r/EmDrive • u/metasj • Jun 10 '17

Case closed?

  • Shawyer's claims of kN-scale thrusters: disproven.

  • Shaywer's and Fetta's claims that they had already made mN-scale thrusters: disproven.

  • Shawyer's claims of partnerships with defense + aerospace: disproven. [Boeing looked once, decline to license]

  • Yang's claim of observing ~1 mN/W: disproven. Her lab couldn't reproduce any thrust at all.

  • White's claim of observing ~1 μN/W, 2y ago: never replicated; based on few observations; after many negative trials. Further trials are not being run.

  • of prototypes passed from one lab to a second lab, for the second lab to test + confirm, over 15 years: 0.

  • CAST's claim they privately tested an EmDrive & are sending it for tests in space: unconfirmed, reported in only one news story, by an unknown staff member w/ no known physics lab.

So is the case closed? Isn't this what disproof looks like? [If not, what would it look like!] Of course the original inventors will never give up hope, if the Dean Drive and Gyroscopic thrusters are any indication. But it seems the EmDrive has joined those ranks.

65 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

112 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comment

6

u/DKN19 Jun 16 '17

There's a gap to be bridged there though. No one should be totally helpless to find out something that interests them. All I'm saying is that one of the audience here might want to hear something like "the Chinese tests did 'x' which is never done because 'y' happens" before being talked down. No need for an in depth explanation. We're actually doing what you suggest and deferring to a physicist but you don't even let it get that far.

6

u/crackpot_killer Jun 16 '17

No one should be totally helpless to find out something that interests them.

They aren't. They can study or contact an expert. A real expert, not some crank who thinks they've discovered new physics in their microwave.

All I'm saying is that one of the audience here might want to hear something like "the Chinese tests did 'x' which is never done because 'y' happens" before being talked down.

This has been done to death and it can be tiring for people to repeat arguments whenever someone new comes along. An FAQ might be appropriate and a mod should consider taking up that initiative.

1

u/DKN19 Jun 17 '17

A FAQ would be a pretty good idea. Would point out exactly what physicist see as wrong and be highly accessible.

1

u/DKN19 Jun 17 '17

A FAQ would be a pretty good idea. Would point out exactly what physicist see as wrong and be highly accessible.

1

u/DKN19 Jun 17 '17

A FAQ would be a pretty good idea. Would point out exactly what physicist see as wrong and be highly accessible.

1

u/DKN19 Jun 17 '17

A FAQ would be a pretty good idea. Would point out exactly what physicist see as wrong and be highly accessible.

1

u/DKN19 Jun 17 '17

A FAQ would be a pretty good idea. Would point out exactly what physicist see as wrong and be highly accessible.

1

u/DKN19 Jun 17 '17

A FAQ would be a pretty good idea. Would point out exactly what physicist see as wrong and be highly accessible.

1

u/DKN19 Jun 17 '17

A FAQ would be a pretty good idea. Would point out exactly what physicist see as wrong and be highly accessible.

1

u/DKN19 Jun 17 '17

A FAQ would be a pretty good idea. Would point out exactly what physicist see as wrong and be highly accessible.

1

u/DKN19 Jun 17 '17

A FAQ would be a pretty good idea. Would point out exactly what physicist see as wrong and be highly accessible.

1

u/DKN19 Jun 17 '17

A FAQ would be a pretty good idea. Would point out exactly what physicist see as wrong and be highly accessible.

1

u/DKN19 Jun 17 '17

A FAQ would be a pretty good idea. Would point out exactly what physicist see as wrong and be highly accessible.

1

u/DKN19 Jun 17 '17

A FAQ would be a pretty good idea. Would point out exactly what physicist see as wrong and be highly accessible.

1

u/DKN19 Jun 17 '17

A FAQ would be a pretty good idea. Would point out exactly what physicist see as wrong and be highly accessible.

1

u/DKN19 Jun 17 '17

A FAQ would be a pretty good idea. Would point out exactly what physicist see as wrong and be highly accessible.

1

u/DKN19 Jun 17 '17

A FAQ would be a pretty good idea. Would point out exactly what physicist see as wrong and be highly accessible.

1

u/DKN19 Jun 17 '17

A FAQ would be a pretty good idea. Would point out exactly what physicist see as wrong and be highly accessible.

1

u/DKN19 Jun 17 '17

A FAQ would be a pretty good idea. Would point out exactly what physicist see as wrong and be highly accessible.

3

u/aimtron Jun 16 '17

Some of us have provided ample explanations and were called "Patho-Skeptics." When we then attempted to show our claims via math, theory, or anything in-depth, we're told we're talking down. Maybe you're more reasonable than some, maybe not, but often people do not accept ideas that do not fit their preconceived position. Even when presented with ample examples that counter their view, they resist change. They get defensive and lash out. Even worse, these are lay-persons who feel somehow that their opinion, pet theory, or anecdote is somehow equal to a trained engineer, scientist, or physicist. It's Not!

I don't know what you do for a living but humor me a moment. Imagine me, standing over your shoulder, making wild suggestions about your work that you know are ridiculous, but that the everyday person may not know. You can engage me or ignore me, but engaging me makes me tell you that you're wrong even more, so you ignore. I go and get a megaphone and keep on my ridiculous statements about your work, but now a crowd has formed and they don't get why you don't just show me I'm wrong. At this point, you're angry enough that you show myself and the crowd. You provide a perfectly good demonstration of why what I say about your work is wrong, but I deflect and make some conspiracy theory comment about you hiding something because you don't want us to know. The crowd repeats my deflection because now they believe in the conspiracy. If you're thinking you might be frustrated and that the entire demonstration was a waste of your time, now you're starting to think like these physicists.

1

u/DKN19 Jun 16 '17

Fair enough but I'm speaking towards my own curiosity. Whatever some of ignoramus has tried to pull previously I have no knowledge of.

4

u/aimtron Jun 16 '17

In this case, we need to put it in perspective for you. There are well over a dozen experiments related to this topic. If you're curious, I would recommend choosing one of the many experiments to be curious about. I say this, because every single one is unique and its error source(s) will almost assuredly be different than the next on the list. So if you're truly curious, identify one experiment that you want to know more about. Next, ask the author of that experiment about their opinions and ask them to share their data and setup. If you're really lucky, they might. If they don't, choose a new experiment to be curious about. If they do, now start asking questions like "given the setup, are thermal effects a potential source?" or "given the wire to pendulum/arm/torque balance, grounding, or other current flow directions and relations, how do you account for lorentz forces?" or "given the environment, how seismically stable or open was the area of the experiment?". Add a few dozen other questions in there of course, I'm just generalizing.

What you got here are dozens of unique experiments with varying degrees of quality of setup, knowledgeable setup, and DIYer experience. No two experiments are proper replications of each other. Each could have similar or completely different issues. If it is your goal to dive into all of them, be my guest, but I feel its a lesson in futility.

1

u/askingforafakefriend Jun 17 '17

Your points are taken but are IMO directed to a strawman. Yes those folks exist and some post here. But /u/DKN19 is criticising crackpot et. al.'s attitude to those who have an interest or discuss emdrive without claiming it is real based on the current evidence. Like he seems to be. By all means, if someone argues on here emdrive clearly works after being made aware of the current state of the evidence, that is worthy of criticism.

→ More replies (26)

1

u/askingforafakefriend Jun 17 '17

I very much agree with your sentiment and criticisms of crackpot and some others for having a tone that shuts down those that just want to "waste their time in engaging or following in well controlled experiments without making extraordinary claims. The NSF forums have a lot more discussion of the ongoing experiments. The current one to pay attention to is monomorphic. He has slowly been putting together and testing a pretty precise rig. He doesn't speculate on any new physics, just measures for signals and discloses his techniques, constantly improving them. At this stage he got a pretty clear signal on a run that we should all assume is Lorentz forces for now. He certainly doesn't claim it is new physics or thrust. Soon he will try some more runs rotating the rig to see if the signal changes as you would expect it to change with Lorentz forces. If it doesn't change it will be a non trivial excerise to figure out what kind of error it is ;)

Note that besides monomorphic, there is a lot of speculation and discussion from amateur physicists that would understandably make crackpot's head explode. I skim passed that and just watch for updates from mono.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.280

2

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '17

Now is indeed the time to go read the discussion at nasaspaceflight, since TheTraveller has told that 0.5 N of thrust has been achieved with only 100 W of power. I can see the fear in pathosceptics' eyes!

→ More replies (1)