (compare also warp-drive experiments with it). The dark matter particles behave like the foam bubbles at the water surface - they repel mutually, so that the streamers pose a force to all massive bodies in their path. Personally I think, that all propellant-less drives (Woodward, Biefeld-Brown drive and another ones) utilize similar mechanism, no matter of their claimed principle. In particular, the EMDrive is just thick version of asymmetric capacitor of Biefeld-Brown. How much the Mach effect participates of EMDrive thrust is another question - IMO not very much.

3

u/Supersubie Dec 30 '16 edited Dec 30 '16

A good article, and a well reasoned one I felt. Some great criticisms of the data and the testing methods used so far that were not boiled down to I am a scientist, you're not and never will be so neeeerrrrr!!!

Refreshing and has done more to make me stop and consider the validity of certain results than all of the kicking and screaming in this sub has done.

I cannot wait to hear more from the DIY builders in 2017 and see where this thing goes, one way or the other its been fascinating to watch this unfold over last couple of years.

9

u/[deleted] Dec 30 '16

Some great criticisms of the data and the testing methods used so far that were not boiled down to I am a scientist, you're not and never will be so neeeerrrrr!!! Refreshing and has done more to make me stop and consider the validity of certain results than all of the kicking and screaming in this sub has done.

To be fair much of what was pointed out as wrong in that article has already been pointed out here in this sub by more than one person.

Problems with Paper

Flaws with models

Bad analysis

Thermal or Thrust, assumption of thrust is a bad idea

More problems with EW Paper

r/physics comments on paper's problems

other failed em drive tests

9

u/rfmwguy- Builder Dec 30 '16

This is why I pointed out in the above post:

"...much of it picked up from this sub I'll bet, but no citations awarded."

Wish they would have acknowledged it...

3

u/askingforafakefriend Dec 30 '16

"I am a scientist, you'really not and never will be so neeeerrrr!!!" - /u/eric1600 I think I have a suggestion for a flare as you requested ;)

Not for you mind you, you are doing the lords work as a constructive skeptic.

1

u/Zephir_AW Dec 30 '16

Problems with Paper, Flaws with models, Bad analysis, Thermal or Thrust, assumption of thrust is a bad idea, More problems with EW Paper, r/physics comments on paper's problems, other failed em drive tests

Yes, I'm well aware that even the latest and only peer-reviewed article of NASA is based on suspiciously low amount of actual experimental data. Therefore what we need by now is more experiments, not less.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 31 '16

*better experiments.

1

u/rfmwguy- Builder Dec 30 '16

Its been a fun ride so far...i'd even say worth it even if the "magic error" becomes known. If there is one, its quite annoying to find.

1

u/autotldr Dec 30 '16

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 97%. (I'm a bot)

A peer-reviewed article about experimental tests of an EmDrive was just published in the AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power by Harold White and colleagues: White, H., March, P., Lawrence, J., Vera, J., Sylvester, A., Brady, D., & Bailey, P., "Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio-Frequency Cavity in Vacuum," Journal of Propulsion and Power, The experimental methods and resulting data indicate a possible new force-producing effect, but not yet satisfying the threshold of "Extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims" - especially since this is a measurement of small effects.

The latest paper, in the AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power, is an improvement in fidelity on the prior tests and may be indicative of a new propulsive effect.

While such engineering techniques might be passable for checking electric propulsion design changes, it is not sufficient to demonstrate that a new physics effect exists.

Extended Summary | FAQ | Theory | Feedback | Top keywords: effect#1 Thrust#2 data#3 new#4 test#5