Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?

Ukerric

Bearded Ape
<Silver Donator>
7,926
9,576
Interesting article on the quest for anti-gravity propulsion.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35861334
This "EM Drive" was thoroughly debunked, and the trust obtained appear to be entirely due to thermal pressure (i.e. infrared from the EM heating). It's basically an extremely weak version of laser-heated propellers (which, themselves, are also nearly SFnal because you'd get anything to melt before having lift-off, although in space, you could get it to work as an artifical solar sail system).
 

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,656
I mean I'd be interested to see it. It does seem like "lol it heated up the container" would be maybe not the first thing they checked / accounted for, but at least on the top 10 list somewhere.
 

Cad

<Bronze Donator>
24,487
45,378
I mean I'd be interested to see it. It does seem like "lol it heated up the container" would be maybe not the first thing they checked / accounted for, but at least on the top 10 list somewhere.
If it was debunked it hasn't made the news lately. I wouldn't be surprised if it was, I'm just saying I haven't seen it and google news didn't know about it.
 

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,656
Yeah, I mean maybe it was #15. Fuck if I know.

It sounds too good to be true, so i'm thinking it probably is. But I dunno. I mean worst case, I guess we learned some things about thermal radiation at very small scales that we OBVIOUSLY didn't know... if that was the debunkery.
 

Ukerric

Bearded Ape
<Silver Donator>
7,926
9,576
When was this?
Mostly when the last round of "Space drive! Reactionless rocket!" news made the rounds of the sensationalist papers.

At the time, no paper had ever survived peer review. Notably, the so-called "test with vacuum damping" didn't actually take place in a strong vacuum, and other gross experimental anomalies, like the fact that making holes in the cavity (which was supposed to negate any resonant effect) actually didn't change much the trust measured, which meant the device still worked when its inventor said it wouldn't.

The peer-reviewed seems intriguing, because it suggests some better experimental protocol, and one that actually produces more trust than would be produced by an experimenter's mass moving too close to the device (yes, some of the measurement of the drive's trust were on that order of magnitude). Or it might be peer-reviewed in an obscure journal where the editor board is actually made of cranks. I'll wait till we see more to revise my opinion which hasn't changed: gross violation of basic physics require a mighty strong evidence.
 

Cad

<Bronze Donator>
24,487
45,378
Mostly when the last round of "Space drive! Reactionless rocket!" news made the rounds of the sensationalist papers.

At the time, no paper had ever survived peer review. Notably, the so-called "test with vacuum damping" didn't actually take place in a strong vacuum, and other gross experimental anomalies, like the fact that making holes in the cavity (which was supposed to negate any resonant effect) actually didn't change much the trust measured, which meant the device still worked when its inventor said it wouldn't.

The peer-reviewed seems intriguing, because it suggests some better experimental protocol, and one that actually produces more trust than would be produced by an experimenter's mass moving too close to the device (yes, some of the measurement of the drive's trust were on that order of magnitude). Or it might be peer-reviewed in an obscure journal where the editor board is actually made of cranks. I'll wait till we see more to revise my opinion which hasn't changed: gross violation of basic physics require a mighty strong evidence.
Well uhh, ok, but thats pretty far from "thoroughly debunked", wouldn't you agree?
 

Ukerric

Bearded Ape
<Silver Donator>
7,926
9,576
Well uhh, ok, but thats pretty far from "thoroughly debunked", wouldn't you agree?
Well, you've got claims, it fails the "common science test", it fails to pass peer review after more than 12 years of experiments, and most scientists that read the papers all pointed the same errors and probable cause. I guess that counts as a thorough debunking of said claims. Looks like another Fleish-Pons case to me.
 

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
45,431
73,493
It hasn't been debunked, much less thoroughly debunked. The BBC article has the right of it
BBC_sl said:
The theorists are deeply sceptical of these claims because the EmDrive seems to defy Newton's law of conservation of momentum. John Ellis at Cern is particularly scathing: "With the EmDrive, unlike a rocket, nothing comes out of it. So I don't see how you can generate momentum out of nothing."
The experimental results haven't been really verified one way or the other. The thrust is theorized to be caused by thermal pressure, but that hasn't been proven. Disgarded would be the better term.


However, this quote may be a bit misleading:
BBC_sl said:
The experiments and the debates continue. Meanwhile, Boeing has apparently licensed its own version of the EmDrive and the Pentagon has shown a keen interest.
I've seen no evidence of the Pentagon showing interest, and Boeing more or less threw some money at Shawyer a decade ago for something and haven't worked on it. It seems like everyone who performs this test hasn't heavily pursued it, which is pretty damning.



This is where all the public discussion about it is happening, it's pretty unreadable for me as a layman though.

EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 7
 

Big Phoenix

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Gold Donor>
44,660
93,334
Fucking magnets. What is this unholy black magic.. Feel free to skip first two minutes.

Videos like this end up rustling my jimmies something fierce when you consider people still believe in the Bible or the Koran and think God is the source of everything.
 

Ukerric

Bearded Ape
<Silver Donator>
7,926
9,576
It hasn't been debunked, much less thoroughly debunked. The BBC article has the right of it
I guess we have a different definition of debunking. When I said debunked, I'm not talking about "skeptics say it's impossible". I'm talking about multiple scientists pointing out methodology flaws, alternate and more plausible explanations for minuscule effects, the lack of demonstration that the measured effect scales, etc. That's what I call debunking.

You're right that nobody people did independent replication attempts, chiefly because it costs money, the original experiments did not provide convincing results, and so, given that there's always lots of possible experiments competing for a finite amount of money, I'm not surprised that nobody except true believers have tried anything. So, debunked, not disproved (as much as you can disprove anything).
 

Running Dog_sl

shitlord
1,199
3
If it was debunked it hasn't made the news lately. I wouldn't be surprised if it was, I'm just saying I haven't seen it and google news didn't know about it.
IIRC most of the media stories last year focused on the experiment showing thrust being created by the EM drive, but only a few went on to mention the same experiment showed the drive was producing more thrust when it was switched off. The conclusions to take from this is that it's really difficult to measure tiny amounts of thrust, and this drive, if it actually does work, is producing a very, very small effect, and the most simple explanation for the observations is just heating.
 

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
45,431
73,493
I guess we have a different definition of debunking. When I said debunked, I'm not talking about "skeptics say it's impossible". I'm talking about multiple scientists pointing out methodology flaws, alternate and more plausible explanations for minuscule effects, the lack of demonstration that the measured effect scales, etc. That's what I call debunking.

You're right that nobody people did independent replication attempts, chiefly because it costs money, the original experiments did not provide convincing results, and so, given that there's always lots of possible experiments competing for a finite amount of money, I'm not surprised that nobody except true believers have tried anything. So, debunked, not disproved (as much as you can disprove anything).
I think that's fair.
 

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
45,431
73,493
BBC documentary on gravity
Quest for gravity control - Video Dailymotion

EMDrive stuff starts at 29:20. No idea what's going on with his airlift thing, it doesn't look like the device is accelerating, just moving at a constant speed, making me think this is just a demonstrating and he's pulling it with a rope, lol.


Also lol @ the trip to Mt. Sandia's tram to debunk the emdrive.
 

Running Dog_sl

shitlord
1,199
3
Here's an article from last year on the EMDrive that tried to put things in perspective.

The somewhat fantastical EMDrive (short for Electromagnetic Drive) recently returned to the public eye after an academic claimed to have recorded the drive producing measurable thrust. The experiments from Professor Martin Tajmar's group at the Dresden University of Technology have spawned numerous overexcited headlines making claims that -- let's be very clear here -- are not supported by the science.

...Eagleworks, a NASA-based group, built a prototype and last year reported 30-50 micronewtons of thrust that could not be explained by any conventional theory. This work was not peer-reviewed. Now, Tajmar's group in Dresden say they have built a new version of the EMDrive and detected 20 micronewtons of thrust. This is a much smaller value, but still significant if it really is generated by some new principle.

Straightaway, there are problems with this experiment. The abstract states: "Our test campaign cannot confirm or refute the claims of the EMDrive." Then, a careful reading of the paper reveals this observation: "The control experiment actually gave the biggest thrust . We were really puzzled by this large thrust from our control experiment where we expected to measure zero."

Yes, the control experiment designed not to generate any thrust still measures a thrust. Then there's the peculiar gradual way the thrust seems to turn on and off that looks suspiciously like a thermal effect, and then there are acknowledged heating problems. All this leads to the conclusion stated in the paper that "such a set-up does not seem to be able to adequately measure precise thrusts." Similar problems were seen by the Eagleworks group, with thrust also mysteriously appearing in their control test.

Taken together, these results strongly suggest that the measured signatures of thrust are subtle experimental errors. Possible sources include thermal effects, problems with magnetic shielding or even a non-uniform gravitational field in the laboratory leading to erroneous force measurements.As a comparison, the force measured in this latest experiment is roughly comparable to the gravitational attraction between two average-sized people (100kg) standing about 15cm apart.

...The experimental scientists involved have done their jobs to the best of their ability, having tested a hypothesis - albeit a spectacularly unlikely one - and reported their results. These scientists aren't actually claiming to have invented a warp drive or to have broken the laws of physics. All they're saying at the moment is that they've found something odd and unexplained that might be something new but is likely an experimental artefact that needs further study. The panoply of clickbait headlines and poorly researched articles on the topic are doing something of a disservice to their scientific integrity by claiming otherwise.
Heret invented an impossible space engine - despite what you may have read
 

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
45,431
73,493
I feel like the "weight of human on earth" comparison is more suitable than the gravitational force of two human beings together. I have no idea how strong that is and my only frame of reference is when Sandra Bullock and George Clooney drifted apart from another in Gravity.
 

Ukerric

Bearded Ape
<Silver Donator>
7,926
9,576
I feel like the "weight of human on earth" comparison is more suitable than the gravitational force of two human beings together. I have no idea how strong that is
Mass proportional and inverse square. ( Force = G . m . M / d^2 )

An average human would weight 80kg, Earth is 5.972 ? 10^24 kg, so the gravitational pull of a human on another human - if they were standing apart as much as center of earth to surface - would be around 1.3 x 10^-23 that of earth. But wait! If they're standing 15cm from each other instead of 6,371 km, the pull will be (637100/15) ^2 times larger, i.e. 1.8 x 10^9 stronger.

So the attraction of a human body on another at a distance of 15cm is 1.3 x 10^-23 x 1.8 x 10^9 = 2.3 x 10^-14. Basically, one fortieth of a billionth of the weight of a human.

(and yes, they are measuring forces of that order and calling it a victory)
 

Cad

<Bronze Donator>
24,487
45,378
rrr_img_129529.jpg