Does "EmDrive" quantum effect produce thrust, in violation of Newton's Third Law?

[freyar]

I don't think so. Serious science has referees, and is peer-reviewed, right? You yourself say you don't know if there's a refereeing process for that conference and proceedings. It isn't peer-reviewed. So, how does attending and presenting that non-refereed and non-reviewed conference qualify as such a claim?

They were allowed to make that presentation, by the rules and mores of the AIAA. But you come down on them for failing to meet a standard for a presentation that did not ask them to meet such standards! That's kind of like coming down on someone in the American League for using a pinch hitter - the rules allow it, so what is your gripe?

There must be venues where professionals can discuss things that are't yet ready for prime time - failing to have them would put a damper on communication in the scientific community. If you have a gripe, it is with the science reporters who don't know (or don't care) about the difference between something in a peer-reviewed journal, and something that isn't. Take it up with them.

You're absolutely right, but that's not the point I was making. My point was that Eagleworks did not just make a "progress report to NASA." They decided that their work was serious enough to take to other scientists, whether preliminary or not. When experimental groups present their work, they are saying, "we believe we did this correctly." They may go on and say that the results are preliminary, meaning "we haven't finished, so there might be some issue we haven't thought about, or the analysis we're still working on could change our conclusions" or whatever. But the important issue is that they went public with it, which means they think it should be taken seriously even if it's not finished. That's all.

I agree. I personally think it is likely to be a junk result - probably minor heating of the air within the cavity leading to a small force, or an instrumentation issue that registered force when there was none.

I also understand Clarke's First Law, noted above, and see no need for me to stick my foot in my mouth and chew vigorously

Clarke's Law is a sociological law, not inviolable. In particular, old curmudgeonly scientists have been poo-poo-ing perpetual motion machines for ages (something essentially the same as this) without being wrong yet. If I'm wrong on this, I'll happily chew my metaphorical foot.

All true. But Tesla went well beyond the basics of electrodynamics as his time understood them - if he hadn't, he'd have not been remarkable. Virtually nothing Tesla did is something anyone of his time looked at and went, "Well, of course, we already know how that works!"

Tesla (and Edison as well) was notable not for his scientific discoveries but for his inventions (engineering). He did in fact do some scientific research on X-rays, etc, but that's not what we remember him for. He was a brilliant engineer, but he didn't discover new physical laws. But, again, that's not the point I was making. The discussion of Tesla in this thread sounded to me like people felt Tesla made great inventions (and they were great) that relied on science that he and others didn't understand (they did not). And they certainly didn't contradict centuries' worth of data.


I feel like a downer in this thread and others, but it would be cooler to talk about science that actually has a hope of being right. I guess I should think to start a thread sometime!

 

[Umbran]

You're absolutely right, but that's not the point I was making. My point was that Eagleworks did not just make a "progress report to NASA."

It was, in essence, a progress report - we did such experiments, had these results. It was at the AIAA - the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. How many of the folks there do you figure don't work for NASA, or a company that works for NASA or a similar agency?

I still say you're critiquing them for not meeting standards that they never claimed to meet. Every scientist at the conference would have known the standards involved.

There is nothing so dangerous that it can't be talked about. I find your frowning upon converse between professionals... a little disconcerting, to be honest.

The discussion of Tesla in this thread sounded to me like people felt Tesla made great inventions (and they were great) that relied on science that he and others didn't understand (they did not). And they certainly didn't contradict centuries' worth of data.

I think you may be incorrect on that. I'm pretty sure his wireless transmission of power by atmospheric conduction was not easily explainable by electrodynamics and material sciences of his time. If I recall correctly, to fully explain it requires some materials sciences you don't get until you reach quantum mechanics and the behavior of plasmas. Tesla was working on such in Colorado Springs in 1899, But JJ Thompson had only started with Crooke's tubes in 1897, and the very term "plasma" wasn't coined until 1928.

And, since Tesla didn't believe in electrons, he'd have been ignoring Thompson and Langmuir, whose work depended on such!

 

[Arduin's]

An article on dailyreckoning says the following:



So, does it do that? Does it violate Newton's Third Law? Any comments or elaboration welcome. (Just don't say "Impulse Drive," because that's part of the proprietary trade dress of a famous TV and movie franchise. A person might get sued.)

No it doesn't. If you read the test results from the INVENTOR'S website you will see that it doesn't violate that law.

 

[RangerWickett]

No it doesn't. If you read the test results from the INVENTOR'S website you will see that it doesn't violate that law.

I am curious the circumstances that led to you posting this in response to a 3 year old comment.

 

[freyar]

Here's an update for this older thread: New Scientist

Basically, changing the power to the drive doesn't change the measured thrust, so it can't be the drive creating the thrust. The drive also always pushed in the same direction, even if it was oriented to push another direction according to the design. The best guess is the force of the earth's magnetic field on a tiny bit of unshielded wire providing current to the drive. Anyway, more definitive results expected in the next year or so.