Again I apologize for the long delay....
When I posted my first significant comment in this thread, the discussion/argument generally (by which I mean both in this thread and most of the blogs and press articles referenced), seemed focused on the language in the abstract, of the paper, Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF Test Device Measured on a Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum. The objection and criticism, I was concerned with, seemed more specifically about the use of the phrase, "quantum vacuum virtual plasma" and an assumed theoretical explanation associated with Shawyer's EmDrive... As well as an assumption that the paper itself was intended as a paper on a completed experiment.
I characterized that portion of the criticism as ideological and as coming from "a perceived threat of how the claims might challenge currently accepted theoretical assumptions." I still feel that this was the case, because aside from an unfortunate use of the phrase, "quantum vacuum virtual plasma" in the abstracts, no theoretical basis was presented or suggested by the authors. In fact when reading the abstract, aside from outside commentary and then the paper as a whole, it does not read as though, what turns out to be a report on the development of an experimental design capable of testing the physical mechanisms and confirming or disproving the development of thrust (that does not require classical fuels), was ever intended as more that an independent test of the two devices mentioned.
I do not defend the paper as a good scientific research paper. My objection is about the assumptions contained in the criticism. Which does not, in itself reflect good or competent science and seems to be in response to the abstract, not the paper itself.
Below is the last comment from John Baez blog. Note that from his last comment and the fact that he closed the comments when he seems to have obtained the full paper, that his blog comments and earlier discussion were based on one or both versions of the abstract. The comments have not been reopened.
Following are three quotes from the paper.
While it is true that the phrase, quantum vacuum virtual plasma is used twice in the abstract portion of the paper (and no where else), the second sentence of the introduction rephrases this as follows,
That first sentence from Section VI quoted above, seems to clearly indicate that the paper is describing where they are in setting up an experiment to be completed sometime in the future.
What this really looks like to me, is that the NASA group was in the process of developing and assembling the equipment necessary to test the two EM drive variations indicated, and rushed this paper for a presentation at the 50th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, in Cleveland, OH. The test results included seem to be part of the test and design requirements necessary, for development and assembly of test equipment, which was not complete, meaning not capable of running full hard vacuum tests, at the time the conference paper/technical report was generated, for presentation at the conference.
If my assessment is correct, the paper could certainly have been structured and presented in a better way, that might have resulted in less critical judgement of what appears to be an experiment still in the stage of design and component assembly.
Other issues have been raised in the discussion, some may have merit of their own, some perhaps not, but none likely have any point as a discussion or criticism of the design and development of an experiment yet to be conducted. The fact that the Chinese have, separate from Shawyer and according to Shawyer, based on a different theoretical model, claimed to have generated thrust from a similar device is enough reason to do the work of experimentally confirming or disproving those claims, without any regard for what the underlying theory or physics may be.
IF those test results confirm an otherwise unexplained thrust, another look at the underlying theory and physics would obviously be in order. Criticizing the design and development phase of tests designed to confirm or refute previously published experimental claims, is not good scientific review.
When I posted my first significant comment in this thread, the discussion/argument generally (by which I mean both in this thread and most of the blogs and press articles referenced), seemed focused on the language in the abstract, of the paper, Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF Test Device Measured on a Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum. The objection and criticism, I was concerned with, seemed more specifically about the use of the phrase, "quantum vacuum virtual plasma" and an assumed theoretical explanation associated with Shawyer's EmDrive... As well as an assumption that the paper itself was intended as a paper on a completed experiment.
I characterized that portion of the criticism as ideological and as coming from "a perceived threat of how the claims might challenge currently accepted theoretical assumptions." I still feel that this was the case, because aside from an unfortunate use of the phrase, "quantum vacuum virtual plasma" in the abstracts, no theoretical basis was presented or suggested by the authors. In fact when reading the abstract, aside from outside commentary and then the paper as a whole, it does not read as though, what turns out to be a report on the development of an experimental design capable of testing the physical mechanisms and confirming or disproving the development of thrust (that does not require classical fuels), was ever intended as more that an independent test of the two devices mentioned.
I do not defend the paper as a good scientific research paper. My objection is about the assumptions contained in the criticism. Which does not, in itself reflect good or competent science and seems to be in response to the abstract, not the paper itself.
Below is the last comment from John Baez blog. Note that from his last comment and the fact that he closed the comments when he seems to have obtained the full paper, that his blog comments and earlier discussion were based on one or both versions of the abstract. The comments have not been reopened.
For reference the abstract(s) are available from the NASA Technical Reports Server (the abstract of the NASA technical paper) and the ARC cite (the first page of the conference paper) listed under the 50th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, Cleveland, OH. Both require membership for further access.
Neither the abstract or the paper are subject to copyright protection, as indicated on the NASA cite and in the bottom margin of the paper. The full paper appearing anonymously posted at RGhost -file sharing.
The paper's status as a conference paper, is supported by its location on the ARC server and as indicated in the top margin of the paper as follows,
Neither the abstract or the paper are subject to copyright protection, as indicated on the NASA cite and in the bottom margin of the paper. The full paper appearing anonymously posted at RGhost -file sharing.
The paper's status as a conference paper, is supported by its location on the ARC server and as indicated in the top margin of the paper as follows,
Propulsion and Energy Forum
July 28-30, 2014, Cleveland, OH
50th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference
July 28-30, 2014, Cleveland, OH
50th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference
Following are three quotes from the paper.
from the paper's abstract said:
2nd sentence from Section I. Introduction of the paper said:
1st sentence from Section VI. Summary and Forward Work of the paper said:
While it is true that the phrase, quantum vacuum virtual plasma is used twice in the abstract portion of the paper (and no where else), the second sentence of the introduction rephrases this as follows,
a somewhat less offensive phrase. Both of these could be read to imply some unstated theoretical context, however the paper also clearly states in the abstract,
And no specific underlying theory is presented. The paper does reference both the 2013 Chinese paper and the Cannae Drive web cite. (The later not currently online.)
That first sentence from Section VI quoted above, seems to clearly indicate that the paper is describing where they are in setting up an experiment to be completed sometime in the future.
What this really looks like to me, is that the NASA group was in the process of developing and assembling the equipment necessary to test the two EM drive variations indicated, and rushed this paper for a presentation at the 50th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, in Cleveland, OH. The test results included seem to be part of the test and design requirements necessary, for development and assembly of test equipment, which was not complete, meaning not capable of running full hard vacuum tests, at the time the conference paper/technical report was generated, for presentation at the conference.
If my assessment is correct, the paper could certainly have been structured and presented in a better way, that might have resulted in less critical judgement of what appears to be an experiment still in the stage of design and component assembly.
Other issues have been raised in the discussion, some may have merit of their own, some perhaps not, but none likely have any point as a discussion or criticism of the design and development of an experiment yet to be conducted. The fact that the Chinese have, separate from Shawyer and according to Shawyer, based on a different theoretical model, claimed to have generated thrust from a similar device is enough reason to do the work of experimentally confirming or disproving those claims, without any regard for what the underlying theory or physics may be.
IF those test results confirm an otherwise unexplained thrust, another look at the underlying theory and physics would obviously be in order. Criticizing the design and development phase of tests designed to confirm or refute previously published experimental claims, is not good scientific review.