Posted on 07/27/2015 4:32:51 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Later today, July 27, German scientists will present new experimental results on the controversial, "impossible" EM Drive, at the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics' Propulsion and Energy Forum in Orlando. The presentation is titled "Direct Thrust Measurements of an EmDrive and Evaluation of Possible Side-Effects."
Presenter Martin Tajmar is a professor and chair for Space Systems at the Dresden University of Technology, interested in space propulsion systems and breakthrough propulsion physics.
A Revolutionary Development for Space Travel
The EM Drive (Electro Magnetic Drive) uses electromagnetic microwave cavities to directly convert electrical energy to thrust without the need to expel any propellant. First proposed by Satellite Propulsion Research, a research company based in the UK founded by aerospace engineer Roger Shawyer, the EM Drive concept was predictably scorned by much of the mainstream research community for allegedly violating the laws of physics, including the conservation of momentum.
However, NASA Eagleworks – an advanced propulsion research group led by Dr. Harold G. “Sonny” White at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) – investigated the EM Drive and presented encouraging test results in 2014 at the 50th Joint Propulsion Conference.
White proposes that the EM Drive’s thrust is due to virtual particles in the quantum vacuum that behave like propellant ions in magneto-hydrodynamical propulsion systems, extracting "fuel" from the very fabric of space-time and eliminating the need to carry propellant. While a number of scientists criticize White's theoretical model, others feel that he is at least pointing to the right direction. The NASASpaceFlight website and forums have emerged as unofficial news source and discussion space for all things related to the EM Drive and related breakthrough space propulsion proposals such as the Cannae Drive.
Shawyer has often been dismissed by the research establishment for not having peer-reviewed scientific publications, but White and Tajmar have impeccable credentials that put them beyond cheap dismissal and scorn. Physics is an experimental science, and the fact that the EM Drive works is confirmed in the lab. "This is the first time that someone with a well-equipped lab and a strong background in tracking experimental error has been involved, rather than engineers who may be unconsciously influenced by a desire to see it work," notes Wired referring to Tajmar's work.
Hacked has obtained a copy of Tajmar's Propulsion and Energy Forum paper, co-authored by G. Fiedler.
"Our measurements reveal thrusts as expected from previous claims after carefully studying thermal and electromagnetic interferences," note the researchers. "If true, this could certainly revolutionize space travel."
"Additional tests need to be carried out to study the magnetic interaction of the power feeding lines used for the liquid metal contacts," conclude the researchers. "Nevertheless, we do observe thrusts close to the magnitude of the actual predictions after eliminating many possible error sources that should warrant further investigation into the phenomena. Next steps include better magnetic shielding, further vacuum tests and improved EMDrive models with higher Q factors and electronics that allow tuning for optimal operation."
Contrary to sensationalist reports published by the sensationalist press, the EM Drive is not a "warp drive" for faster than light travel. It could, however, according to current experimental evidence, be a revolutionary development for faster and cheaper space transportation.
Wired notes that an EmDrive could get to Pluto in less than 18 months and mentions more ambitious ideas including a manned trip to the moons of Saturn with a three-year mission time. "Some damage to our theories of physics is an acceptable payoff if we get a working space drive," concludes the Wired article.
Impossible propulsion drives are my fav, second only to batteries made from miracle substances.
I have a solution, but it only works on spherical chickens in a vacuum.
So Long, and thanks for all the fish! :)
And: "White and Tajmar have impeccable credentials that put them beyond cheap dismissal and scorn. Physics is an experimental science, and the fact that the EM Drive works is confirmed in the lab. "This is the first time that someone with a well-equipped lab and a strong background in tracking experimental error has been involved, rather than engineers who may be unconsciously influenced by a desire to see it work," notes Wired referring to Tajmar's work."
Also: "The NASASpaceFlight website and forums have emerged as unofficial news source and discussion space for all things related to the EM Drive and related breakthrough space propulsion proposals such as the Cannae Drive." Which would be a response for your argument that "The reality is that if the experimental effect was large enough for them to get a peer-reviewed result into publication, theorists all over the world would be shoving each other out of the way to explain the effect, rather than the other way around: a handful of dubious "theories" without any serious experimental evidence for them to explain."
For it's my understanding that the "reality" is that the ONLY thing scientists "shove each other out of the way for" is GRANTS. In this day and age it is beyond naive to believe that researchers pursue the dreams of pure science. Rather to exist at all they have to be extremely hard-nosed about what the "popular subjects" are for peer-reviewed publications, because those are the subjects for which they can get grants.
That's WHY ""The NASASpaceFlight website and forums have emerged as unofficial news source and discussion space for all things related to the EM Drive and related breakthrough space propulsion proposals ." And in the alternative, your speculation - and that's all it is - that "the experimental results are not sufficiently distinct from noise," is countered by the very subject of this article - the "new experimental results on the controversial, "impossible" EM Drive, at the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics' Propulsion and Energy Forum in Orlando... titled "Direct Thrust Measurements of an EmDrive and Evaluation of Possible Side-Effects." And as presenter Martin Tajmar is a professor and chair for Space Systems at the Dresden University of Technology, interested in space propulsion systems and breakthrough propulsion physics," I think he probably wouldn't want to present a paper demonstrating his inability to parse background noise from experimental date - quite the opposite, in fact.
So given all of that, if his "peers" don't want to address his findings, it's not his fault - nor is belligerence by the supporters of the entrenched paradigm a new attitude to deal with in science.
Ping to EM propulsion
The “Faraday” drive, utilizing the “right hand rule” was ridiculous until the advent of high-temperature superconductors and other material developments. Earth’s magnetic field makes our planet a natural launching pad.
The TR3B or one of its variants aka “Mysterious Black Triangles”
They’re going to make a rocket engine from a microwave oven?
Let’s see the prototype.
I really enjoy chatting with Homer Hickam on twitter. He encourages wide ranging thought and says there is no such thing as a dumb idea.
If someone suggests throwing rocks at a rocket to propel it forward, he starts thinking about the math. As he says, its not really feasible but not a dumb idea and works quite well if you think of your ship having a solar said and the rocks as photons from the sun.
For all of his work on rockets he says he always knew that chemical rockets were never going to get manned missions much further than Mars at the very most.
The fervency of your desire to believe in a thing does not influence in the slightest whether it is indeed real.
Notice that in your entire TL;DR reposting of the article, they say, "results will be presented," but do not say "the results are soon to be published in..." The reason they aren't saying that is that there are no experimental results yet of a quality decent enough that anyone will even try to publish them.
As for the rest of your rant, frankly, it's nonsense. As a former condensed matter theorist let me disabuse you of at least two idiotic ideas you have: 1) there are no "entrenched paradigms" in theoretical physics. If there really is something here, a theorist would love to be the first person in the world to explain it. And as soon as there is a reproducible signal significantly higher than the noise there will no shortage of theorists clamoring to to do just that. 2) Theoreticians aren't shoving each other out of the way for grant money. There's probably no lower overhead advanced technology practice in the world than theoretical physics. The extent of my professional expenses in 1984 was a salary barely higher than a graduate student's and the cost of paper, pencils, and dry erase markers for my white boards.
It is simply a LIE concocted by anti-scientific ignoramuses and snake oil salesman that cold-fusion, reactionless drives, perpetual motion machines of the first and second kinds, warp engines, and you name whatever kookburger nonsense next makes its way down the pike don't make it because they're opposed by some priestly class of keepers of the sacred entrenched paradigm.
Finally, NASA isn't outside of the scientific mainstream, and they certainly aren't outside of the government cash stream. As soon as NASA actually believes they have a publishable result, they will have NO DIFFICULTY whatsoever in getting it printed in the most prestigious journals in the world. None.
They haven't tried to do that because they aren't willing to stake their reputations on something tantalizing but unproven.
Could it soon be in the travel section of a newspaper: Hyatt- Mars..a resort on the planet Mars, for your weekend vacation?
So does this make Boeings LASER/fusion drive obsolete already?
Boeing patent reveals radical ‘laser fusion’ fission engine design
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3311008/posts
As you say, the fervency of your desire to believe in a thing does not influence in the slightest whether it is indeed real.
And I’ve found that people who need to use personal insults to back their opinions - “rant,” “idiotic ideas,” “lie,” “kookburger nonsense” etc. - are basically bullsh*t artists.
Starting with the personalization of your attack. My “entire TL;DR reposting of the article” as you said, was simply because you didn’t read it. Presented papers aren’t merely read, they’re released for publication. These scientists actually are credible scientists and acknowledged as such. perhaps they can’t hold a candle to the brilliance of your personal work in condensed matter theory, but really, who can? The rest of the world simply has to muddle on with their own Ph.Ds and their own grants and their own work, even though you’ve retired. It’s a shame, but there it is.
And as for your dismissal of the politics of peer-reviewed acceptance and its connection with grant money, you truly undermine your claim to actual work in the science field. Also, even though you solved Einstein’s Unified Field Theory with a pencil and paper before you threw it away as boring, actual experimental physicists have to, well, make experiments to get that data you dismiss as non-existent. And that takes grant money - connected to the peer-review gatekeepers.
To pretend I’m making up these links of power in the scientific world is absurd. And to follow up that absurdity, you deny NASA’s involvement over an article which - if you actually read it - you’d have noticed is actually connected to NASA.
Finally, I don’t know who Kevmo is, but it was probably just another insult on your part. You know, you remind me of someone - there was a theoretical scientist in the 1800’s who penciled out proof that if a train hit 60 miles per hour the wind would kill everyone on board. Check your lineage, I think you’re related.
You haven’t said anything new. The presentations are not going to appear in a peer reviewed journal. Period. That’s the end of it.
LOL
You haven’t said anything new. The presentations are not going to appear in a peer reviewed journal. Period. That’s the end of it.
Are these the same ‘peer reviewed journals’ that publish all the global warming ‘facts’?
The fact that you don't is a good indicator of why you're posting this pseudo-scientific bilge to begin with.
No. They aren’t. If you knew the difference between climatology, physics and aeronautics you would know that.
The fact that you don’t is a good indicator of why you’re posting this pseudo-scientific bilge to begin with.
Excuse me, but WTH are you ranting about? I haven’t posted anything about this except this one ‘peer-reviewed journal’ that you just replied to.
I thought I was replying to the OP. Leave off the second sentence, and my to you will still make sense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.