NASA validates seemingly impossible space thruster

[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 apologize for taking so long to get back on this.

I did read the paper you linked in post #69. It does not read like a credible research paper. Instead it reads like a conference handout, or a progress report (as Russ mentioned), which puts it in the same category as an abstract or press release. There does not seem to be enough of the theory or as you point out clear experimental detail and error correction, for any credible peer review.

I have no problem with any of your comment above. I just don't see that enough credible information has been released, for peer review criticism.

 

[OnlyMe]

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:

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.

The rush to release I intended was that the paper was released before accounting for all systemic error. Perhaps that was necessary to justify the time it would take to identify the problem. How much time and money were diverted to the follow up experiments, before the loose cable was identified?

And yes, the paper did include the disclaimer as you noted above. At the time I saw no problem with the release or any possible implications. That does not change the fact that no one thought to fully check mechanical issues involved with timing, before rushing to release...

 

[Russ_Watters]

The rush to release I intended was that the paper was released before accounting for all systemic error. Perhaps that was necessary to justify the time it would take to identify the problem. How much time and money were diverted to the follow up experiments, before the loose cable was identified?

And yes, the paper did include the disclaimer as you noted above. At the time I saw no problem with the release or any possible implications. That does not change the fact that no one thought to fully check mechanical issues involved with timing, before rushing to release...

You misunderstand: The experimenters spent a considerable effort looking for error and when they didn't find it, asked for outside help. Whether you consider that a "rush to release" is besides the point: the point is that the two announcements bear no relation to each other.

Besides, I think you forgot your own point: at the time you made the post I was responding to, you were apparently unaware that the NASA paper had been released and were trying to justify why it hadn't.

 

[OnlyMe]

You misunderstand: The experimenters spent a considerable effort looking for error and when they didn't find it, asked for outside help. Whether you consider that a "rush to release" is besides the point: the point is that the two announcements bear no relation to each other.

Besides, I think you forgot your own point: at the time you made the post I was responding to, you were apparently unaware that the NASA paper had been released and were trying to justify why it hadn't.

Here is what is said,

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...

The connection is that neither the original CERN paper or the paper on the topic of discussion now were complete. I had no issue with the CERN release, then or now, that does not mean it was not rushed.., there was dispute at the time about its release.

But this is getting far and away from the issue here and now. As I commented in my post following up with rpenner, (in different words) the current paper does not include enough detail of theory or the experiment itself, for the kind of criticism/review it has been getting. Call it out for being incomplete or premature or...? But the objections to any theoretical implications are misplaced, because there is no theoretical foundation presented and the experimental detail is not clear or perhaps even complete.

You cannot know that there is any violation of conservation of momentum, when there has been nothing presented about how the device interacts with vacuum energy, or in "their" words "virtual plasma"... Since the abstract, press releases and the paper itself do not define a theoretical foundation, theoretical criticisms are ideological, at best... And that is not science.

 

[Boris2]

https://richarddawkins.net/2014/08/did-nasa-validate-an-impossible-space-drive-in-a-word-no/

 

[Russ_Watters]

Here is what is said,

[added]
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...

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...

Given that you apparently were unaware that a paper had been released because you erroneously thought we were discussing only a conference press release with no "more detail", it would appear that you made the connection based on that erroneous premise.

The connection is that neither the original CERN paper or the paper on the topic of discussion now were complete.

The CERN paper was released when it was because the writers took it about as far as they could without outside help. They were, essentially, finished.

I had no issue with the CERN release, then or now, that does not mean it was not rushed.., there was dispute at the time about its release.

That appears self-contradictory to me, but in either case, I'd like to see a reference to some of that "dispute".

But this is getting far and away from the issue here and now. As I commented in my post following up with rpenner, (in different words) the current paper does not include enough detail of theory or the experiment itself, for the kind of criticism/review it has been getting.

Well -- again -- the lack of detail is, itself, a criticism based on the weighty verbiage used in the paper. A preliminary paper should use verbiage indicating that results are preliminary and when the results conflict with existing theory, it should include verbiage saying the results are possibly/likely wrong (theory issue discussed in more detail below). It should not make titillating and unsupported claims. Again, the CERN paper is an example of how better to word such work so that you don't cause the type of hype seen here.

Call it out for being incomplete or premature or...? But the objections to any theoretical implications are misplaced, because there is no theoretical foundation presented...

Two problems there:
1. That isn't true. Shawyer wrote a theoretical paper on how the EMDrive operates.
2. Suggesting and then not explaining a new theoretical foundation is itself bad form. Better to not make any such suggestion at all -- just explain the test.

You cannot know that there is any violation of conservation of momentum, when there has been nothing presented about how the device interacts with vacuum energy, or in "their" words "virtual plasma"... Since the abstract, press releases and the paper itself do not define a theoretical foundation, theoretical criticisms are ideological, at best... And that is not science.

No, theoretical objections are based on existing theory. People are not entitled to simultaneously claim they've proven something while hiding behind secrecy/incompleteness (see: Rossi Reactor). There is no way to distinguish "quantum vacuum virtual plasma" from technobabble - no way to know it has even actually been developed and isn't just a figment of a writer's imagination - so it should not be used in a scientific paper: even an incomplete one.

As far as is known now, the test violates conservation of momentum. If, in the future, a new theory is presented that can explain the violation away, it will be considered. But it can't be assumed before it is presented. The default is always that a new idea is not believed until proven.

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

for those interested, here is the original paper:

http://www.libertariannews.org/wp-c...ustProductionFromanRFTestDevice-BradyEtAl.pdf

in my estimation, if there were an interaction with the "quantum vacuum particles" then they would be manifested in the form of particle pair production (as is the usual case when the quantum vacuum produces particles, as for example via photon stimulation of pair production), and detectable as providing a thrust. it does not appear that this was tested for.

 

[OnlyMe]

Given that you apparently were unaware that a paper had been released because you erroneously thought we were discussing only a conference press release with no "more detail", it would appear that you made the connection based on that erroneous premise.

The CERN paper was released when it was because the writers took it about as far as they could without outside help. They were, essentially, finished.

That appears self-contradictory to me, but in either case, I'd like to see a reference to some of that "dispute".

Well -- again -- the lack of detail is, itself, a criticism based on the weighty verbiage used in the paper. A preliminary paper should use verbiage indicating that results are preliminary and when the results conflict with existing theory, it should include verbiage saying the results are possibly/likely wrong (theory issue discussed in more detail below). It should not make titillating and unsupported claims. Again, the CERN paper is an example of how better to word such work so that you don't cause the type of hype seen here.

Two problems there:
1. That isn't true. Shawyer wrote a theoretical paper on how the EMDrive operates.
2. Suggesting and then not explaining a new theoretical foundation is itself bad form. Better to not make any such suggestion at all -- just explain the test.

No, theoretical objections are based on existing theory. People are not entitled to simultaneously claim they've proven something while hiding behind secrecy/incompleteness (see: Rossi Reactor). There is no way to distinguish "quantum vacuum virtual plasma" from technobabble - no way to know it has even actually been developed and isn't just a figment of a writer's imagination - so it should not be used in a scientific paper: even an incomplete one.

As far as is known now, the test violates conservation of momentum. If, in the future, a new theory is presented that can explain the violation away, it will be considered. But it can't be assumed before it is presented. The default is always that a new idea is not believed until proven.

Where in the recent NASA progress report/conference paper (not published research document) was the theory ascribed to Shawyer's theory? (Maybe I need to go back and reread it?) So yes, the fact that NASA papers are open to the public even when they are not fully documented and peer reviewed research, could be seen as bad form.., or attempting to review and criticize them as if they were, may be bad form. Most of the criticism requires to many assumptions not explicitly presented in the paper, abstract or press articles...

What it looks like to me is that there had been at least one repeat, Chinese experiment, that confirmed thrust and the current experiment was attempting to run some, at least preliminary, tests of the physical set up... You don't have to define the underlying theory to test a design for results.

If there is a momentum relationship between, and I'll call it zero-point energy (ZPE) and/or any associated zero-point field (ZPF), instead of a virtual plasma.., and a material object, which does seem to be supported by the Casimir and dynamical Casimir effects, how would an exchange of momentum between the ZPF and any object violate conservation of momentum. Yes, it would be far more difficult to measure the exchange, but that in and of itself does not represent a violation of conservation laws. For as much as we believe we know about ZPE and the ZPF there is more that we have yet to discover.

 

[OnlyMe]

https://richarddawkins.net/2014/08/did-nasa-validate-an-impossible-space-drive-in-a-word-no/

I believe this is a link to the full article the above was taken from, http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/o...date-imposible-space-drive-word/#.U-qm_2K9KSO.

 

[Russ_Watters]

First a correction of an error in my previous post. I assembled the quotes incorrectly. Here's what I meant to post:

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

[later]
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...

Also, in a separate post:

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.

So it appears fairly clear to me that you were basing your comments on the erroneous belief that we - and everyone else, including the respected scientists we quoted - were responding only or primarily to the press release and not the actual paper.

Moving on:

Where in the recent NASA progress report/conference paper (not published research document) was the theory ascribed to Shawyer's theory?

It wasn't. But Shawyer is the originator of the "invention" being tested. In any case, the paper explicitly says it is a "cannae" drive and while the website is now oddly offline, Google cache shows the basic principle of operation is said to be the same: unbalanced radiation pressure.

And even if we set that all aside and assume zero prior knowledge of the device being tested (which would make the choice to test it odd), scientific evaluation demands that the device be evaluated in light of existing theory and existing theory says it can't generate thrust.

So yes, the fact that NASA papers are open to the public even when they are not fully documented and peer reviewed research, could be seen as bad form.., or attempting to review and criticize them as if they were, may be bad form.

You are mischaracterizing what this is. NASA did not release this paper out of some legal requirement that forces them to release unfinished work. In any case, which is bad form can easily be judged by the impact of the paper. The rules of intellectual discourse exist for a reason and the undue hype and misinformation surrounding this is the fault of the authors for violating those rules.

Most of the criticism requires to many assumptions not explicitly presented in the paper, abstract or press articles...

I have yet to see that. Your above claims appear to be indicating that you don't believe scientists are allowed any evaluation of the paper, but that we should give the paper the benefit of the doubt. It doesn't work that way.

What it looks like to me is that there had been at least one repeat, Chinese experiment, that confirmed thrust...

I'm sorry, but it doesn't appear you understand what the word "confirmed" means in this context. The magnitude of the thrust matters and the fact that the apparent measured thrust doesn't match any predictions and the measurements do not match each other means that the thrust has not been confirmed. To "confirm" (or "validate") the idea, the thrust needs to be measured to within the claimed margin for error of the experiment.

...and the current experiment was attempting to run some, at least preliminary, tests of the physical set up... You don't have to define the underlying theory to test a design for results.

Agreed. But you do have to not make any claims about the theory if you aren't going to explain it. Saying they confirmed a theory without explaining the theory is the violation!

If there is a momentum relationship between, and I'll call it zero-point energy (ZPE) and/or any associated zero-point field (ZPF), instead of a virtual plasma.., and a material object, which does seem to be supported by the Casimir and dynamical Casimir effects, how would an exchange of momentum between the ZPF and any object violate conservation of momentum.

It wouldn't. And if the microwaves leaking out of the device annoyed the invisible purple butterfly standing on the side of the device into flapping his wings and generating the measured force, that wouldn't violate conservation of energy either. But until the effect is even defined, much less developed, it is inappropriate to cite it in a scientific paper.

Yes, it would be far more difficult to measure the exchange, but that in and of itself does not represent a violation of conservation laws. For as much as we believe we know about ZPE and the ZPF there is more that we have yet to discover.

Ignorance is not a basis for scientific logic. Again: scientific judgement is based on already proven theory, not the mythical "anything is possible" fantasy.

 

[OnlyMe]

So it appears fairly clear to me that you were basing your comments on the erroneous belief that we - and everyone else, including the respected scientists we quoted - were responding only or primarily to the press release and not the actual paper.

Yes I missed the paper rpenner linked. However, it is referenced by some respected scientists, as a progress report and as a paper presented at a conference in Cleveland. Not a published or even pre-publish research paper. The PAPER is no better than the abstract or press reactions.

Where in the recent NASA progress report/conference paper (not published research document) was the theory ascribed to Shawyer's theory?

It wasn't. But Shawyer is the originator of the "invention" being tested. In any case, the paper explicitly says it is a "cannae" drive and while the website is now oddly offline, Google cache shows the basic principle of operation is said to be the same: unbalanced radiation pressure.

Two things from the above. First, you associate Shawyer's theory as the basis for the current NASA funded test. The way the NASA paper reads it was the not the theory but the Chinese experiment that instigated testing the mechanism. There was no claim other than a reference to an interaction with a virtual plasma, suggesting any underlying theory of operation. Second they showed test results for both the Cannae drive and a tapered thruster design. The summary favoring further testing of the tapered design not the Cannae drive design. And NASA is not the only one looking toward further testing,

... The current plan is to support an IV&V test campaign at the Glenn Research Center (GRC) using their low thrust torsion pendulum followed by a repeat campaign at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) using their low thrust torsion pendulum. The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory has also expressed an interest in performing a Cavendish Balance style test with the IV&V shipset.

And even if we set that all aside and assume zero prior knowledge of the device being tested (which would make the choice to test it odd), scientific evaluation demands that the device be evaluated in light of existing theory and existing theory says it can't generate thrust.

As I have said before, you don't have to accept the earlier presented theory, to decide to test a design that has shown results in at least two other experiments... Especially if it does not cost much. You test and if you find it produces thrust, you go back and workout just how and why.

You are mischaracterizing what this is. NASA did not release this paper out of some legal requirement that forces them to release unfinished work. In any case, which is bad form can easily be judged by the impact of the paper. The rules of intellectual discourse exist for a reason and the undue hype and misinformation surrounding this is the fault of the authors for violating those rules.

Again! The paper was a handout at a conference, where more detail was probably covered in some presentation or discussion... And the NASA documents are available to the public barring some classified status. It was not released or published as a experimental or theoretical paper. But that is how it has been being reviewed.

Most of the criticism requires to many assumptions not explicitly presented in the paper, abstract or press articles...

I have yet to see that. Your above claims appear to be indicating that you don't believe scientists are allowed any evaluation of the paper, but that we should give the paper the benefit of the doubt. It doesn't work that way.

Any time any respected scientist evaluates research or experimental documentation.., assuming an unstated theoretical basis, they are making assumptions. In rpenner's responses he sometimes quoted the reactions of others, usually quoted and linked.., and he addressed the actual inconsistent information presented in the paper. That is responsible. Deciding that the design or claimed results, of this experiment, no matter how poorly it was done, violates conservation laws, by attaching Shawyer's theory to it, is not. All they were doing was attempting to prove or disprove whether two different designs produce thrust of any kind. Other than a general or vague reference to an interaction between the drive and virtual plasma, no theory was presented.

What it looks like to me is that there had been at least one repeat, Chinese experiment, that confirmed thrust...

I'm sorry, but it doesn't appear you understand what the word "confirmed" means in this context.

Confirmed means that two other previous experiments claimed results that showed thrust was developed. Two earlier experiments CONFIRMED thrust. That is all.

...and the current experiment was attempting to run some, at least preliminary, tests of the physical set up... You don't have to define the underlying theory to test a design for results.

Agreed. But you do have to not make any claims about the theory if you aren't going to explain it. Saying they confirmed a theory without explaining the theory is the violation!

This paper describes the methodology used to successfully design and operate a prototype thruster capable of interacting with the fluctuations in the quantum vacuum to a thrust level that is detectable using a low thrust torsion pendulum with a micronewton sensitivity.

They do claim that the drive interacts with the quantum vacuum, but just how is not detailed. And again this was a handout at a conference, not a published research paper.

If there is a momentum relationship between, and I'll call it zero-point energy (ZPE) and/or any associated zero-point field (ZPF), instead of a virtual plasma.., and a material object, which does seem to be supported by the Casimir and dynamical Casimir effects, how would an exchange of momentum between the ZPF and any object violate conservation of momentum.

It wouldn't.

My point! Any transfer of momentum between vacuum energy or virtual particles and matter does not violate conservation of momentum. That in itself should be enough to discard Shawyer's explanation, from what little I have read of it.., which is little.

But until the effect is even defined, much less developed, it is inappropriate to cite it in a scientific paper.

Just who is calling it a scientific paper? Mostly those criticizing the paper, just imply that by their comments. Even some of those and the press refer to the paper as a progress report or paper handed out at a conference... When I asked for a link to the paper, I thought there might have been one, but all we wound up with is a conference handout, that looks kinda like a format expected of a scientific paper, but falls very short of the mark.

Ignorance is not a basis for scientific logic. Again: scientific judgement is based on already proven theory, not the mythical "anything is possible" fantasy.

Sometimes Russ you are absolutely right, and sometimes experiments return unexpected results that leads to new theory.

What this will all end up as, who knows? Maybe it will lead to a better understanding of the quantum vacuum, maybe it will lead to a thruster for satellite station keeping and deep space probes, and maybe it will turn out to be nothing. But even if it turns out to be nothing in the end, at this point you can't just dismiss it as violating laws of physics. And there are a number of reputable labs that believe the same.

... The current plan is to support an IV&V test campaign at the Glenn Research Center (GRC) using their low thrust torsion pendulum followed by a repeat campaign at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) using their low thrust torsion pendulum. The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory has also expressed an interest in performing a Cavendish Balance style test with the IV&V shipset.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Yes I missed the paper rpenner linked. However, it is referenced by some respected scientists, as a progress report and as a paper presented at a conference in Cleveland. Not a published or even pre-publish research paper. The PAPER is no better than the abstract or press reactions.

By definition, "not published" is pre-published. But hairsplitting definitions aside, the paper is 10x as much information as the abstract. It is disingenuous of you to claim that it isn't and/or shouldn't be better than the abstract and press reactions.

Two things from the above. First, you associate Shawyer's theory as the basis for the current NASA funded test. The way the NASA paper reads it was the not the theory but the Chinese experiment that instigated testing the mechanism. [snip]. Second they showed test results for both the Cannae drive and a tapered thruster design.

Again, I'm sorry, but the issue here is that you haven't read-up on the subject enough. The "tapered thruster design" is Shawyer's EMdrive and while the NASA paper doesn't say it, the Chinese paper that they reference does.
NASA tested Shawyer's EMDrive.

There was no claim other than a reference to an interaction with a virtual plasma, suggesting any underlying theory of operation.

Agreed. And it was wrong of them to do that.

As I have said before, you don't have to accept the earlier presented theory, to decide to test a design...

I didn't say you did. I said it is reasonable for reviewers to evaluate it based on that theory (and mainstream/accepted theory) whether the testers specifically cite it or not.

If I suggest to you a car that operates by the driver pushing on the steering wheel and don't offer you a theory of operation, I submit that you will reject it based on evaluating it in the context of existing theory.

Again! The paper was a handout at a conference...

I see no evidence of that. Please cite your source.

And the NASA documents are available to the public barring some classified status. It was not released or published as a experimental or theoretical paper.

Again, I see no evidence of that. I know of no mechanism by which the public can view in-progress work. Is there a server you can point me to where I can download the raw data from work done today?

The fact of the matter is that it was written and released and it is an experimental paper. If the data wasn't ready to be scrutinized by the scientific community, the paper should not have even been written. If I write a paper that I intend to show to my peers in any forum, I make damn sure that it is worthy of showing to them!

Any time any respected scientist evaluates research or experimental documentation.., assuming an unstated theoretical basis, they are making assumptions.

Um....duh? Of course! And any respectable writer knows what assumptions should reasonably be made!

Deciding that the design or claimed results, of this experiment, no matter how poorly it was done, violates conservation laws, by attaching Shawyer's theory to it, is not.

False. Conservation of momentum is the prevailing theory/law and the NASA researchers should know that their device will be evaluated based on that existing theory/law. Science is done by "standing on the shoulders of giants". All research builds on previous research and it is not reasonable to expect any research to generate the entirety of the science it is based on from scratch. There is hundreds of years of science and math reflected in the paper. It is just as unreasonable of you to demand that the NASA researchers reproduce all of it as it is for you to demand that reviewers not utilize any of it in their review.

Confirmed means that two other previous experiments claimed results that showed thrust was developed. Two earlier experiments CONFIRMED thrust. That is all.

That is nothing. "Confirmed thrust" means nothing if the "confirmed thrust" isn't the same thrust. If I make a prediction of 10 N of thrust, you measure 100 N of thrust (+/-10) and someone else measures 1000 N (+/-100), nothing has been confirmed because none of the tests or theoretical predictions agree with each other!

My point! Any transfer of momentum between vacuum energy or virtual particles and matter does not violate conservation of momentum.

I notice you deleted the rest of that part of my post in your quote of it. Your point(!) is completely meaningless because "momentum between vacuum energy or virtual particles and matter" is, as far as we know, just as much a fantasy as my invisible purple butterfly. I'm not sure you grasped this when said before: the words used in the paper appear thrown together like technobabble. They don't belong in the same phrase together. The writers of the paper haven't given much to go on, but what they have given appears to be gibberish and without merit. You, however, want to assume it is true. That just plain isn't scientific.

Just who is calling it a scientific paper?

A paper written by scientists should be scientific. It's not a comic book, even if it reads like one.

...but all we wound up with is a conference handout...

Again: you're the first I see claiming that.

Sometimes Russ you are absolutely right, and sometimes experiments return unexpected results that leads to new theory.

Agreed. And until there is really, really, really, really, really good reason to conclude the latter, the former is the default conclusion. And when the scientists making that claim behave badly, square that.

In any case, "sometimes" isn't really accurate. You don't need to believe it, but my BS detector has a pretty good track record. I wish I had a mechanism for placing bets on such things.

What this will all end up as, who knows? Maybe it will lead to a better understanding of the quantum vacuum, maybe it will lead to a thruster for satellite station keeping and deep space probes, and maybe it will turn out to be nothing. But even if it turns out to be nothing in the end, at this point you can't just dismiss it as violating laws of physics.

It's a free country and the scientific community is free to dismiss it if it wants. One of the typical whines of crackpots is that they don't like being ignored. [shrug] Nobody (who matters) is obligated to pay attention to them.

And there are a number of reputable labs that believe the same.

Who?

 

[OnlyMe]

Russ, this is becoming an argument and your posts are devolving toward personal comment rather than any discussion of content or interpretation.

By definition, "not published" is pre-published. But hairsplitting definitions aside, the paper is 10x as much information as the abstract. It is disingenuous of you to claim that it isn't and/or shouldn't be better than the abstract and press reactions.

Note the bold portion of rpenner's post that says about the same thing I was saying.

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.

Again, I'm sorry, but the issue here is that you haven't read-up on the subject enough. The "tapered thruster design" is Shawyer's EMdrive and while the NASA paper doesn't say it, the Chinese paper that they reference does.
NASA tested Shawyer's EMDrive.

And these tests were not done based on Shawyer's theory or his drive design, they were undertaken because the Chinese lab experiment confirmed that the device produced thrust.

I see no evidence of that. Please cite your source.

The link was provided in an earlier post. Here it is again with a quote.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/o...date-imposible-space-drive-word/#.U-r3B2K9KSP

Did NASA Validate an “Impossible” Space Drive? In a Word, No.
By Corey S. Powell | August 6, 2014 3:27 am

...The abstract of their paper, which was presented at a propulsion conference in Cleveland, is freely available online.

Your point(!) is completely meaningless because "momentum between vacuum energy or virtual particles and matter" is, as far as we know, just as much a fantasy as my invisible purple butterfly.

If you accept that ZPE is involved in the Casimir effect, then you also must accept that momentum is transferred between vacuum energy and the two plates. There is no violation of the conservation of momentum, involved with the Casimir effect. If the momentum associated with the attractive force between the plates is not transferred between the surrounding vacuum energy and the plates, what classical origin of the force involved exists?

Who?

Really, Russ can you read? Here is the quote again, you have the paper or should.

... The current plan is to support an IV&V test campaign at the Glenn Research Center (GRC) using their low thrust torsion pendulum followed by a repeat campaign at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) using their low thrust torsion pendulum. The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory has also expressed an interest in performing a Cavendish Balance style test with the IV&V shipset.

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

for those interested, here is the original paper:

http://www.libertariannews.org/wp-c...ustProductionFromanRFTestDevice-BradyEtAl.pdf

in my estimation, if there were an interaction with the "quantum vacuum particles" then they would be manifested in the form of particle pair production (as is the usual case when the quantum vacuum produces particles, as for example via photon stimulation of pair production), and detectable as providing a thrust. it does not appear that this was tested for.

Why do I get the impression that only Richard P. and I read the original paper?

Here is a quote from the paper ("Summary and Forward Work"): "Vacuum compatible RF amplifiers with power ranges of up to 125 watts will allow testing at vacuum conditions which was not possible using our current RF amplifiers due to the presence of electrolytic capacitors."

It is exactly as Richard stated -- they go to great lengths to extol the virtues of a vacuum test - but in the conclusion one learns that it was done at ambient air pressure "due to the presence of electrolytic capacitors".

The paper also assumes (makes an ass out of u and me) the existence of an 'interaction with the fluctuations in the quantum vacuum' ("This paper describes the methodology used to successfully design and operate a prototype thruster capable of interacting with the fluctuations in the quantum vacuum to a thrust level that is detectable using a low thrust torsion pendulum with a micronewton sensitivity." again from section VI of "Summary and Forward Work").

If there were such an 'interaction', one would have to have the virtual mass become real to have thrust interaction; i.e. particle pair production. That would require a significant energy input for such an interaction, which appears unlikely with the microwave regimen of the excitation being used. It would be readily detectable by way of a pair production process (electron/positron), which was not tested for even though such a test is relatively simple with either a scintillator or GM detector, etc.

 

[OnlyMe]

Why do I get the impression that only Richard P. and I read the original paper?

Probably, you're just not paying attention.

Here is a quote from the paper ("Summary and Forward Work"): "Vacuum compatible RF amplifiers with power ranges of up to 125 watts will allow testing at vacuum conditions which was not possible using our current RF amplifiers due to the presence of electrolytic capacitors."

It is exactly as Richard stated -- they go to great lengths to extol the virtues of a vacuum test - but in the conclusion one learns that it was done at ambient air pressure "due to the presence of electrolytic capacitors".

The paper also assumes (makes an ass out of u and me) the existence of an 'interaction with the fluctuations in the quantum vacuum' ("This paper describes the methodology used to successfully design and operate a prototype thruster capable of interacting with the fluctuations in the quantum vacuum to a thrust level that is detectable using a low thrust torsion pendulum with a micronewton sensitivity." again from section VI of "Summary and Forward Work").

If there were such an 'interaction', one would have to have the virtual mass become real to have thrust interaction; i.e. particle pair production. That would require a significant energy input for such an interaction, which appears unlikely with the microwave regimen of the excitation being used. It would be readily detectable by way of a pair production process (electron/positron), which was not tested for even though such a test is relatively simple with either a scintillator or GM detector, etc.

In these last two paragraphs you are making theoretical assumptions about an exact nature of vacuum energy and any associated virtual particles, which remain for the most part theoretical! All you are doing is present yet another theoretical explanation. We could go round and round with theoretical speculations. The exact nature of vacuum energy has not yet been raised entirely out of the realm of theory... But that would be a distraction to the real issue of whether these drive designs actually deliver thrust that cannot be explained in some other manner.

Keep in mind that while I have not read all that is available on the three experimental approaches, Shawyer's, the Chinese experiment and the recent NASA funded test, all seem to have some variation in their underlying theoretical basis. A clear difference between Shawyer and the Chinese, and a somewhat unclear situation with the NASA funded test. This last may be an artifact of the fact that the paper being discussed was not a scientific research paper, just a paper presented at a conference and thus did not include a more complete discussion of any proposed underlying theory. It really does seem as though the NASA funded work was testing the drive mechanism(s) potential, rather than any underlying theoretical basis.

I believe it was a mistake to have presented the current work without a better published paper or a clear disclaimer that the presentation paper was not intended as such. Still setting aside what any underlying theoretical basis may be, in the long run, the three separate tests do seem to confirm that thrust is being generated. The ultimate underlying theoretical mechanism(s) may yet remain to be discovered.

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

Well, I beg to differ as to the conclusion I'd reach with their information.

They ran the 'test' with both the 'slotted' device (designed to produce thrust by unknown physics theory) and the non-slotted device (designed to not produce thrust), and got the same 'thrust' results.

I would conclude that there was some un-discovered systemic error resulting in the anomalus 'thrust'. They concluded that gee, it seems to work even if not designed to.

But then again, I'm not seeking additional funding for the full vacuum test.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Well, I beg to differ as to the conclusion I'd reach with their information.

They ran the 'test' with both the 'slotted' device (designed to produce thrust by unknown physics theory) and the non-slotted device (designed to not produce thrust), and got the same 'thrust' results.

I would conclude that there was some un-discovered systemic error resulting in the anomalus 'thrust'. They concluded that gee, it seems to work even if not designed to.

Indeed, when two tests are predicted to produce different amounts of thrust and instead they produce the same amount of thrust, it strongly implies that the same phenomenon - the same error - was responsible for both readings.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Russ, this is becoming an argument and your posts are devolving toward personal comment rather than any discussion of content or interpretation.

That's quite a complaint considering that your very first statements to me in this thread (directly and indirectly) were personal in nature. But as then, I request you be more specific and tell me exactly what I said that was personal in nature because a sweeping statement like that isn't helpful in identifying the problem. More on that later.

Note the bold portion of rpenner's post that says about the same thing I was saying.

I don't know if you misread or I did - and perhaps he can clarify - but what I'm seeing is a pretty damning indictment of NASA's actions, in-line with what I said: The paper is supposed to be more useful than the abstract, but it wasn't. That's one really bad paper. If that's what he was saying, I agree with it.

And these tests were not done based on Shawyer's theory...[snip] they were undertaken because the Chinese lab experiment confirmed that the device produced thrust.

I'm not sure if you lost the train of thought there, but you are saying there is not a response to what we were discussing. Here's what I said:

It wasn't [ascribed to Shawyer's theory]. But Shawyer is the originator of the "invention being tested...

The point is now and always has been that when you test a device, you take-on the weight of how the device came to be and reviewers will review it based on how it came to be, whether or not that is specifically discussed in the paper. Even if the NASA scientists never looked at anything Shawyer has ever produced, they tested copy of his device because he invented it and the theory behind it. If he hadn't, they couldn't have tested it!

You seem very caught-up in a means by which NASA can avoid responsibility for their actions here. Science is not a political game: NASA can't insulate itself via silence. Their responsibility is an affirmative one.

...or his drive design...

One of the devices tested was indeed Shawyer's design.

The link was provided in an earlier post. Here it is again with a quote.

"The abstract of their paper, which was presented at a propulsion conference...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/o...date-imposible-space-drive-word/#.U-r3B2K9KSP

I don't know what I was thinking with that objection -- it isn't relevant or correct and I retract it.

If you accept that ZPE is involved in the Casimir effect, then you also must accept that momentum is transferred between vacuum energy and the two plates. There is no violation of the conservation of momentum, involved with the Casimir effect. If the momentum associated with the attractive force between the plates is not transferred between the surrounding vacuum energy and the plates, what classical origin of the force involved exists?

I should have backed-up a step with my objection: the device isn't claimed to use the Casimir effect and your attempt to clean-up the gibberish in the paper is better than said gibberish. The "fantasy" is "quantum vacuum virtual plasma".

However, the Casimir effect is symmetrical, just like the claimed mechanism of radiation pressure, so thrust generation would require an asymetry similar to what is being claimed here -- likely an equal violation of COM.

Really, Russ can you read?

Please refer back to the top line of this post (the quote from you). I have not and would not ever send such a personal insult toward you and I would appreciate it if you both stopped insulting me and stopped baselessly claiming I'm insulting you.

Here is the quote again, you have the paper or should.

Two of the three are still NASA, so I suppose "a number of reputable labs" is actually one (one is, of course, a number) and I would not claim to know what the people running the NASA labs or Johns Hopkins "believe" based on the fact that they are testing it. It could just as easily be the other way around (wanting to be the ones to debunk it) or nothing (NASA asked them to test it, so they are).

This last may be an artifact of the fact that the paper being discussed was not a scientific research paper....

Basically I think we both agree that it if viewed under a scientific microscope it is a poor paper, but you are claiming it doesn't need to be and indeed it is improper for other scientists to judge it that way. Scientists disagree. Again: when scientists write papers on scientific subjects, the papers must be written scientifically. This point really is non-negotiable. There is a scientific process and the writers of the paper are the ones who violated it here, not the readers of it.

....the three separate tests do seem to confirm that thrust is being generated.

3? Minor quibble, but I see 2 tests of the EMDrive and 1 test of a Cannae drive, plus theoretical predictions for both. Anyway:

Again, that isn't a valid conclusion from the tests. In order for one result to confirm another, the results must be equal to each other (to within the stated margin for error). It is logically impossible for all the tests to be correct because they contradict each other. So what these tests tell us is that at least one test must be wrong. Or, in the case of the EMDrive, at least 2 out of 3 (2 tests, one theoretical prediction) must be wrong.

 

[Kittamaru]

The question, then, is simple: If the device designed to NOT produce thrust still did... what was the reason? Was the measuring device not calibrated? Was there ambient air currents? Or is this some unknown property of the physical world we are unaware of?

We need to eliminate that which we CAN, re-run the test, and go from there.

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
-Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

 

[OnlyMe]

I apologize for the delay in responding.

That's quite a complaint considering that your very first statements to me in this thread (directly and indirectly) were personal in nature. But as then, I request you be more specific and tell me exactly what I said that was personal in nature because a sweeping statement like that isn't helpful in identifying the problem. More on that later.

Russ your fist post (below) was a response to a post I made, which was a generalized comment on the responses to the abstract, both within this thread and many of the links provided earlier in the thread. Make note of the bold portion of your post that, as I read it, seems to personalize the argument and to be a continuation of what seems and seemed to me, to be argumentative and a personalization of that argument, in the earlier thread discussion.

Most of the objections have been comming from a perceived threat of how the claims might challenge currently accepted theoretical assumptions. Note I emphasize the theoretical part just mentioned.., because we are talking about a mechanism that interacts with or manipulates vacuum energy or zero-point energy or the associated zero-point field, which though there have been experiments which support the existence of same, no matter what you call it, it currently remains theoretical.

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.

To which I responded,

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

You are right, my comment can be read as a personal attack. I should have phrased my comment differently or, not responded at all. It was a knee jerk reaction on my part to what seemed to have been a discussion already devolving into argument and personalized comment.

Still I apologize for not having phrased my comment in a less offensive way.


Then later in the discussion/argument I posted,

.... And there are a number of reputable labs that believe the same.

from the NASA paper's summary
... The current plan is to support an IV&V test campaign at the Glenn Research Center (GRC) using their low thrust torsion pendulum followed by a repeat campaign at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) using their low thrust torsion pendulum. The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory has also expressed an interest in performing a Cavendish Balance style test with the IV&V shipset.

You responded,

.... And there are a number of reputable labs that believe the same.

Who?

Note how the Who? was emphasized in bold and the reference supporting my statement was missing. My reply..,

Russ, this is becoming an argument and your posts are devolving toward personal comment rather than any discussion of content or interpretation.

And then at the end of the same post,

Who?

Really, Russ can you read? Here is the quote again, you have the paper or should.

from the NASA paper's summary
... The current plan is to support an IV&V test campaign at the Glenn Research Center (GRC) using their low thrust torsion pendulum followed by a repeat campaign at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) using their low thrust torsion pendulum. The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory has also expressed an interest in performing a Cavendish Balance style test with the IV&V shipset.

And again you are right my response both that first sentence and the, "can you read?", were personal.. And again I apologize, I should have phrased my comment(s) differently. However the answer to your emphasized question "Who?", was right there in the post you were responding to.

I cannot be responsible for how you interpret or perceive any of my generalized comment, as indirectly personal. Anyone should be able to express their opinions and/or how they interpret the facts of a discussion without concern that someone with an opposing perspective will take any disagreement, as personal.

With respect to your request,

I request you be more specific and tell me exactly what I said that was personal in nature because a sweeping statement like that isn't helpful in identifying the problem.

Other than as indicated above, I believe you can go back through your own posts and the discussion as a whole, beginning say at post #90, and draw your own conclusions. It would not be constructive discussion for me to respond further.

Since, from my perspective it appears that my intent, on the issue of criticism of the abstract and paper, has not been clearly conveyed, I will attempt to address that in a separate post, to follow.