Em drives

[boogabooga]

:facepalm:

I glue a piece of iron to a scale. I hold a magnet over the iron.

Low and behold, the scale shows a reduction in force. I therefore conclude that the iron produces thrust...

BTW, go over to http://cannae.com

Tab over to Theory of Operation. Do the subsections "principles of operation" and "conservation laws" show a (fake?) 404 error page for everyone?

Seriously, are you kidding me???? :facepalm: :rofl:

All the videos hinting at how much money you can make by investing in the magic motor that doesn't need any fuel are online though.

You can all draw your own conclusions.

 

[TR1978]

Hehe, I in no way have any knowledge to have an opinion on this, I just found it interesting that Nasa had tested it and got strange results. :-D

 

[kamaz]

The question of how the theory might work is not so important as results IMHO. If the thruster is capable of producing thrust in space - measurable beyond every reasonable doubt - it just works.

Indeed, it appears that the device works.

That said, it does not necessarily mean that the device works the way the inventor imagines it does. History of science is full of such situations.

 

[Urwumpe]

Indeed, it appears that the device works.

That said, it does not necessarily mean that the device works the way the inventor imagines it does. History of science is full of such situations.

No. It only means that they have measured some quantity. This does not mean much about the system observed and the theories behind it.

If you let a jet engine fall from a cliff on a force sensor plate, you could also measure a huge force and claim that the jet engine produced it.

That the engine produced a thrust force in all expected directions (though weaker than expected) does not mean much - it could for example also be interaction with earths magnetic field - we are talking about microNewtons here, after all. Or heating of the ambient air inside the engine, etc....

(The oil cooler of a P-51D Mustang produced a few orders of magnitude more thrust than this engine, for example, without consuming fuel itself.)

 

[fsci123]

Being a dumb teen I have no knowledge of this so...

I think that the whole "drive" functions by converting the microwaves into oscillating magnetic fields on both the "drive" and the testing chamber. The "thrust" is actually the result of the "drive" being propelled by magnetic force...similar to an eddy current motor on trains.

 

[jedidia]

microNewtons

Isn't mN supposed to mean miliNewtons?

 

[boogabooga]

No. It only means that they have measured some quantity. This does not mean much about the system observed and the theories behind it.

If you let a jet engine fall from a cliff on a force sensor plate, you could also measure a huge force and claim that the jet engine produced it.

That the engine produced a thrust force in all expected directions (though weaker than expected) does not mean much - it could for example also be interaction with earths magnetic field - we are talking about microNewtons here, after all. Or heating of the ambient air inside the engine, etc....

(The oil cooler of a P-51D Mustang produced a few orders of magnitude more thrust than this engine, for example, without consuming fuel itself.)

I refer back to the iron on the scale. You can be showing microNewtons of force on your balance. That isn't sufficient. If for example the steel girders in the building are experiencing an equal force in the opposite direction, this is a nonstarter.

 

[Urwumpe]

Isn't mN supposed to mean miliNewtons?

The article had been writing microNewtons AFAIR, while the Chinese claimed to have measured milliNewtons.

 

[kamaz]

No. It only means that they have measured some quantity. This does not mean much about the system observed and the theories behind it.

You're essentially saying that both NASA and the Chinese employ people with no understanding of experimental design. I'll just say that I disagree.

If you let a jet engine fall from a cliff on a force sensor plate, you could also measure a huge force and claim that the jet engine produced it.

But if you drop two engines, one powered and the other one unpowered and you measure a difference in force, then you have a case that the engine works -- and this is essentially what has been done here.

FYI, electrokinetic/electrogravitic effects have been demonstrated in a scientifically rigorous manner back in 1950s, and amateurs have since come up with numerous independent reproductions. The mainstream academia does not recognize these results... but having worked in academia for years, this does not surprise me in the slightest.

 

[boogabooga]

You're essentially saying that both NASA and the Chinese employ people with no understanding of experimental design. I'll just say that I disagree.

I don't know about Urwumpe, but that's what I'm saying, to a degree.

Perhaps when "mainstream" academics were skeptical of FTL neutrinos, you could say:

"You're essentially saying that CERN employ people with no understanding of experimental design. I'll just say that I disagree."

I was a summer intern at a NASA center some years ago. They're very good, but trust me, they are also human.

 

[kamaz]

And, in case of FTL neutrinos, the result turned out to be non-reproducible (plus, it contradicted observations of SN1987A, so it should have been immediately discarded for this reason alone).

This appears to be reproducible.

 

[Urwumpe]

FYI, electrokinetic/electrogravitic effects have been demonstrated in a scientifically rigorous manner back in 1950s, and amateurs have since come up with numerous independent reproductions. The mainstream academia does not recognize these results... but having worked in academia for years, this does not surprise me in the slightest.

Sorry but "demonstrated" is exactly the problem there: Nobody has done so, contrary too all optimism and hope behind it.

If you have experimental reproductions, the data should be the same to a degree. Problem: Your amateurs, who are oh so suppressed by mainstream academics have failed in reproducing even the same test run on the same test rig. There is no such thing as peer review there.

If the technology and our understanding would be as good as you claim since the 1950s, we would have it in commercial applications. But the problem is: You can't just take some blueprints, build such a thruster and it will work. usually it will not work and you will spend the rest of your life in mailing lists, blogs and forums to find explanations, what you have done wrong, because it has worked for others - at least they claim so.

I have become very careful in criticizing science for being intolerant for new ideas. Science can be slow, but science has also learned that even stupid ideas with proper experimental research can turn out as solid theories.

It is especially important to note, that neither NASA, nor ESA, who both have tested such concepts, have not been so optimistic in their assessment of their experiments, than the supporters. But just simply neutral. We have measured something and it was not what was expected. Scientifically neutral... as you should be there.

 

[boogabooga]

And, in case of FTL neutrinos, the result turned out to be non-reproducible (plus, it contradicted observations of SN1987A, so it should have been immediately discarded for this reason alone).

This appears to be reproducible.

So contradicting the observations of SN1987A is more of a concern for you than contradicting Newton's laws?

I think what FTL neutrinos showed was how difficult it is even for seasoned professionals to eliminate all sources of experimental error.

Until it can be shown that net force in the entire system is not 0, I will not be convinced.

BTW, for all we know the entire system might include the experimental apparatus, the building, or the earth itself.

 

[RisingFury]

There's a difference between something being true and wanting something to be true.

 

[perseus]

"The proof of the pudding is in the eating".

 

[Andy44]

:facepalm:

I glue a piece of iron to a scale. I hold a magnet over the iron.

Low and behold, the scale shows a reduction in force. I therefore conclude that the iron produces thrust...

BTW, go over to http://cannae.com

Tab over to Theory of Operation. Do the subsections "principles of operation" and "conservation laws" show a (fake?) 404 error page for everyone?

Seriously, are you kidding me???? :facepalm: :rofl:

All the videos hinting at how much money you can make by investing in the magic motor that doesn't need any fuel are online though.

You can all draw your own conclusions.

When I clicked on that site's link my antivirus software put up a warning about "suspicious activity" on that site and asked me if I wanted to proceed.

I chose not to. Not worth the risk for something I am skeptical about in the first place.

And lends more weight to the notion that this is BS.

That said, hope springs eternal. Back to watching Star Trek reruns I go...

 

[Quick_Nick]

If you use archive.org you can see parts of the website that are not currently working for whatever reason.
And on their website (cached or recent), it gives more info on the 'null' test:

Cannae conducted testing on a non-superconducting Cannae Drive with the NASA Eagleworks Lab at the Johnson Space Center. Tests were conducted in August 2013 and January 2014. Additional testing is scheduled within the next several months. During the August, 2013 tests, the Cannae Drive article produced between 30 and 40 uN of force on the NASA torsion pendulum. In addition, an unslotted blank cavity also produced similar thrust. A termination unit used in place of the cavities produced no thrust. NASA and Cannae are working on upgraded testing. NASA is publishing results from the August 2013 test program.

The slots are physical features of the drive that were thought to be a crucial part of the mechanism.

The website is actually not terrible if you look at archived versions.

 

[jedidia]

So they have more tests already scheduled. That's nice to hear. Let's get to the bottom of this.

 

[kamaz]

So contradicting the observations of SN1987A is more of a concern for you than contradicting Newton's laws?

Laws of physics are not prescriptive, but descriptive. Unfortunately, the mindset that the laws are prescriptive (and therefore final) is widespread, especially in academia.

SN1987A allowed us to measure delay in arrival time between neutrinos and light over 160 kly baseline -- and the result was very near zero. Therefore a measurable delay over 500km baseline was very suspect.

In contrast, there are many other known systems which violate Newton's laws. All relativistic systems violate Newton's laws. Galaxy rotation violates Newton's laws. (And the aforementioned mindset dictates dark matter conjecture over modification of the law in line with experimental data, as science always did until late 20th century). Martin Tajmar's experiments (recognized by mainstream) violated Newton's laws. Add to this that a possible explanation here is an electrogravitic effect, and that electrogravitic effects must exists if gravity and electromagnetism are unifiable. In short, there is too much data to write something off simply because it appears to violate Newton's laws. (The fun part here is that the inventor himself claims that his device doesn't violate Newton's laws).

Heavier than air flying machines are impossible -- Lord Kelvin, 1895.

 

[Artlav]

SN1987A allowed us to measure delay in arrival time between neutrinos and light over 160 kly baseline -- and the result was very near zero. Therefore a measurable delay over 500km baseline was very suspect.

Sure. But never the less the conditions inside a supernova and inside a particle accelerator might differ enough to produce distinct phenomena.
"It is suspect" means much higher probability of experimental error than actual result, but you still need to find where that error is, otherwise you have an unexplained observation.

electrogravitic effects must exists if gravity and electromagnetism are unifiable

Not necessarily.

Gravity and electromagnetism can be unifiable at lower level, and not interact between themselves.
I.e. gravity is some weird effect of universe's expansion, while electromagnetism is the effect of particles/waves/quarks/etc interactions.

One would be a large scale system effect, while the other is a small scale element interaction effect.
Thus, there can be no possible way to "induce" gravity like magnetic field, and yet they would be unified at the lower level.

Heavier than air flying machines are impossible -- Lord Kelvin, 1895.

He did a blatantly obvious error of ignoring the existence of birds, which are heavier than air flying machines.
But in this case, there is no such reference for a reactionless motion.