At 02:36 PM 11/5/2009, Horace Heffner wrote:
Abd,
It appears may be crossing over into the realm of pathological
skepticism, pathological debunking, as defined here:
http://amasci.com/pathsk2.txt
I know. I can recognize it because I'm often guilty of it myself. 8^)
Yeah, I thought so.... Seriously, I do think that the emdrive
situation is appropriate for high skepticism at this point, my
opinion, based on what appears to me to be obfuscatory language. The
explanations are truly outrageous, and people with a lot more
knowledge than I have noticed it.
Does that mean that there is no effect? No, not exactly, but ... the
theory came first, remember? So the guy had this theory and put a lot
of effort into trying stuff to make it work, and when you do that
over and over, you eventually find a way to get some small effect.
Due to what, not known.
Could he have stumbled across, say, some edge to our understanding of
how space and momentum work? Obviously, it's not impossible. The
similarity with the Dean drive has been noticed, though.
The killer is that Shawyer claims that momentum is conserved, but
that the drive is reactionless. Those are two opposing claims. At
least Dean explained his drive by claiming that conservation of
momentum was an approximation. I.e., not *exactly* conserved. Shawyer
makes a whole series of claims about the emdrive and how it works
that don't represent actual explanations, just manipulations of
words, enough to convince someone who has no idea at all of physics
that he's got an explanation.
This is very different from cold fusion. With CF, the focus is on
experimental results. And where people have gone off the deep end
with theory and extrapolation and prediction of limitless cheap
energy is precisely where the field went astray. The job of theory is
to predict, and the test of theory is conformance to predictions.
There may be, among those proposed, a correct cold fusion theory, but
until we have predictions from theory that are shown to actually
occur, we cannot confidently predict much of anything about cold
fusion, except we can, from experience, predict certain effects.
I.e., if you do *exactly* this, you will see *that.* Usually! Maybe,
with some techniques, always.
With the emdrive, a theory came first, a prediction. Did experiment
confirm the prediction? How accurately? Did Shawyer expect to spend
so many years to get a couple of grams of apparent force?
Mr. Heffner acknowledges that Shawyer's theory may be bogus. But if
you have a bogus theory and you spend years trying to prove it, you
are almost certain to find some kind of result that will appear as a
confirmation, something that seems to have "no other explanation."
There is, in fact, a perfectly good explanation: Shawyer needed to
find something, so he did.
Yes, this should sound familiar to CF researchers. CF critics have a
point, but that point only goes so far. Wishful thinking can create
results, but they either won't be reproducible, or they won't vary as
the theory would predict, and engineering based on the theory won't
succeed in amplifying the effect or reliably and independent
demonstrating it. And there is a huge difference between the wishful
thinking and possible self-delusion of an individual (happens all the
time, to the best of us) who has a high conflict of interest, and
results from a large number of independent researchers who don't have
that conflict and who just want to find out the truth.
The rejection of CF wasn't based on science, there were no laws of
physics violated, and that was recognized at the time by many. The
"wishful thinking," though, in 1989 was of the hot fusion physicists,
who had a heavy vested interest in this thing going away.
What I'm saying is that there is no particular reason to think that
Shawyer has found a true anomaly; the conditions under which he has
been working are quite those which often produce these tantalizing
results. My question: when there was a small effect, did Shawyer
attempt to falsify the theory that this was reactionless? Or did he
work intensively to make the effect stronger? A serious scientist
would try to find what parameters controlled the effect. How
reproducible was it? What was the variation? Was it sometimes in one
direction and sometimes in another?
Fleischmann wasn't ready to announce, though he'd been working on
palladium deuteride, looking for excess heat, for five years. And he
believed that what he was doing was quite consistent with quantum
electrodynamics, and only that the predictions of two-body quantum
mechanics were not accurate in the complex environment of condensed
matter, and that this might be the case is something I learned more
than 45 years ago, that wasn't some terribly new idea.
On Nov 3, 2009, at 3:01 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:
The model by which the device is said to work looks bogus. I think
if they knew why and how it actually works they could produce a
much better W/a ratio.
On Nov 3, 2009, at 8:51 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:
It has nothing to do with anything external. Therefore I think it
is bogus.
Without any apparent knowledge of the field,
on Nov 4, 2009, at 4:52 AM, (you) Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
I think it's more than bogus, I think it's a deliberate hoax, a
spoof, a jape.
Cut it out, Horace. That's rude or stupid or both.
and then attacked the straw horse, the theory which is likely
incorrect. I provided links to the emdrive.com theory and
experimental background only to provide answers to your questions
about these things because it was obvious from the questions you
asked you hadn't even looked at these things on the web site.
I had not looked deeply. Then I did look more deeply. The more I
looked the more pucky I found. It's dense.
My judgment is that the prose on that site was designed to sound like
explanations to someone who doesn't understand physics. I.e., the
people who funded him! His FAQ raises the obvious questions, then
*appears* to answer them; this is designed to make the ignorant think
that he's responding to criticism.
Criticism: the emdrive violates one of the most basic laws of
physics, the conservation of momentum. What does Shawyer have to say
about this?
Q. Why does the EmDrive not contravene the conservation of momentum
when it operates in free space?
A. The EmDrive cannot violate the conservation of momentum. The
electromagnetic wave momentum is built up in the resonating cavity,
and is transferred to the end walls upon reflection. The momentum
gained by the EmDrive plus the momentum lost by the electromagnetic
wave equals zero. The direction and acceleration that is measured,
when the EmDrive is tested on a dynamic test rig, comply with
Newtons laws and confirm that the law of conservation of momentum is satisfied.
Read the last sentence, one would have to conclude that there is no
acceleration. As a closed system, the emdrive would have a center of
mass. Conservation of momentum would mean that there is no
acceleration of that center of mass unless there is a force acting
upon it, which force would cause an opposite reaction upon whatever
is exerting the force. The resonant wave inside the emdrive cavity is
irrelevant, except to the extent that it has an equivalent momentum.
At startup, it has no momentum. When it is given energy and momentum
in one direction, the cavity and assembly will be given opposite
momentum, and when it reflects off the opposite wall, the momentum
reverses for both bodies. He's using verbal tricks. The "Emdrive" is
treated as one thing, and the "electromagnetic wave" -- supposedly
entirely contained within the emdrive, as another. Conservation of
momentum applies to the whole system, as long as nothing escapes or
acts on something outside, or is acted upon.
In reality, a closed system is a closed system. To understand
momentum, we need know nothing about what's inside. A body sitting
still may, indeed, move in one direction with no external force, but
only by moving something internally in the opposite direction. If
that something escapes, then we have accelerated the outer object.
But if it does not escape, then something must stop it or reflect it,
and this, then produces externally visible motion in the opposite
direction. If there is a rotor powered by an electric motor inside,
that rotoer could be accelerated in one direction of rotation, and
the outer body, if suspended in free space, would appear to rotate in
the other direction. In fact, the net angular momentum is conserved.
On Nov 4, 2009, at 6:53 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Absolutely, it looks impossible. Sometimes when something looks
impossible, it is!
EM space drives, drives which do not carry reaction mass are
obviously feasible.
Of course. I didn't say anything about reaction mass, and reaction
mass isn't necessary for acceleration. But some interaction is.
Something is ejected or there is action through fields on some
external object, internal action can only produce oscillatory motion.
There has to be a motor in this thing, you know, if coolant is being
circulated. Start that motor up, the emdrive would rotate if free to
move. If it's very heavy on one end and light on the other, it could
appear to move as it turns, i.e., the *apparent* center of mass would
move in a circle. Circulating water through a loop would cause
rotational forces. Force would also be generated through dissipation
of heat, how does the cooler work? It would cause air currents. There
are *many* possible explanations for very small forces.
The evidence for CF became overwhelming, and the idea that this was
just a small effect was somewhere between a mistake and propaganda.
But even were it a small effect, the existence of correlated effects
like helium would be enough to cinch it. Very different. What we have
with the emdrive is some very sketchy reports basically from one
person, and rumors that the Chinese are working on it.
Photon drives are an example. As you well know,
photons carry momentum p = h/lambda = h/(c nu). Sending light in one
direction pushes on a ship in the other direction.
Yes, and momentum is thus conserved. Has to be that if you shove
something -- anything -- out in one direction, you will go in the other.
A light based
drive is clearly feasible if a source of energy is available. The
problem of space ships that do not need to carry reaction mass, is
thus not one of feasibility, but one of either overcoming the power
to thrust ratio, 2.94x10^9 watts per kgf of thrust, or of obtaining
enough power from vacuum energy to support the photon beam required.
If you can obtain power from vacuum energy, you would be interacting
with the vacuum, whatever that means. Suppose "vacuum" has some mass.
Push it in one direction, you would go in the other. But is there any
evidence for some effect like this? I don't consider that Shawyer's
work even approaches it, and it also isn't his explanation. He's
claiming that ordinary physics explains the drive, when "ordinary
physics" quite clearly considers it impossible. He's taking some very
complex calculations, and he doesn't show the details, and claiming
that they show some result that would be different from conservation
of momentum. (Except he claims that momentum is conserved, just to
keep everyone confused.) Much more likely, he made some
approximations in his calculations, or other deviation from
exactness, and it bit him.
He raises, in his FAQ, the question of the forces on the sloping
sides of the cavity. As with everything else, he simply waves it away
as negligible.
He is either a con artist, or deluded in a very peculiar way that
allows him to make up pseudoscientific arguments.
None of this means that if he shows clear experimental evidence, and
describes it in sufficient detail to replicate it, and allows people
to see his demonstrations closely, he should be disregarded.
Experiment rules. Not every unexplained fact, though implies that a
theory that purports to explain it is true.
On Nov 4, 2009, at 7:07 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 04:50 PM 11/4/2009, you wrote:
You are still locked into that reaction mass drive, relativistic
mass increase, have to take all your energy with you paradigm of
thinking.
Absolutely stuck, I'm sure. Locked in. I probably expect the floor
to be there when I swing out of bed in the morning, shows how stuck
I am.
What follows is from:
http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/freenrg/laughed.html
which has some other links of interest.
"...so many centuries after the Creation it is unlikely that anyone
could
find hitherto unknown lands of any value." - committee advising
Ferdinand
and Isabella regarding Columbus' proposal, 1486
Oh, go fly a kite, Horace. I'm not in any way claiming there is
nothing to be learned. I'm claiming that a guy that got drunk one
night, sauntered out of the bar, looked over the ocean, and said,
"Look, an unknown land!," didn't discover America.
I'm saying that I see nothing on that web site that inspires me to
think that he's found something worth looking at. And I see lots of
signs of the reverse.
"I would sooner believe that two Yankee professors lied, than that
stones fell from the sky" - Thomas Jefferson, 1807 on hearing an eyewitness
report of falling meteorites.
Look, that was stupid on Jefferson's part. Stones could fall from the
sky for lots of reasons, and lack of Jefferson's experience was not
reason to accuse anyone of lying. *Lots of reasons.*
I am, however, accusing Shawyer of making up phoney-baloney theories
and explanations so that he can appear to the ignorant to have
explanations. If he had simply said that he suspected that a resonant
cavity would produce momentum for the system, and he has *this*
experimental result so far, that would be fine. From the point of
view of someone who knows some physics, Horace, and this means you,
it's obvious that the theories are seriously defective, but I'm
suggesting you look more deeply. They are just defective. They are
deceptive. They are "pretend explanations" that are actually
circular. "The law of conservation of momentum is not violated
because momentum is transferred from one part of the system to
another." Except he doesn't state it that way. "One part of the
system" is the drive, the "other part of the system" is the
electromagnetic wave.
It's designed to confuse the ignorant, that's what it is. This isn't
the theorizing of someone merely deluded, unless he's literally
insane in, as I wrote, a very peculiar way. It is put together to
create an appearance of an explanation.
"Drill for oil? You mean drill into the ground to try and find oil?
You're crazy." - Drillers who Edwin L. Drake tried to enlist to his
project to drill for oil in 1859.
You really wasted time compiling this stuff? Or did you have it
already salted away? And, yes, you want on and on with these
examples, which have *nothing* to do with what I was writing about
the emdrive. I haven't said that violating the law of conservation of
momentum is impossible. What I've said is that I don't see evidence
here that it's been violated. He agrees, remember. He states clearly
that his device doesn't violate that law. And he's right about that.
What he's very very very likely wrong is in claiming that he is
getting reactionless acceleration. And no demonstration clearly shows that.
But is it impossible that someone could achieve that? It was silly to
quote all those old stupidities. I'm not into "impossible." But that
doesn't mean that I'm into "possible." I'm probably best classified
with one of the early Muslim sects, the mu'tazila, the "postponers."
They refused to take definite positions on difficult (or impossible)
theological questions, they would postpone judgment. What I'd say
about conservation of momentum is that it doesn't look possible to
violate it. But the universe is vast, and possibilities may not be as
limited as we think.
[a long list of confident impossibility predictions cited by Horace
has been omitted]
The following describes Bill Beaty's views on polarized skepticism in
the vortex-l mailing list:
http://amasci.com/weird/vmore.html
"It is really quite amazing by what margins competent but conservative
scientists and engineers can miss the mark, when they start with the
preconceived idea that what they are investigating is impossible.
When
this happens, the most well-informed men become blinded by their
prejudices and are unable to see what lies directly ahead of them."
- Arthur C. Clarke, 1963"
"So, on Vortex-L we intentionally suspend the disbelieving attitude of
those who believe in the stereotypical "scientific method." While this
does leave us open to the great personal embarrassment of falling for
hoaxes and delusional thinking, we tolerate this problem in our quest to
consider ideas and phenomena which would otherwise be rejected out of
hand without a fair hearing. There are diamonds in the filth, and we see
that we cannot hunt for diamonds without getting dirty."
Sure. So I looked. No diamonds there. Maybe some carbon. Lumps of
coal. And someone trying to sell them as diamonds. If there were some
experimental anomaly that cried for explanation, it would be one
thing, if there were some interesting or well-formed theory that had,
at least, some explanatory power, it would be one thing, but instead
there is blatantly deceptive argument by someone with a very strong
financial conflict of interest. That's called a con.
You won't see me saying this about, for example, hydrino theory, even
though it's pretty "out there."
Remember, Shawyer is arguing both sides: reactionless drive
(Valuable!) and no violation of conservation of momentum (This is not
a wild-eyed idea, it's normal physics!). I'd say there is an obvious
explanation for the apparent contradiction in what he's saying.
"Note that skepticism of the openminded sort is perfectly acceptable on
Vortex-L. The ban here is aimed at scoffing and "hostile disbelief,"
and at the sort of "Skeptic" who angrily disbelieves all that is not solidly
proved true, while carefully rejecting all new data and observations
which conflict with widely accepted theory."
And what "new data and observations" are there here? And who is angry?
Remember, my first response was that this was a joke. That was before
I looked into the history. It's still really funny, but the joke is
on the U.K. government.
