EM Drive

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

RERT
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2014 9:10 pm

Re: EM Drive

Postby RERT » Thu Apr 21, 2016 12:04 pm

"dox"?

RERT
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2014 9:10 pm

Re: EM Drive

Postby RERT » Thu Apr 21, 2016 12:06 pm

Let's hear it for page-breaks! I mean, from the recent post:

"...moderated by a person who openly admits to trying to dox folks online."

What do you mean by "dox"?

R.

paperburn1
Posts: 2454
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: EM Drive

Postby paperburn1 » Thu Apr 21, 2016 1:25 pm

search for and publish private or identifying information about (a particular individual) on the Internet, typically with malicious intent.
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Re: EM Drive

Postby ScottL » Thu Apr 21, 2016 5:37 pm

RERT wrote:Let's hear it for page-breaks! I mean, from the recent post:

"...moderated by a person who openly admits to trying to dox folks online."

What do you mean by "dox"?

R.


He (moderator of the emDrive thread) willfully violated Reddit's rules by posting a skeptics personal information when he didn't like the skeptic's critique. This type of behavior has no place in civil discourse and those who partake in this behavior should be removed until they're capable of owning up to what they've done and apologizing.

As for the emDrive, I've seen no results that are outside of the usual sources (thermal effects, lorentz forces, etc.) It's all well within noise levels. Well all reported except for TheTraveller's 0.4N of thrust, but I have no reason to believe him. He consistently rage quits the various forums whenever someone points out the obvious flaws in his reasoning. It's rather comical if you ask me.

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: EM Drive

Postby ladajo » Thu Apr 21, 2016 6:43 pm

Tell me it was the "he who shall not be named" idiot (Schnitzel or whatever) that he outed and I am on his side!
Thank god that psychopath got bored and moved on to other boards to seek being "banned" from once he figured out there is no banning here.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

Carl White
Posts: 317
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 10:44 pm

Re: EM Drive

Postby Carl White » Thu Apr 21, 2016 7:55 pm

http://cannae.com/new-superconducting-demo-scheduled/

Cannae is preparing for another demonstration of our superconducting thruster technology in May. Here is a picture of our assembled thruster and test apparatus. The thruster is under vacuum and ready for cryogenic operation.


One could wish for more details. Will the demonstration be public? Will there be any independent third-party verification?

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Re: EM Drive

Postby ScottL » Thu Apr 21, 2016 9:08 pm

ladajo wrote:Tell me it was the "he who shall not be named" idiot (Schnitzel or whatever) that he outed and I am on his side!
Thank god that psychopath got bored and moved on to other boards to seek being "banned" from once he figured out there is no banning here.


Not to my knowledge. He outed an individual who is well versed in physics (both math and theory) because he didn't like the critique. I also get the distinct feeling that Dr. Rodal over at NSF does not believe in the emDrive anymore, but indulges those posting as a teachable moment. In actuality this results in them stretching further for theories to fit a yet-to-be-observed/confirmed thrust measurement. It has become a bit of a circle-jerk and if you are skeptical, you either get drowned out, banned, or are at risk of being doxx'd. It is largely the reason why I don't post there any longer.

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: EM Drive

Postby ladajo » Thu Apr 21, 2016 9:41 pm

That's too bad. A core principle should remain the free exchange of ideas. That is how we all learn.

For example, if I ever (no matter how doubtful) hear a real idea coming from Rossiclown World, I will listen and consider it.

I still think EM Drive is intriguing. For example, I am interested in seeing if someone does a dedicated reversal test as discussed in the unrah flux theory. Simple enough. I would also like to see larger and smaller scale units tested instead of the existing convenience sized ones.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)

What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

birchoff
Posts: 200
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2014 7:11 pm

Re: EM Drive

Postby birchoff » Fri Apr 22, 2016 7:21 am

ScottL wrote:
ladajo wrote:Tell me it was the "he who shall not be named" idiot (Schnitzel or whatever) that he outed and I am on his side!
Thank god that psychopath got bored and moved on to other boards to seek being "banned" from once he figured out there is no banning here.


Not to my knowledge. He outed an individual who is well versed in physics (both math and theory) because he didn't like the critique. I also get the distinct feeling that Dr. Rodal over at NSF does not believe in the emDrive anymore, but indulges those posting as a teachable moment. In actuality this results in them stretching further for theories to fit a yet-to-be-observed/confirmed thrust measurement. It has become a bit of a circle-jerk and if you are skeptical, you either get drowned out, banned, or are at risk of being doxx'd. It is largely the reason why I don't post there any longer.


umm I have been following the discussion on NSF since thread1 and I have yet to see any member of that forum dox anyone. I assume your referring to the reddit discussion. If that is the case please make it much clearer that is the case. The discussion that is happening at NSF about EmDrive is about the most civilized discussion I have ever seen on the internet period. Dr. Rodal's input I think is pretty much the reason for it being so civilized.

As for whether or not this thing works. Since I have no reason to discount Star-Drive's correspondence both here and on NSF. I am pretty sure that either the EmDrive actually is a real thing, or the source of error is more intricate than thermal and lorentz forces. By the way as per Star Drives comments on NSF their updated experiments have reduced lorentz force contributions to force measurements while at the same time increasing the measured net thrust to around 100uN; in addition to increased consistency in those measurements. While they haven't completely removed thermal force contributions due to Center of Mass changes. They have at least done some analytical work to quantify how much that force contribution is due to Thermal CoM and can subtract it from their gross force figure (hence the 100uN of NET Thrust).

RERT
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2014 9:10 pm

Re: EM Drive

Postby RERT » Fri Apr 22, 2016 10:33 am

I've also followed NSF since last summer.

There has been a change recently, in that the DIY posters have not come up with real data for a while. The Travellers 8mN force with just under 100W power is a very significant number, but I think folk are right to be skeptical as there is no real report on the experimental data. SeeShells is rebuilding after she burnt out part of her first build when she was convinced she saw an effect. Rfmwguy thinks he saw something and published his data on the blog. Looking at the data I don't think the 177 micro-Newtons he measured was out of the noise on his experiment. He is refining his setup to try and produce conclusive data.

Provoked by conversations on NSF, I took a look at the last ten years of so company filings from SPR, Shawyer's company. The accounts are consistent with Shawyers story that SPR worked with Boeing for a period ending mid-2011. Previously it survived on grants and shareholder loans. SPR also made some money in the last financial year filed, ending March 2015, consistent with a small IP or consultancy revenue stream. It is making no capital investments so one can deduce that any real development work, if it exists, is being done elsewhere.

My take-away was that Shawyer has over the last ten years had ample time and money to determine whether the EMdrive effect is real or not. Judging by the Horizon programme on the BBC recently, he's also had ample physical resources. To me the situation is pretty black-and-white: it either works, or he is delusional/crooked.

The "delusional/crooked" hypothesis takes a hit from the recent pronouncements from Cannae, and the fact that serious people at NASA still repeat that "the anomalous force remains".

It's also worth bearing in mind that if the effect is real the stakes may be very, very big. Expect openness and straight talking all round...:)!

R.

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Re: EM Drive

Postby ScottL » Fri Apr 22, 2016 4:47 pm

birchoff wrote:umm I have been following the discussion on NSF since thread1 and I have yet to see any member of that forum dox anyone. I assume your referring to the reddit discussion. If that is the case please make it much clearer that is the case. The discussion that is happening at NSF about EmDrive is about the most civilized discussion I have ever seen on the internet period. Dr. Rodal's input I think is pretty much the reason for it being so civilized.


To clarify, yes it happened on Reddit. Doesn't matter where it happened, the fact that he is willing is the problem. He should suck it up and apologize, but he hasn't and won't. As for civility, sure it's civil when you purge all dissent. Nearly everyone that has had a dissenting voice has either been banned, had their posts removed, or has stopped posting altogether. It's a circle-jerk of faith on NSF and at this point I think the only vocal skeptic is Dr. Rodal, but he gets the pass for accepting the idea early on.

birchoff wrote:As for whether or not this thing works. Since I have no reason to discount Star-Drive's correspondence both here and on NSF. I am pretty sure that either the EmDrive actually is a real thing, or the source of error is more intricate than thermal and lorentz forces. By the way as per Star Drives comments on NSF their updated experiments have reduced lorentz force contributions to force measurements while at the same time increasing the measured net thrust to around 100uN; in addition to increased consistency in those measurements. While they haven't completely removed thermal force contributions due to Center of Mass changes. They have at least done some analytical work to quantify how much that force contribution is due to Thermal CoM and can subtract it from their gross force figure (hence the 100uN of NET Thrust).


Paul has not posted in a while. His last post was the equivalent of "Oh my god, I'm not saying we have something, but....we might have something." When EW shows the data and has their work peer-reviewed, I'll take it seriously, but until then I'm going to acknowledge the fact that at the first chance of doing vacuum testing, they put non-vacuum rated amp in there and watched it blow. Until you have a fully described experiment that we can all analyze, you can't really take Paul's claims at face value. I think he's an honest guy, but I don't believe he understands everything he sees.

Btw, this is civil discourse. Had I posted this on NSF, I would likely get my posts deleted like I have in the past.

birchoff
Posts: 200
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2014 7:11 pm

Re: EM Drive

Postby birchoff » Sat Apr 23, 2016 5:35 pm

ScottL wrote:
birchoff wrote:umm I have been following the discussion on NSF since thread1 and I have yet to see any member of that forum dox anyone. I assume your referring to the reddit discussion. If that is the case please make it much clearer that is the case. The discussion that is happening at NSF about EmDrive is about the most civilized discussion I have ever seen on the internet period. Dr. Rodal's input I think is pretty much the reason for it being so civilized.


To clarify, yes it happened on Reddit. Doesn't matter where it happened, the fact that he is willing is the problem. He should suck it up and apologize, but he hasn't and won't. As for civility, sure it's civil when you purge all dissent. Nearly everyone that has had a dissenting voice has either been banned, had their posts removed, or has stopped posting altogether. It's a circle-jerk of faith on NSF and at this point I think the only vocal skeptic is Dr. Rodal, but he gets the pass for accepting the idea early on.

birchoff wrote:As for whether or not this thing works. Since I have no reason to discount Star-Drive's correspondence both here and on NSF. I am pretty sure that either the EmDrive actually is a real thing, or the source of error is more intricate than thermal and lorentz forces. By the way as per Star Drives comments on NSF their updated experiments have reduced lorentz force contributions to force measurements while at the same time increasing the measured net thrust to around 100uN; in addition to increased consistency in those measurements. While they haven't completely removed thermal force contributions due to Center of Mass changes. They have at least done some analytical work to quantify how much that force contribution is due to Thermal CoM and can subtract it from their gross force figure (hence the 100uN of NET Thrust).


Paul has not posted in a while. His last post was the equivalent of "Oh my god, I'm not saying we have something, but....we might have something." When EW shows the data and has their work peer-reviewed, I'll take it seriously, but until then I'm going to acknowledge the fact that at the first chance of doing vacuum testing, they put non-vacuum rated amp in there and watched it blow. Until you have a fully described experiment that we can all analyze, you can't really take Paul's claims at face value. I think he's an honest guy, but I don't believe he understands everything he sees.

Btw, this is civil discourse. Had I posted this on NSF, I would likely get my posts deleted like I have in the past.


LOL, yes your comment is borderline civil. However, in the early days of that thread on NSF it quickly devolved from being civil to mud slinging. To prevent the devolution from repeating and avoid closing the thread and banishing the conversation from NSF; they opted to strictly enforce their Terms of Use. I dont see a problem with that, since I know for a fact that the enforcement has affected supporters and critics alike. From what I have seen the only ones who got banned were the ones that where either knowingly or unknowingly ignorant of why their posts were being removed in the first place. As for Rodal, he doesnt get a pass. He has had some of his comments pruned from the thread also. He hasn't been banned because he stays away from questioning the character of the people he is talking to or about.

Honestly I think the problem is we all have different expectations of what a civil conversation is. I categorized your comment as being borderline civil. Because I dont think you really needed to label the participants of the thread at NSF as participating in a "circle jerk of faith". From my perspective it is an insulting comment that I would only trot out when I am in the company of people who know me and understand that I mean no harm with its usage. Too often people post stuff on forums assuming EVERYONE knows that they mean no harm in the words they use. When nothing could be further from the reality. This may sound like advocating for Political Correctness. But from where I stand it is hard enough trying to understand someone who has a different background from myself without trotting out language that I know some people find offensive, while having no clue if the person I am talking to falls into the category of people who will be offended or wont be offended.

Anyway, I see your point. I used to be on the fence about whether or not Paul, White and the other experimenters at EW were competent enough to understand the forces at play in their experiment. But with the addition of Tajmar's experiment showing anomalous forces, and EW rebuilding their experiment to account for the critiques they received. I feel sufficiently confident that either the force being measured is legitimate thrust, or some very very interesting non obvious experimental artifact.

As for the participants in the NSF EmDrive Thread. I would have to violently disagree that it is a "circle jerk of faith". Most of the discussions their are really about understanding the EM environment inside the frustum when it is under power. While giving details of their own experiments they are attempting and receiving critique about their experimental setup. From where I stand I believe this is what the scientific method requires. Its ok if some people want to dis miss the idea completely out of hand. But doing so from where I stand is not a valid critique if someone has an experiment showing their idea no matter how bad you believe their experiment is. At most it would be a valid justification for why the critic would not be interested. However, in light of what it would mean if this little experiment actually panned out. I am ok taking a risk that they may be on to something, I just wont bet the farm that they are, at least not without more solid data.

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: EM Drive

Postby Diogenes » Sat Apr 23, 2016 8:12 pm

Found this on Instapundit. I guess he didn't notice how old it was. Oh well, what the H3ll.


NASA's 'impossible' EM Drive works: German researcher confirms and it can take us to the moon in just 4 HOURS


Image


Now Martin Tajmar, a well-known professor and chairman for Space Systems at Dresden University of Technology in Germany, has worked with his own EM Drive, and has once again revealed that it produces thrust - although for reasons he can't clarify yet.




http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2015/0 ... xr_W3pKYg_
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Re: EM Drive

Postby ScottL » Sun Apr 24, 2016 4:46 am

birchoff wrote:Honestly I think the problem is we all have different expectations of what a civil conversation is. I categorized your comment as being borderline civil. Because I dont think you really needed to label the participants of the thread at NSF as participating in a "circle jerk of faith". From my perspective it is an insulting comment that I would only trot out when I am in the company of people who know me and understand that I mean no harm with its usage. Too often people post stuff on forums assuming EVERYONE knows that they mean no harm in the words they use. When nothing could be further from the reality. This may sound like advocating for Political Correctness. But from where I stand it is hard enough trying to understand someone who has a different background from myself without trotting out language that I know some people find offensive, while having no clue if the person I am talking to falls into the category of people who will be offended or wont be offended.

The few posts I had over there where I suggested thermal effects, Lorentz forces, or anything else were met with removal or responded with "you're argument is the same as the others" (paraphrasing). Of course it is, because the issues haven't been handled.

birchoff wrote:Anyway, I see your point. I used to be on the fence about whether or not Paul, White and the other experimenters at EW were competent enough to understand the forces at play in their experiment. But with the addition of Tajmar's experiment showing anomalous forces, and EW rebuilding their experiment to account for the critiques they received. I feel sufficiently confident that either the force being measured is legitimate thrust, or some very very interesting non obvious experimental artifact.


This is where we differ. Tajmar himself didn't believe in his results and stated that his experiment suffered from various issues. EW as I said before has gone silent. At this point there just is no evidence to say there is a thrust. That could change, but it hasn't in over a year (a decade if you consider Shawyer).

birchoff wrote:As for the participants in the NSF EmDrive Thread. I would have to violently disagree that it is a "circle jerk of faith". Most of the discussions their are really about understanding the EM environment inside the frustum when it is under power. While giving details of their own experiments they are attempting and receiving critique about their experimental setup. From where I stand I believe this is what the scientific method requires. Its ok if some people want to dis miss the idea completely out of hand. But doing so from where I stand is not a valid critique if someone has an experiment showing their idea no matter how bad you believe their experiment is. At most it would be a valid justification for why the critic would not be interested. However, in light of what it would mean if this little experiment actually panned out. I am ok taking a risk that they may be on to something, I just wont bet the farm that they are, at least not without more solid data.


My comments aren't related to the experiments. Let them experiment all they want. My comments are that anyone who critiques, in a civil manner, has their post removed (You noted Rodal has had his removed) or that their posts are drowned out. If a valid critique is not addressed or ignored, that poster leaves and then yes, it is a circle jerk.

birchoff
Posts: 200
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2014 7:11 pm

Re: EM Drive

Postby birchoff » Mon Apr 25, 2016 9:23 pm

ScottL wrote:The few posts I had over there where I suggested thermal effects, Lorentz forces, or anything else were met with removal or responded with "you're argument is the same as the others" (paraphrasing). Of course it is, because the issues haven't been handled.

I will take you at your word because I have no reason to doubt you. Though if this was during thread 1 and thread 2. That was mostly GiThrusters fault. His criticisms devolved from civilized to out right insults. With his admitted goal (He admitted it here on TP) to get the thread locked down. The moderators did lock the thread and banned him from NSF but I believe some conversations where had and the NSF admin decided to simply purge the offending comments along with any duplicate comments in order to raise the signal to noice ratio.

That said I dont know any serious person on that forum that believed that the first reported experiment accounted for thermal and lorentz forces. Hell Rodal wrote a paper about how the sharp force rise could be attributed to Center of Mass change. So the criticism was being heard. The only question I guess was whether or not YOUR criticism was being heard. Personally I care more about the criticism than the critic, specifically since I have zero skin in the game other than potentially seeing human space flight pulled forwards a few decades if not centuries.

ScottL wrote:This is where we differ. Tajmar himself didn't believe in his results and stated that his experiment suffered from various issues. EW as I said before has gone silent. At this point there just is no evidence to say there is a thrust. That could change, but it hasn't in over a year (a decade if you consider Shawyer).

I dont think we really differ. your probably assuming that I am not accounting for the fact that Tajmar reported a number of issues with his experiment. I am not considering his experiment as proof that their is thrust. I am considering his experiment as proof that this isn't going to end up being a simple overlooked experimental artifact, if it is an experimental artifact. Also, I forgot to include cannae in my list of experiments.

My stance in case it isn't clear is simply that either there is real thrust that can potentially be scaled up. Or the experimental artifact that will be revealed would make for a good paper. I am leaving room for there to not be "Real" thrust. What I am not leaving room for is that this is a case of some simple experimental artifact that a well trained PhD experimental physicist should see with a quick review of the experimental setup.

ScottL wrote:My comments aren't related to the experiments. Let them experiment all they want. My comments are that anyone who critiques, in a civil manner, has their post removed (You noted Rodal has had his removed) or that their posts are drowned out. If a valid critique is not addressed or ignored, that poster leaves and then yes, it is a circle jerk.


I didnt say that and that has not been my experience. Though I guess this really comes down to how one defines "critiquing in a civil manner". From my perspective if you exclude the stuff that lead to thread 1&2 being locked and pruned. I have not observed anything like you have described. Maybe I just missed it. but compared to other emdrive forums. I would argue that NSF is the best place to participate in the public discussion.


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests