NASA validates seemingly impossible space thruster

[dumbest man on earth]

@ OnlyMe

Grok'd!

 

[paddoboy]

As far as scale is concerned, in the 1960s computers filled up whole rooms and sometimes whole buildings, while today people the world over carry more powerful computers in a purse or pocket and call them smart phones. Scale is something to consider after you have something worth scaling...

I've only made one comment in this thread at post 4.
Nice post:

 

[Russ_Watters]

Again, now we are at the point where you are seemingly saying we shouldn't even bother testing the speculation out...

That is what I've been saying the entire time. Have I not been clear? The EMDrive is nonsense and NASA should not be testing it!

Microscopic =/= sub-atomic, nor does it accurately represent what happens at the quantum scale.

"Microscopic" is broader: I was fixing the error in your scale. Indeed, microwaves are just about all macroscopic, starting at 1mm wavelength.

Oh, really? So when, for the longest time, conventional wisdom (and scientists of the time) said the Earth was flat, despite some people saying and trying to prove otherwise...

Yeah, just like billvon's try at appealing to crackpot mythology, that one's wrong on the science and history too: the earth was proven round long before science was invented, so no, it was never considered conventional wisdom among scientists that the earth was flat.

The myth of the Flat Earth is the modern misconception that the prevailing cosmological view during the Middle Ages saw the Earth as flat, instead of spherical.[1]

During the early Middle Ages, virtually all scholars maintained the spherical viewpoint first expressed by the Ancient Greeks. From at least the 14th century, belief in a flat Earth among the educated was almost nonexistent....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

It annoys me (not to mention decreases the quality of the forum) when people who don't know science -- and indeed are hostile to it -- try to say how science should work.

When Galileo Galilei tried to claim that the Earth was not, in fact, the center of the solar system, and was essentially placed under house arrest for saying so... that was not people clinging to what was comfortable?

Yes: and they were religious leaders, not scientists.

I will disregard anyone who says that testing something new or in a new way is somehow wrong. They are fools of the highest caliber.

Right: so this isn't about trusting in people with credentials to you -- you'll only believe the person making the exciting claim (because it is exciting?). So asking me mine was a red herring. You want NASA to test any idea, no matter how stupid it is. I see that as a waste of money. You're entitled to your opinion as I am mine on how NASA should spend my money and we'll have to agree to disagree on that, but what isn't a matter of opinion is that your way is unscientific.

I fail to see the parallel.

The parallel is in that you are vastly overconfident in the odds of success.

*cough* Alright Bellarmine...

Crackpot index score: 40 points for a comparison to the Inquisition.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

Again: you are behaving unscientifically here.

Ah, slippery slope fallacy.

I don't think you know your fallacies. There is no slope here: you've already basically said you want any idea tested no matter how dumb it looks at face value.

So, because one idea that some people think is poor had enough merit for NASA to let a team of scientists tests, this somehow means that we will now start testing everything for Victor Esperenza's Veeg Holes to see if they really are what holds matter together, hm?

That is what you appear to be suggesting, yes. As with my inquiry to billvon, if you have any standards, then please, tell me what they are. Where is the line for you? Just how dumb does an idea have to be before NASA should ignore it?

 

[Russ_Watters]

Most of the objections have been comming from a perceived threat of how the claims might challenge currently accepted theoretical assumptions.

You are mistaken. It isn't fear of a threat, it is incredulity that a dumb idea could actually be true that is driving the objections. This wrong perception of yours has similar anti-science overtones to what Kittamaru is suggesting.

 

[OnlyMe]

You are mistaken. It isn't fear of a threat, it is incredulity that a dumb idea could actually be true that is driving the objections. This wrong perception of yours has similar anti-science overtones to what Kittamaru is suggesting.

Russ, you lost the high ground on that argument.., and yes I meant argument, there is no discussion.., a long while back.

 

[paddoboy]

wrong thread:

 

[Russ_Watters]

Russ, you lost the high ground on that argument.., and yes I meant argument, there is no discussion.., a long while back.

1. I wasn't making an argument there, I was stating the feeling behind my opinion -- that your belief of what it is is wrong. I'm not afraid of existing science being wrong, indeed, scientific progress is a wonderful thing and I feel privileged to be alive in such a Golden Age for science. And that goes especially for interplanetary/interstellar travel: I'm a Star Trek fan and there is nothing I'd more like to see. I don't fear what NASA is researching, I yearn for it. Regardless:

2. How so? When have I shown my opinion to be based on fear and/or "lost the high ground on that argument" (what argument?)?

I do agree thought that this thread is not a discussion -- it is not a discussable topic. It isn't scientific.

 

[Kittamaru]

That is what I've been saying the entire time. Have I not been clear? The EMDrive is nonsense and NASA should not be testing it!

To which I again say: What gives you or anyone who has not tested the device the right to say so? There is no reason to believe that all current and existing theories are 100% correct.

"Microscopic" is broader: I was fixing the error in your scale. Indeed, microwaves are just about all macroscopic, starting at 1mm wavelength.

Yet if they are claiming any kind of quantum interaction, wouldn't that directly necessitate an interaction at the sub-atomic scale? I apologize if I am wrong here - I have always heard the idea of the sub atomic or quantum scale being used to reference interactions at the most basic level of matter.

Yeah, just like billvon's try at appealing to crackpot mythology, that one's wrong on the science and history too: the earth was proven round long before science was invented, so no, it was never considered conventional wisdom among scientists that the earth was flat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

My apologies - I recall learning about the "flat earth theory" and Galileo's imprisonment therein during my high school Astronomy courses. They would appear to be mistaken. Thank you for enlightening me.

None the less, he WAS incarcerated for his heliocentric views, during a time of geocentrism

The decree of 1616
The Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina prompted the papal authorities to decide whether heliocentrism was acceptable. Galileo was summoned to Rome to defend his position. The Church accepted the use of heliocentrism as a calculating device, but opposed it as a literal description of the solar system. Cardinal Robert Bellarmine himself considered that Galileo's model made "excellent good sense" on the ground of mathematical simplicity; that is, as a hypothesis (see above). And he said:

"If there were a real proof that the Sun is in the center of the universe, that the Earth is in the third sphere, and that the Sun does not go round the Earth but the Earth round the Sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and we should rather have to say that we did not understand them than declare an opinion false which has been proved to be true. But I do not think there is any such proof since none has been shown to me."

—Koestler (1959), p. 447–448
Bellarmine supported a ban on the teaching of the idea as anything but hypothesis. In 1616 he delivered to Galileo the papal command not to "hold or defend" the heliocentric idea.[68] The Vatican files suggest that Galileo was forbidden to teach heliocentrism in any way whatsoever, but whether this ban was known to Galileo is a matter of dispute.

Thus, the point is still relevant.

It annoys me (not to mention decreases the quality of the forum) when people who don't know science -- and indeed are hostile to it -- try to say how science should work.

So you disagree that science should be done with an open mind?

Yes: and they were religious leaders, not scientists.

See above

Right: so this isn't about trusting in people with credentials to you -- you'll only believe the person making the exciting claim (because it is exciting?). So asking me mine was a red herring. You want NASA to test any idea, no matter how stupid it is. I see that as a waste of money. You're entitled to your opinion as I am mine on how NASA should spend my money and we'll have to agree to disagree on that, but what isn't a matter of opinion is that your way is unscientific.

No, they should not test just any idea, no matter how stupid (as I stated later in the same post). Rather, if an idea has merit then they should test it, no matter if it appears to go against currently held values. See again - heliocentric vs geocentric.

The parallel is in that you are vastly overconfident in the odds of success.

No, I am incredibly confident in the odds of something new being learned from it.

Crackpot index score: 40 points for a comparison to the Inquisition.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

Interesting... I would presume you are using this point:
quote=crackpot index previously referenced]35) 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.[/quote]
No, I do not believe there is any modern-day Inquisition hard at work on their case... this is because, thankfully, people like you aren't in charge of deciding what the folks at NASA get to do.

Again: you are behaving unscientifically here.

I don't think you know your fallacies. There is no slope here: you've already basically said you want any idea tested no matter how dumb it looks at face value.

Really? Lets recap:

As I said, I am going to put my faith in the ones that A) Have the knowledge and training to know, B) Have the device on hand to test, and C) Have the equipment to properly test such a device.

A better way to say it would be:
What is worse... for them to spend money and time on this and a million other obviously terrible ideas and find out it doesn't work... or for them to not do so and have this be something that could have worked?
See, if we open-up the floodgates so anyone willing to put in a few hours to build a website can have their idea tested by NASA, we'll be counting the waste by the billions.

Again, now we are at the point where you are seemingly saying we shouldn't even bother testing the speculation out...
Ah, slippery slope fallacy. Classic. So, because one idea that some people think is poor had enough merit for NASA to let a team of scientists tests, this somehow means that we will now start testing everything for Victor Esperenza's Veeg Holes to see if they really are what holds matter together, hm?

I stated that if the people with the experience and training in this field decide that something is worth pursuing/testing, then they should do so and I trust them to do their jobs.
You stated that this will "open the floodgates" and cause NASA to test every idea created by anyone with a website, no matter its merits.
I stated that this is a slippery slope fallacy.

Slippery Slope: This is a conclusion based on the premise that if A happens, then eventually through a series of small steps, through B, C,..., X, Y, Z will happen, too, basically equating A and Z. So, if we don't want Z to occur, A must not be allowed to occur either. Example:
If we ban Hummers because they are bad for the environment eventually the government will ban all cars, so we should not ban Hummers.

If NASA tests an idea that seems to contradict "conventional wisdom", then they will waste money testing all ideas no matter their merit... yeah, seems to fit the criteria for a slippery slope fallacy to me.

That is what you appear to be suggesting, yes. As with my inquiry to billvon, if you have any standards, then please, tell me what they are. Where is the line for you? Just how dumb does an idea have to be before NASA should ignore it?

Where is the line for me? Simple; there is none. Why? Because I, personally, have no right to draw that line. Neither do you. This line should be drawn by the men and women who have experience in this field; the very same ones who are testing the device now. If you feel they are incapable of making this judgement, feel free to right a nastygram to the NASA administration and let them know you would like these people removed.

 

[Russ_Watters]

To which I again say: What gives you or anyone who has not tested the device the right to say so?

Freedom of thought and my vote.

There is no reason to believe that all current and existing theories are 100% correct.

Agreed. I don't know why you keep saying such things: I've never suggested anything of the sort.

Yet if they are claiming any kind of quantum interaction, wouldn't that directly necessitate an interaction at the sub-atomic scale?

They explicitly declined to delve into the theory, only giving a hint in a buzzword that they invented and sounds to respected scientists like technoabble. The only current "theory" is on Shawyer's EMDrive website and doesn't rely on QM, just misunderstandings of conservation of momentum and SR.

None the less, he WAS incarcerated for his heliocentric views, during a time of geocentrism

Thus, the point is still relevant.

By priests, not by scientists: thus the point is still a red herring. You know this: that's why you tried to use an example of where scientists were wrong.

So you disagree that science should be done with an open mind?

No, I certainly do not. Science should be done with an open and thoughtful mind.

No, they should not test just any idea, no matter how stupid (as I stated later in the same post). Rather, if an idea has merit then they should test it, no matter if it appears to go against currently held values.

So I ask again: by what criteria should they make such a judgement?

No, I am incredibly confident in the odds of something new being learned from it.

Something new about how the universe works? Yes, I know: and you are very, very, very wrong.

No, I do not believe there is any modern-day Inquisition hard at work on their case... this is because, thankfully, people like you aren't in charge of deciding what the folks at NASA get to do.

Just a scared, angry mob of dogmatic scientists, I suppose. What will you say if a major journal declines to publish it? Because these are the sorts of people who will be judging the "case". Again: it may have been reasonable on the first day this thread was open to dismiss me as a dogmatic dark-ages priest, but it isn't reasonable today after several respected scientists have come out saying exactly the same things. You are calling them dogmatic dark-ages priests as well.

I stated that if the people with the experience and training in this field decide that something is worth pursuing/testing, then they should do so and I trust them to do their jobs.

You stated that this will "open the floodgates" and cause NASA to test every idea created by anyone with a website, no matter its merits.

I didn't say it will I said that your posts suggest it should.

Where is the line for me? Simple; there is none. Why? Because I, personally, have no right to draw that line. Neither do you.

As a taxpayer, I most certainly do have a right to a say in/opinion of how my tax dollars are spent.

This line should be drawn by the men and women who have experience in this field; the very same ones who are testing the device now.

As we agreed earlier, neither you nor I know what their mandate/motivation is. All we can do is speculate and judge what it might be based on what they tested. Since the idea they tested is worse than the Rossi Reactor scam and giving them the benefit of the doubt, I conclude they have given a broad mandate - a quality standard of zero - and had no choice but to pick-out the best piece of garbage from the landfill due to that mandate.

 

[Arne Saknussemm]

To which I again say: What gives you or anyone who has not tested the device the right to say so? There is no reason to believe that all current and existing theories are 100% correct.

Precisely! I have kept out of this thread until now because first there was that long, completely off topic, pointless digression about whether people could stand long space voyages.

Then there were all the members that just said,"Impossible! Impossible! Impossible!" But how can some laptop pundits know better than NASA and independent Chinese scientists?

Sure, they can be mistaken, but they have the benefit of actually working on it and observing and figuring it out for themselves. Does any one really think the EM drive will get built full-scale, sent into space and go pppffffftttt..... and NASA will say, "Gosh golly! How'd that happen?" No, theyll test and experiment first.

Something they won't do is say, "Hang on! Why are we knocking ourselves out testing this drive spending time, money and energy when we can just log into SciForums and see what those those righteous mofos think? By gum! They'll know!"

Too often SciForum is dominated by arrogant know-it-alls that cannot conceive of being wrong. It may well be that the ion drive is 'technically impossible', but how is badgering, insulting and talking down to everyone going to prove your point? People who do so are trying to teach, but have no teaching skills. You cannot convince any one of anything with anger and arrogance and condensation.You cannot call yourself scientists when you never consider new possibilities.

I've always liked what Captain Nemo said in one film version of Jules Verne's 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea:

'Impossible' is a word in a dictionary for fools.


n.b. Thanks again Monsieur Verne for inventing my namesake: Arne Saknussemm.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Just so we're clear on my alignment with respected scientists on this issue:

1. The idea itself is really, really bad.
2. NASA's investigation of the idea was very poorly done.

John Baez made exactly the same points:

My last post on the NASA "quantum vacuum plasma thruster" was mainly about the shoddy theory behind it - like how there's no such thing as a "quantum vacuum plasma"....

Unfortunately, the experiment has problems too.

https://plus.google.com/117663015413546257905/posts/C7vx2G85kr4

And on just how really bad this idea is:

This would violate conservation of momentum. It's like sitting inside a car and making it roll forwards by pushing on the steering wheel. Standard physics doesn't allow this. He didn't claim to be using anything other than standard physics.

So: ho hum, just another guy with a really bad idea. I get emails like this all the time.

And then the gloves come off:

This is baloney too - but now it's graduate-level baloney. "Quantum vacuum virtual plasma" is something you'd say if you failed a course in quantum field theory and then smoked too much weed. There's no such thing as "virtual plasma". If you want to report experimental results that seem to violate the known laws of physics, fine. But it doesn't help your credibility to make up goofy pseudo-explanations.

 

[OnlyMe]

Ok so there is no technical detail about the NASA device/mechanism and probably won't be any, any time soon if at all. I never even looked at any detail Shawyer has put out, but from what Russ has said it does not sound like anything I would want to invest much time in. Does anyone know if there is any detail available about the Chinese test? I mean technical detail or paper.

Baez looses some credibility on the issue when he dumps the whole argument about the use of terms, as in complaining about the use of "quantum virtual plasma"... What is plasma? And if one accepts the idea that the quantum vacuum or vacuum energy includes virtual particles, though it is perhaps inelegant could not those virtual particles represent a virtual plasma?

As I read this issue from the start, my guess was that NASA having known about Shawyer's proposal and the Chinese experiment, sat back and thought.., you know even though this is way out there on a limb, it would be better to fund some testing of our own than wake up down the road having missed the boat.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Ok so there is no technical detail about the NASA device/mechanism and probably won't be any, any time soon if at all. I never even looked at any detail Shawyer has put out, but from what Russ has said it does not sound like anything I would want to invest much time in.

Here's a link to his website: http://www.emdrive.com/
There isn't much on it, so if you were so inclined, it wouldn't take long to read.

Does anyone know if there is any detail available about the Chinese test? I mean technical detail or paper.

Yes, the paper is available:
http://www.emdrive.com/NWPU2010translation.pdf

Baez looses some credibility on the issue when he dumps the whole argument about the use of terms, as in complaining about the use of "quantum virtual plasma"...

How many reputable scientists saying the same things does it take before it is the experimenter's work that loses credibility and not the people criticizing it?

What is plasma? And if one accepts the idea that the quantum vacuum or vacuum energy includes virtual particles, though it is perhaps inelegant could not those virtual particles represent a virtual plasma?

It is incumbent upon the person claiming new physics to explain the new physics, and it hasn't been done. However, it is tough to conceive of how they could be like a plasma, which is a state of matter that is basically a hot gas, which doesn't make any sense in the context of virtual particles. So like Baez (and others) have said, the term appears thrown together and meaningless.

As I read this issue from the start, my guess was that NASA having known about Shawyer's proposal and the Chinese experiment, sat back and thought.., you know even though this is way out there on a limb, it would be better to fund some testing of our own than wake up down the road having missed the boat.

Yes, that's my perception as well. I suggest you read Shawyer's page -- it may just give you an appreciation for just how far out on that limb it is.

 

[Kittamaru]

As a taxpayer, I most certainly do have a right to a say in/opinion of how my tax dollars are spent.

Don't have time to respond to the whole post right now (about to head into work) but allow me to laugh uproariously at this notion...
No, sadly, here in 'Murica we seem to have zero right to a say in how our tax dollars are spent... if we did, we would have more teachers, better schools, better maintained road, electrical grid, and water supply infrastructure, and a host of other things... instead, we get this:

The U.S. military budget is $756.4 billion for FY 2015. This includes:

$495.6 billion for the base budget of the Department of Defense (DoD).
$85.4 billion for Overseas Contingency Funds for the wind-down of the War in Afghanistan.
$175.4 billion for defense-related agencies and functions. This includes the Veterans Administration ($65.3 billion), the State Department ($42.6 billion), Homeland Security ($38.2 billion), FBI and Cybersecurity in the Department of Justice ($17.6 billion), and the National Nuclear Security Administration in the Department of Energy ($11.7 billion).
That makes military spending the second largest Federal government expenditure, after Social Security ($896 billion). Military spending is dropping, thanks to sequestration and the end of the War in Iraq in 2011. It's all-time high was $851.3 billion in FY 2010. (Source: Office of Management and Budget, 2015 Budget, Summary Tables, Table S-11)

Military spending is greater than Medicare ($529 billion), Medicaid ($331 billion), or the interest payment on the debt ($251). It's also more than the three next largest departments combined: Health and Human Services ($73.1 billion), Education ($68.6 billion) and Housing and Urban Development ($32.6 billion).

Source - http://useconomy.about.com/od/usfederalbudget/p/military_budget.htm

By compare:

NASA's FY 2011 budget of $18.4 billion represented about 0.5% of the $3.4 trillion United States federal budget during that year, or about 35% of total spending on academic scientific research in the United States.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA

So, if you truly think the 18.4 billion dollars NASA gets to do their stuff with is really a waste, then tell me how you feel about the hundreds of billions the DoD gets to develop new aircraft like the failing F-35 (which they have some funny notion could possibly replace multiple specialized aircraft such as the A-10 Warthog) and the quarter of a trillion dollars we pay in terms of interest on the national debt.

 

[Billy T]

year	who	Watts	Newtons (claimed)	Momentum on mirror by same-wattage laser
2001	Shawyer	850	0.016	0.0000057
2008	Yang Juan, et.al.	2500	0.720	0.000017
2013	Brady, et. al.	28	0.00004	0.00000019
?	?	?	n × 10000	0.00000000667 Newtons per Watt

Tons of force would require 1) the effect is real and 2) scaling it up more than 4 orders of magnitude.

I agree and also think conservation of momentum can't be violated, but making a superconducting microwave cavity would not cost a lot. Then when the RF is applied and it does not blast a hole in the lab's ceiling, we again confirm conservation of momentum can't be violated, despite their "pushing on vacuum polarization particles" in an ultra high Q cavity theory's prediction* of "tons of force." I. e. better to spend a little and bury this dead turkey, once and for all, before more time and money is wasted. - That is my POV, but sure would be nice if I'm wrong and there promptly is a hole in the ceiling.

* see that prediction here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmfPNuhy0mc at about 3.5 minutes into video hear "tons / kW" predicted by Shawyer.

 

[Kittamaru]

I agree and also think conservation of momentum can't be violated, but making a superconducting microwave cavity would not cost a lot. Then when the RF is applied and it does not blast a hole in the lab's ceiling, we again confirm conservation of momentum can't be violated, despite their "pushing on vacuum polarization particles" in an ultra high Q cavity theory's prediction* of "tons of force." I. e. better to spend a little and bury this dead turkey, once and for all, before more time and money is wasted. - That is my POV, but sure would be nice if I'm wrong and there promptly is a hole in the ceiling.

* see that prediction here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmfPNuhy0mc at about 3.5 minutes into video hear "tons / kW" predicted by Shawyer.

Exactly - give it a little spool and see what happens. Once it's been tested, lay it to rest for a while - if new technology emerges that could change the result, retest it then. You can't just test something once and decide it will be that way forever... stuff changes, technology advances, and our understanding of the universe deepens.

 

[OnlyMe]

How many reputable scientists saying the same things does it take before it is the experimenter's work that loses credibility and not the people criticizing it?

Thanks for the link to the Chinese paper...

Everyone is complaining about the NASA abstract without any detailed paper, report etc. And the complaints don't read that NASA is holding back information etc. Which in my opinion as a tax payer doesn't feel right. I'd like to see what my tax dollars are being spent for and you can't tell anything of significance from the abstract and popular lay press release.

How can anyone make a credible review of any possible science, without access to documentation that clearly describes the underlying experiment and technical data? You expect that kind of discussion in an open lay discussion like this, but for anyone (like Baez), to be making authoritative comment without full access to the work, does not sound like, sound or credible peer review. Complain about the lack of information yes. Criticize an experiment based on an abstract and popular press release alone, that sounds a lot more like a knee jerk reaction to the idea rather than any science or engineering.

It would even be appropriate to ask why NASA has not released more detail. Is it because more internal review and analysis is going on before release..? Remember the CERN neutrino rush to release? We are discussing right now, essentially a conference press release...

 

[rpenner]

Everyone is complaining about the NASA abstract without any detailed paper, report etc.

Hey! I read the report. See [post=3213495]post #69[/post] or http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1404:_Quantum_Vacuum_Virtual_Plasma for a link. What's weird is how the NASA abstract is a better summary of the testing done than presented in the paper. In the paper, they blather on about the way that the vacuum chamber needs two days to pump down to 10^-6 torr but bury the fact in section VI that they didn't run tests at other than full atmospheric pressure. They have a section on space trajectories without connection to the actual device testing. They don't clearly state that reversing the installation of the alleged thruster reverses the direction of the thrust. They don't have any error estimation.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Breifly:

Kittamaru,
Discussing crackpottery is painful enough - I won't add politics to the mix! Suffice to say, your opinion of the state of the US is lower than mine, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion as I am mine. That said, I most ceratinly never said that the $18.4 billion is a waste. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

Bill,
"better to spend a little and bury this dead turkey, once and for all" is logic I can get behind for discussion in an internet forum, but as a pratical matter is tough. If we want to invoke Kittamaru's slippery slope, there are scads of dead turkeys out there: should government money really be spent to bury them all? While we're at it, the Department of Energy could be burying dead free energy turkeys, like the ECat -- after all, there is a lot more immediate and practical value if one of those dead turkeys ends up vaporizing the test facility (free energy/cold fusion) than there is in one shooting through the ceiling (advanced propulsion). The USPTO already climbed up that slippery slope when they changed their rules a few years ago and stopped accepting patent applications for PMMs that didn't include working prototypes.

OnlyMe,
The paper is available: it is linked from Baez's blog. You're right that the abstract is not much more than a press release, but the paper is (in Baez's words) more of a progress report. Still isn't finished or peer reviewed and contains no theory, but it does carry an expectation of a certain level of value.

Regarding the Neutrino speed anomaly: There was no "rush to release". It was handled correctly and professionally by the researchers and didn't generate the same tone of hype from the media because of it. Here is the original press release on it:

Given the potential far-reaching consequences of such a result, independent measurements are needed before the effect can either be refuted or firmly established. This is why the OPERA collaboration has decided to open the result to broader scrutiny. The collaboration�s result is available on the preprint server arxiv.org: http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897 (link is external).
The OPERA measurement is at odds with well-established laws of nature, though science frequently progresses by overthrowing the established paradigms. For this reason, many searches have been made for deviations from Einstein�s theory of relativity, so far not finding any such evidence. The strong constraints arising from these observations makes an interpretation of the OPERA measurement in terms of modification of Einstein�s theory unlikely, and give further strong reason to seek new independent measurements.

http://press.web.cern.ch/press-rele...anomaly-flight-time-neutrinos-cern-gran-sasso

Translation: we understand that what we are suggesting violates the laws of physics and therefore believe our results are probably wrong and therefore ask others to help us find our error. Very different tone from the current thread's title saying the effect is "validated" at exactly the same preliminary state in the research. I rather suspect that if the first Wired (!?) article were similarly, more accurately titled "NASA Thrust Measurement of Impossible Space Thruster Likely Wrong" it wouldn't have garnered quite the buzz it has. Use of the word "Validated" in the title was completely wrong.

 

[OnlyMe]

Hey! I read the report. See [post=3213495]post #69[/post] or http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1404:_Quantum_Vacuum_Virtual_Plasma for a link. What's weird is how the NASA abstract is a better summary of the testing done than presented in the paper. In the paper, they blather on about the way that the vacuum chamber needs two days to pump down to 10^-6 torr but bury the fact in section VI that they didn't run tests at other than full atmospheric pressure. They have a section on space trajectories without connection to the actual device testing. They don't clearly state that reversing the installation of the alleged thruster reverses the direction of the thrust. They don't have any error estimation.

I missed that earlier link. I have not always been following the discussion closely. Still in most of the discussion, your post aside, there has been little reference to the paper, it seems more comment on the abstract and general popular release.

I will keep your comments from post #69 in mind when I get the chance to look at the paper itself. But from your comment as it stands, it sounds like something is being or has been held back. At least from a superficial look I would hope that is the case.

Sorry about jumping the gun on my earlier statement.