Electromagnetic Drive Produces Thrust in Vacuum: NASA:

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by paddoboy, May 5, 2015.

  1. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    NOTE: Following posts #141-#156 are in-sequence restorations of originals, all on p8, following crash. Minor formatting changes unavoidable.

    paddoboy, Nov 5, 8:31AM
    Latest updates. Still some mystery.....

    Interesting videos available....notably the second.

    NASA confirms that the ‘impossible’ EmDrive thruster really works, after new tests

    By Rick StellaNovember 3, 2015 11:55 AM
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Russ_Watters, Nov 5, 11:47AM
    So by their own admission, their wild goose chase (searching in vain for zero) hasn't been able to eliminate known errors and yet they call that a confirmation? Yawn.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    rpenner, Nov 5, 6:23PM
    Eagleworks is not and never has been "NASA" any more than a pimple on your butt should be polled as to what you think about organic chemistry.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Q-reeus, Nov 5, 6:31PM
    As before, this latest update post #141 is strangely absent any opinion commentary. Reflecting a conflict between extremely narrow, low-level physics capability, and a carried-over boyhood fascination with renewed hopes of "breakthrough science that's gunna send 'us' to thah stars!"

    My own reaction is not near so quiet because I am not near so limited. This latest news merely confirms the prediction made in #12. And as per #71 and later, current articles remarks that 'Newton should worry' and that 'the results cannot be explained by classical EM' are both wrong. John Baez and other scoffers resorting to naive 'photons as bullets flying around inside a container' and similar, will sooner or later have to back down and retract. Question is when not if.
  8. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    paddoboy, Nov 5, 8:20PM
    And I'm sure if and when that time should occur, they'll do exactly that, unlike other whinging delusional "know alls" that strut their stuff on a science forum, unable to do any better.
    Further updates when available will be forthcoming.
  9. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    OnlyMe, Nov 6, 2:21AM
    Is it just some funding relationship that results in statements like the following, which imply a relationship between Egalworks and NASA?

    The portion in bold at least implies a Eagalworks/NASA relationship.


    Not NASA, but somehow constrained by NASA publication rules?
  10. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Walter L. Wagner, Nov 6, 3:02AM
    Yeah, they read you have to have a verifiable effect before you can do a NASA press release, otherwise it is a NADA press release?
  11. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    origin, Nov 6, 3:12AM
    I think this "press release" was some information that came from a post on their forum. I could be wrong I only skimmed the article.
  12. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    OnlyMe, Nov 6, 3:59AM
    I don't think it is a press release.

    More like an inventive reporter short on published material to fill a quota.
  13. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Q-reeus, Nov 6, 3:16PM
    These days, there are things called web browsers. I have one, most do. In said browsers search bar, I typed in 'nasa eagleworks', and 3rd, 6th entries gave links:
    That sort of thing tends to save any number of useless speculative posts about say 'possible connections'. I recommend such a strategy. Also recommend discussing the actual physics of the subject sometime.
  14. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    OnlyMe, Nov 6, 4:11PM
    I haven't seen anything of substance since the conference paper, a year ago? Maybe something new will turn up, I think Paul may have implied as much in his initial disclaimer, on the discussion group... But even that may be wishful thinking.
  15. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Russ_Watters, Nov 6, 4:19PM
    I'm not sure your web browser is working properly: those two papers are 4 years old.
  16. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Russ_Watters, Nov 6, 4:22PM
    I think you misunderstood his point: The article says "NASA Confirms..." Eagleworks is a part of NASA, but a post on a discussion board is in no way an official NASA statement. "NASA" hasn't said, much less "confirmed" anything here.
  17. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Q-reeus, Nov 6, 4:35PM
    It is currently overloaded with too many tabs, but that isn't related to those links. Which neatly and ever so easily addressed, as per hint, the useless speculative posts regarding 'possible connections' between NASA (a sprawling conglomerate), and one of it's obvious subsidiaries - Eagleworks. Dates are in that context unimportant.
    And btw while the 2nd linked article is nearly 4 yo, maybe your browser has issues because the clearly shown date for first linked article is April 29, 2015 - months not years old. Anyway I see your #153 acknowledges what I was addressing. The idea Eagleworks is some kind of rogue outfit having no supervisory oversight from higher up NASA honchos is a bit of a stretch imo.

    Best translation of 'gag order' is likely that the unexpected by most Eagleworks results have drawn huge amounts of flack from the J.Baez's of this world, and image conscious NASA is in conservative PR mode.
  18. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Russ_Watters, Nov 6, 4:42PM
    From post #12:
    Annoying hypocritical coyness aside, there are two ways of looking at this:
    1. Every test that doesn't report exactly zero "confirms a non-zero result".
    2. Every test that reports a number within the known or speculated margin for error confirms a zero result.

    What makes these Eagleworks guys bad at science is they are blithely reporting #1, when #2 is the proper way to look at what they've found. They haven't proven anomalous thrust, they've proven there is no anomalous thrust! And so your prediction that they'd confirm non-zero results is similarly wrong.
    Since they aren't speaking via official NASA communications, that is exactly what this latest blurb from them is telling us.

    I was referring to the second part:
    Since no new physics has been provided to discuss, all we can do is discuss the continued failure to provide new physics and the bad reporting of that fact.
  19. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Q-reeus, Nov 6, 5:24PM
    Excuse me? Who is actually being a selective hypocrite here? Have you conveniently already overlooked my immediate follow-on in #144 to referencing #71, which in turn addressed #12?
    You are severely distorting things, presumably owing to a fixed sceptical position. My prediction is perfectly correct. They have indeed reported new non-zero results, which is what I claimed would keep happening. And unlike your distorted interpretation, the Eagleworks bods *also* have all the way through, been careful to point out the existence of inevitable sources of error. Which they have been able to substantially reduce though not entirely. No-one ever will because such is impossible in principle. As I stated earlier this thread, there are just too many independent positive results to simply dismiss it all as wishful thinking. Lucky for you a lawsuit from Eagleworks claiming defamation of character is unlikely - who cares about what an amateur critic might claim in a forum such as here.
    Then you are really blaming NASA for at the least lax oversight. But on an incorrect premise as addressed above. The rest of your later edit is irrelevant.
  20. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Good point! And thanks for recovering what was lost. When you started reposting them, I ran back through the discussion and then did a little further looking on line.

    You might be interested in the following from Paul March in another discussion group.

    From: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Page 43, Post 842 Nov. 1, 2015​

    So it looks like there will be a peer reviewed paper.., and details about test results.
  21. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Glad someone appreciates it.
    Interesting to get comments from an Eagleworks member directly involved ('Star-Drive'). They seem to be gradually homing in on where it's all at - which is certainly not in the cone/frustum geometry Shawyer and evidently also Chinese team have been concentrating on.
  22. rpenner Fully Wired Registered Senior Member


    krash661 likes this.
  23. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Wikipedia, which maintains some semblance of balance on this moving target issue, also keeps pretty well up to date: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RF_resonant_cavity_thruster
    Either the Chinese team are grossly incompetent or lying, or telling it truthfully and accurately in claiming measured thrusts up to near a Newton, far above typical error levels.

Share This Page