This will end very soon like the cold fusion dis after everyone got a laugh out of it. This kind of stuff shouldn't even be posted for it will be shown, after peer review, it just doesn't work.
Electromagnetic Drive Produces Thrust in Vacuum: NASA:
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
None of the measurements have been consistent with each other and none match any theoretical prediction, so no, there has been no reproduction.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Well,trying to be strictly fair, you don't need to match something with theory to have a reproducible observation. And if the measurements are inconsistent but all show the same qualitative effect, then there remains something to account for. But my sentiments are with you. I suspect it will turn to be an artifact of some kind. Certainly the explanation so far given sounds quite implausible.
I think this stuff _should_ be posted (and discussed, and researched.) Out of ten cold fusion/FTL particle/reactionless thruster/Xray/whatever seemingly-unlikely discoveries, one may well work - and change the world.
But as yet none do. So why waste the time just get whatever it is peer reviewed before posting laughable , meaningless crap about whatever it is they come up with.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
I don't quite follow. Who has posted "laughable meaningless crap" in this thread? It seems fairly rational and well-considered to me.
I didn't see "laughable, meaningless crap." I see an experimental anomaly that needs an explanation, carried out by reliable researchers. So people will propose hypotheses, perform experiments and come to conclusions about that - which is how science works. It will probably turn out to be a measurement error. But if not - then we have a pretty significant discovery on our hands. That's how X-rays, ionizing radiation and microwave ovens were discovered/developed - a researcher did something, got an unexpected result, said "hmm, that's odd" and worked to determine where the result came from.
This electromagnetic drive is , to me, crap and over time it will show that I'm right. So where are all of the peer reviews about this drive...??
I know: "reproducible" is a reference to repeating an experimental result. But since they don't have that, matching a prediction would be a good alternative.
If there is such a thing as a "qualitative effect", this wouldn't be one: thrust is quantitative.
Last edited:
With infinite time and funding it would make sense to research every idea. But because both are finite, research should be prioritized based on risk/reward.
And "change the world" potential isn't something that is actually known. Even for the extremely well understood fission and hot fusion, fission did not live up to the hype and hot fusion probably won't either. But at least those were understood: since nobody has any idea if cold fusion is real, nobody has any idea what its potential actually is. At this point, one of its primary claimed benefits is essentially magic (nuclear reaction without radiation/radioactivity).
That's not what the "researchers" are saying,and their "reliability" is not generally regarded as high, largely for that reason.
This thread doesn't go into detail, so there is no actual "crap" in it, it's just a detached discussion of some news about crap.
As far as I can tell there has been nothing released officially for peer review yet.., and since it is NASA funded research it may be awhile, if ever.., especially if it looks like there is any potential for useable thrust.
Forget the theoretical basis. Devices along these lines claiming thrust results have been around for a while and it has taken the resources of NASA to conduct a hard vacuum test. From information that was discussed in the earlier thread and related papers and discussion groups, the NASA Eagleworks group has spent a small amount of $$ to test, I think initially three versions, reduced to one perhaps for this latest hard vacuum test, so money is not a big issue. What we are hearing now seems to be the result of leaks and limited indirect information from the principals of that (hard vacuum) test, which if accurate obviously requires a great deal of data re-examination and repeating the test(s). It might not be reasonable to expect independent verification, from outside NASA, since it was my understanding the hard vacuum environment equipement is NASA's.
If NASA believes it has a functional interplanetary (or even just satellite drive) mechanism, even useable only in low gravity, do you really believe critical details are going to be released, before it has been put into use.., if not by NASA, then by the DOD?
It was my impression that the original conference progress report, was not really intended for peer or public review. It was a progress report from a low budget NASA propulsion research group, that has been run to extremes by the press and knee jerk popular reaction.
If they wind up with something, we will have more leaks of non critical information. If not we will probably hear nothing and just keep rehashing the hyped press reports, we've already heard.., every once in a while.
Forget the theoretical basis. Devices along these lines claiming thrust results have been around for a while and it has taken the resources of NASA to conduct a hard vacuum test. From information that was discussed in the earlier thread and related papers and discussion groups, the NASA Eagleworks group has spent a small amount of $$ to test, I think initially three versions, reduced to one perhaps for this latest hard vacuum test, so money is not a big issue. What we are hearing now seems to be the result of leaks and limited indirect information from the principals of that (hard vacuum) test, which if accurate obviously requires a great deal of data re-examination and repeating the test(s). It might not be reasonable to expect independent verification, from outside NASA, since it was my understanding the hard vacuum environment equipement is NASA's.
If NASA believes it has a functional interplanetary (or even just satellite drive) mechanism, even useable only in low gravity, do you really believe critical details are going to be released, before it has been put into use.., if not by NASA, then by the DOD?
It was my impression that the original conference progress report, was not really intended for peer or public review. It was a progress report from a low budget NASA propulsion research group, that has been run to extremes by the press and knee jerk popular reaction.
If they wind up with something, we will have more leaks of non critical information. If not we will probably hear nothing and just keep rehashing the hyped press reports, we've already heard.., every once in a while.
And worthy of consideration until shown otherwise, despite the usual from the usual.
Agreed, but I don't believe that will happen.Characteristic aggression, against all things not dead center mainstream?
Not at all, but I am able to understand why you would think that.
It's the maladies some are afflicted with that tends to see them rail against anything mainstream...you know the ones...delusions of grandeur, conspiracy adherents. fanatical anti establishment bias.
And they will be duly informed of their afflictions and the stupidity it conveys in whatever manner it takes.
Mainstream thinking is mainstream thinking for a particular reason...It is considered to be the most likely, most sensible outcome or model available, by the vast majority....
Even mainstream thinking on forums such as this with regards to individuals are by the same token the most likely and obvious.
eg:
Characteristic aggression, against all things not dead center mainstream?
Not at all, but I am able to understand why you would think that.
It's the maladies some are afflicted with that tends to see them rail against anything mainstream...you know the ones...delusions of grandeur, conspiracy adherents. fanatical anti establishment bias.
And they will be duly informed of their afflictions and the stupidity it conveys in whatever manner it takes.
Mainstream thinking is mainstream thinking for a particular reason...It is considered to be the most likely, most sensible outcome or model available, by the vast majority....
Even mainstream thinking on forums such as this with regards to individuals are by the same token the most likely and obvious.
eg:
...more unwarranted personal attacks...
...and re-Posting unwarranted personal attacks...from other Tro...err..."members"...from other threads...
...is this your version of the Scientific Method?
Possibly you may be right...and possibly you may be wrong.
Of course you are entitled to believe and think what you will, but I have also been in debates with you re future space endeavours particularly stellar travel
What do you believe should be tried and experimented with?
Have you heard of JPL? They are experimenting and theoretically evaluating with many alternative propulsion methods, including, wait for it...spacetime warpage and/or manipulation for stellar travel. Of course as they admit themselves, at this time, that positive results in that research is a long long way off...nuclear propulsion, solar sails and other type of drives are also being investigated.
Where do you believe we should stop the experimenting? where should we stop the spending? Don't you believe that any success in these ventures will be beneficial to mankind? And consequently beneficial to the poor, the hungry and starving on our planet.
Do you realise how much the simple initial beginnings of the space age has benefited us? Satellites I am speaking of.
There is not many areas of human every day life, that these rather mundane man made moons have not had a effect.
Why do you want to hog tie and restrain any scientific cosmological endeavour, which it appears to me what you want.
Robots and robotic craft are hand in glove with man's ventures into the cosmos..they blaze the way and even go where we will never be able to go. But they are not a permanent substitute.
I just continually see your reaction to space travel and endeavours as rather sad.
We will go. To the Moon again, to Mars and beyond, and to the stars.....A time frame is difficult, but just look how far we have come in the last 150 years.
Pot... kettle... Black....Possibly?
I'll let our online peers be the best judge.
Goodbye my friend.
Bingo! Until it is validated or invalidated one way or the other, all we can do is wait.
Like I said, an Interesting article.
There was a thread about this same 'work' about a year ago, with the conclusion that there was nothing to it.
Not entirely true!
The earlier thread is linked earlier in this one. It was a thread centering on press release and blog comment about a conference progress report for a presentation by the NASA Eagleworks group. The paper was just that a progress report and most of the skepticism and objection was based on knee jerk reactions. The paper gave little to no theoretical basis, little real detail and was essentially an update on where they were in the process of setting up a hard vacuum test, of three versions of what has been labeled an EM drive... But without knowing how the thing works, if it does work in hard vacuum, as suggested by the current hyped up conjecture, by persons outside the working group.., everything is just that knee jerk hyped up speculative conjecture.
That said, I agree that Shawyer's original EM based explanation did not seem to pass muster! And I never could figure out how the Chinese thought their version worked. So perhaps the name -EM Drive - is what started all the negative response rolling, in the absence of any real facts!