iannis
Musty Nester
- 31,351
- 17,656
Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?
- Thread starter Flunklesnarkin_sl
- Start date
- 7,879
- 507
I thought most of it was run through the DoE? These distinctions are the part I really don't get...
- 896
- 1,463
BrotherWu
MAGA
- 3,053
- 5,838
Fucking EM Drives, how do they work?
http://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-of...wed-em-drive-paper-has-finally-been-published
http://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-of...wed-em-drive-paper-has-finally-been-published
- 2
- 24,487
- 45,378
That reads like Furry criticism, I have no idea if he's right or not. I'd tend to side with NASA over random reddit commenter though.
- 3
Jysin
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 6,275
- 4,026
Here's the peer-reviewed article.. only some light reading:
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
The Peer-Reviewed EmDrive Paper Is Officially Out
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
The Peer-Reviewed EmDrive Paper Is Officially Out
tad10
Elisha Dushku
- 5,518
- 583
The reverse-thrust comment by random reddit guy is stupid. 1. It's not a factor of 2, only for the 80W test. 2. The real weirdness is (a) that there is one reverse run at 60W and one forward run at 80W where the value is 1/2 that of the other two results and (b) that there is a big difference between 40W and 60/80W but very little difference between 60 and 80W.
The latter result is suggestive that EmDrive is a real thing but it is also suggestive that the actual force is lower than what they think it is. Think of pushing a metal block across a surface with friction - if you're force < friction block doesn't move, if force > friction it moves.
- 17,781
- 25,896
iannis
Musty Nester
- 31,351
- 17,656
One thing I've learned from askscience over the years is that even highly educated people, true experts in a specific narrowly focused band of research science, will have brainfart days.
It used to happen more. Ask science pretty much went to shit about five years ago. It's more on a high school level these days or freshman college (which is fine I guess) but back in the day there were a lot more technical threads and you'd see two mods w/ similar flairs arguing and schooling each other over some fairly esoteric and completely dumbass misconception or assertion that one of them made.
Which, of course, is why peer review exists.
tad10
Elisha Dushku
- 5,518
- 583
Yes, he is totes "comfirmed."
Anyway, the frothing anti-EM guys are all pretty much idiots I'm just going to point out one quote from the mess Tuco posted:
"Their force measurements don't scale with power as one would expect." This is nonsense. One would 'expect' that the em drive wouldn't work at all. If it does work, it works off of physics we don't know.
iannis
Musty Nester
- 31,351
- 17,656
That pathological science speech was an interesting read.
I feel like I'm missing some context though. And, from just that speech linked, i'm not sure if it fits his definition of pathological science or if it would be more appropriate for him to just label it as a general allison effect. The EM drive stuff is lacking in claims 3) Claims of great accuracy and 5) Criticisms are met with ad hoc excuses. 1 and 2 are on point though, and honestly 6 shouldn't even be included. That's a retrospective social justification rather than an attribute. And 4 is going to be true of ANY theoretical science at this scale and is thus not useful or applicable as an attribute of anything. You can make a case for 4 about any science having to deal with any subject too small to be imaged by an optical microscope.
How many PBS specials on "Quantum mechanics... so weird, right?!?!!" or "Special Relativity: actually if you think about it, it doesn't make a lot of sense -- but it's probably true!" does it take to get 4) off the list.
So really, using his own criteria, he's less than half right in his abstract criticism. I am not educated enough to comment on his specific criticism, though I do suspect some of it is valid. So all I can talk about is his abstract. If we toss #6 away because it's obviously just a form of group politics being as it is an appeal to social inclusion, and toss #4 away as not being a valuable objective metric of anything at all past certain scales (which we are past).. then he's... 50% right. OH MY GOD, MAYBE HIS CRITICISM IS THE PATHOLOGY AS DEFINED BY HIS OWN PATHOLOGY. TIME IS A FLAT CIRCLE.
I feel like I'm missing some context though. And, from just that speech linked, i'm not sure if it fits his definition of pathological science or if it would be more appropriate for him to just label it as a general allison effect. The EM drive stuff is lacking in claims 3) Claims of great accuracy and 5) Criticisms are met with ad hoc excuses. 1 and 2 are on point though, and honestly 6 shouldn't even be included. That's a retrospective social justification rather than an attribute. And 4 is going to be true of ANY theoretical science at this scale and is thus not useful or applicable as an attribute of anything. You can make a case for 4 about any science having to deal with any subject too small to be imaged by an optical microscope.
How many PBS specials on "Quantum mechanics... so weird, right?!?!!" or "Special Relativity: actually if you think about it, it doesn't make a lot of sense -- but it's probably true!" does it take to get 4) off the list.
So really, using his own criteria, he's less than half right in his abstract criticism. I am not educated enough to comment on his specific criticism, though I do suspect some of it is valid. So all I can talk about is his abstract. If we toss #6 away because it's obviously just a form of group politics being as it is an appeal to social inclusion, and toss #4 away as not being a valuable objective metric of anything at all past certain scales (which we are past).. then he's... 50% right. OH MY GOD, MAYBE HIS CRITICISM IS THE PATHOLOGY AS DEFINED BY HIS OWN PATHOLOGY. TIME IS A FLAT CIRCLE.
Last edited:
Furry
WoW Office
- 19,526
- 24,648
Yall mother fuckers like to talk about me like I'm crazy, but what the fuck have I said about the EM drive? I said that it was an interesting idea that needs more proof.
Looks like proof is here, bitches. Now the question is, what part of science does this inevitably crush? I think there's a roundabout way to say it disproves QE through showing that light has minimal mass. Prepare for your incoming dick entanglement fags.
Looks like proof is here, bitches. Now the question is, what part of science does this inevitably crush? I think there's a roundabout way to say it disproves QE through showing that light has minimal mass. Prepare for your incoming dick entanglement fags.
Tuco
I got Tuco'd!
- 45,429
- 73,489
I don't really stand with the above skeptical posts, but I am a skeptic of the EMDrive and think that widespread systemic error from bad experimentation methodology is more likely than the EMDrive working.
I think the way forward for the EMDrive is for them to attempt to improve the efficiency and overall strength of the device. As the thrust of the device increases it should drown out experimentation error.
I know Shawyer has been working on some superconductive surfaces for his EMDrive:
https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-find-publication-getPDF.pdf?PatentNo=GB2537119&DocType=A&JournalNumber=6647
But I don't know when he expects that to roll out.
I think the way forward for the EMDrive is for them to attempt to improve the efficiency and overall strength of the device. As the thrust of the device increases it should drown out experimentation error.
I know Shawyer has been working on some superconductive surfaces for his EMDrive:
https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-find-publication-getPDF.pdf?PatentNo=GB2537119&DocType=A&JournalNumber=6647
But I don't know when he expects that to roll out.
Chanur
Shit Posting Professional
- 26,644
- 38,861
Mudcrush Durtfeet
Hungry Ogre
- 2,428
- -758