I wonder who they stole the designs from...........
Chinese boffins: We're testing an 'impossible' EM Drive IN SPAAAACE
A month after NASA published a paper suggesting a controversial electromagnetic engine design appears to work, Chinese eggheads claim they've had similar results – and have sent an EM Drive into space for testing. At a press conference this month, Dr Chen Yue, the head of the communication satellite division at the China …
COMMENTS
-
-
Friday 23rd December 2016 09:06 GMT Mage
Historically,
The USA is the biggest commercial exploiter of others IP (copies of Copyright items, patenting items that are patented or prior art, using others registered designs or prior art etc), since 18th C.
They STILL don't pay royalty on performance rights on USA Radio.
Ripped off Dickens and Tolkien.
USA spies also provide designs to USA industry.
China has stolen IP. However they also innovate more than USA.
Most USA "innovation" isn't even innovation.
-
Thursday 22nd December 2016 21:32 GMT Destroy All Monsters
Many Bothans died to bring us this plot device
I can't even hear it anymore.
An long-winded explanation of the EM-Drive's absence of power: here
Although if any physical (as opposed to practically usable) effects were indeed confirmed (a long shot), well, that would be interesting. Not holding my breath.
"This technology is currently in the latter stages of the proof-of-principle phase, with the goal of making the technology available in satellite engineering as quickly as possible," said Li Feng
I guess Alchemists' gold-generation procedures were in the latter stages of the proof-of-principle phase, too.
-
Thursday 22nd December 2016 21:57 GMT vir
Re: Many Bothans died to bring us this plot device
Alchemists did made a few solid contributions in the direction of actual, real chemistry as well. I'm also interested to see if anyone can come up with a good explanation for the results that people are seeing but in the meantime, that doesn't preclude anyone from taking it for a (very low acceleration) spin.
-
Thursday 22nd December 2016 22:16 GMT Destroy All Monsters
Re: Many Bothans died to bring us this plot device
What Alchemists did is not particularly relevant here.
can come up with a good explanation for the results that people are seeing but in the meantime
Here is one: UNKNOWN MEASUREMENT ERROR.
This is a device into which you pump a LOT of energy and then check whether there is force at the boundary of the instrument sensitivity.
Check out those measurements here: Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio-Frequency Cavity in Vacuum
In particular the graph at the bottom (hotlink).
Shazam! Linear Curve Fit! (Why not logarithmic? It looks logarithmic to me!!) Now are those measurements of up to 80 micro-Newton consistent with an unknown systematic error source and a curve fit that is firmly on the y=0 line? Why, yes, absolutely!
I don't even know why the authors suddenly descend into the Bohmian Interpretation of QM which is now residing solidly on the graveyard of ideas (predictions are different from standard QM), some old farts regularly trying to revive it notwithstanding... it's
not very seriousvery crank.-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Thursday 22nd December 2016 22:59 GMT vir
Re: Many Bothans died to bring us this plot device
"What Alchemists did is not particularly relevant here."
I beg to differ. While the alchemists' goal of transmuting base metal into gold is now known to be impossible (without a particle accelerator), they did manage to develop and refine procedures and equipment and also to make a few genuinely useful discoveries along the way. If the effects that are presently being observed turn out to be "unknown measurement error" as you state and which I believe to be the case as well, at the very least we will have characterized the source of error and will know how to correct for it in other (perhaps unrelated) experiments. I wouldn't be surprised to see some of the techniques and equipment setups used here to show up in tests of other drive technologies either.
-
Sunday 25th December 2016 00:09 GMT Hardrada
Re: Many Bothans died to bring us this plot device
"Here is one: UNKNOWN MEASUREMENT ERROR.
This is a device into which you pump a LOT of energy and then check whether there is force at the boundary of the instrument sensitivity."
That would certainly be precedented. NOAA spent 30 years basing their global climate forecasts on instruments with tolerances that exceeded the entire reported trend:
"Instrument quality varies from country-to-country. Surface temperatures can be recorded to within 0.5 degree C."
(http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/tn404/text/tn404_6.html)
To anyone who says 'But it'll average out!,' go read the papers. There were uniform changes to large blocs of instruments, spotty documentation of exactly how large those blocs were or when the changes were made, no calibration documentation kept, and no blinds.
There were notable upward biases, like the change from buckets to engine room intakes for sea surface measurements, with lots of wiggle room in setting the correction factors.
There's more of the same over at NASA (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/):
"Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006"
...out of 684,000 cubic miles, or 0.009% or the total. (I'm being generous. If we use their low estimate, it's only 0.005%.)
"...while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005."
...out of 7.2 million cubic miles, or five ten-thousandths of a percent. So in 2,000 years of melting at that rate, Antarctica would lose 1% or its ice volume.
Those two figures were used to argue that a global net heat gain of 0.17% of the total greenhouse effect ("net absorbed" vs. "back radiation" here: http://bit.ly/2i5QgFq) is severe, but it's not a direct measurement of that. You have to assume a strong net positive feedback based on the instrumental data above, which was never designed for this.
Some of the other points in that link over-state the degree of corroboration because they're non-independent. (They rely on the instrumental record.)
Then there's Anderson's paleo-index, which is geographically non-representative (skewed toward land and coasts) and has no corrections for precipitation (which is increasing: http://bit.ly/2ipGBu2 ...and under-reported: http://bit.ly/2hjpckS) or methane distribution (skewed toward land: http://bit.ly/2i3AbOo).
This is a long way of saying that while it's entirely possible that this 'reactionless drive' is just a measurement fluke, it's not fair to knock NASA's measurements unless you're ready to hold other areas of science to the same quality standard.
-
-
Friday 23rd December 2016 04:57 GMT Truckle The Uncivil
Re: Many Bothans died to bring us this plot device
There is a hypothesis - not Sawyer's - that seems to explain it. Since the hypothesis has predictive value and many predictions check out it might have theory strength soon.
Google MiHsC as there is far too much for a post. Goodbye dark matter too.n
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Friday 23rd December 2016 09:27 GMT maffski
Re: Many Bothans died to bring us this plot device
@Symon
Lisa, in this house we obey the laws of physics.
No problem with that. However, I must have missed the bit where we figured out what the laws of physics are?
If the EM drive works then it doesn't go against the laws of physics - it just demonstrates that our understanding of those laws is incomplete, and as we already know that it shouldn't be be grounds for dismissing something out of hand.
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Friday 23rd December 2016 10:36 GMT psychonaut
Re: Many Bothans died to bring us this plot device
@Maffski. "it just demonstrates that our understanding of those laws is incomplete"
i dont think you'll find a physicist alive or dead that thinks our current understanding of the physical laws of the universe is anywhere near complete, and may never be.
we strive to find the best model to describe the universe from the the data we observe.
the best bits in science are "hmm, thats a bit odd"
theres a common misconception that the public has that scientists think "yup, we know everything". its simply not the case. the best scientists are able to completely change their opinion because of new data or phenomenon - this really should apply to all scientists. if we thought we knew everything, there would be no point in doing experiments now would there??
-
Friday 23rd December 2016 13:17 GMT Paul Shirley
Re: Many Bothans died to bring us this plot device
@Maffski. "it just demonstrates that our understanding of those laws is incomplete"
We don't even know all the implications of the laws we think we understand. That remains the most likely end result here, that eventually someone will work out which 'understood' laws are responsible and we might even learn something new from it.
-
Friday 23rd December 2016 14:03 GMT Peter2
Re: Many Bothans died to bring us this plot device
The scientific process basically just means that you try something and document it, and say "look, I did this like this and it worked!"
Anybody doubting that can run their own test.
You can then accept the results of that test, and then assume that if it worked that way once, it will do again. Then you can make guesses about why that happened, eliminate the guesses until you have a reasonable conclusion and then make things based on that evidence.
Anybody saying "I don't believe..." should be a priest, not a scientist. The scientific process is not massively more than a formalised term for "trial and error".
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Friday 23rd December 2016 11:48 GMT TitterYeNot
Re: Many Bothans died to bring us this plot device
"Newton was an Alchemist"
Yes, as well as proposing the classical three laws of motion and the law of universal gravitation, Newton came up with numerous other theories which are generally less well known.
Take his Third Law of Emotion, for example - 'For every male action there is an opposed female over-reaction.'
<Coughs>
OK, OK, I'm going. Mine's the one with the big hole in the pocket, my copy of 'Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica' seems to have dropped out...
-
Friday 30th December 2016 13:04 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Many Bothans died to bring us this plot device
Hmmn.. I'll take your Third Law and posit an explanation;
Malions tend to be more massive than Femions (well, they're generally larger and denser than Femions, so that's hardly surprising) so according to the conservation of momentum, if a Malion impacts a Femion, you'd expect the motion of the Femion after the impact to be larger than the motion of the Malion that caused it.
But I guess that might be too logical for the pretty little heads of some of the male commentards here...
<grins, ducks and runs>
-
Sunday 24th February 2019 07:35 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Many Bothans died to bring us this plot device
Alchemy later became chemistry.
Also turning lead into gold and for that matter one element into another is a cornerstone of nuclear physics.
Also a few "pseudoscientific" theories were later proved correct but normally after centuries.
Not that a lot of them make any sense, for example polywater was later discovered to have been simple contamination.
Also relevant: water memory was debunked conclusively however microbiological contamination could have explained some early results which later vanished when better experimental techniques were used.
A good example was Galen: probably had the right ideas but couldn't test them so went for the "easy" explanation which worked well enough at the time.
Interesting aside: The Russian physicists who discovered Sellotape X-rays were laughed at by Western physicists, thus giving them a strategic advantage when it did finally get tested.
-
-
-
-
Thursday 22nd December 2016 21:54 GMT John Smith 19
Some people think it sounds crazy, some don't
But I'm kind of guessing that if the Chinese Academy is investigating it it's because
a)Some very VIP has required them to.
b)They know something others don't
While it's possible it's I'd guess if there was any obvious way this could be shot down it would have already been done.
Space is the logical place to test this and in principle a crewed station is an excellent position to do so. Let's see what happens./
-
Thursday 22nd December 2016 23:56 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Some people think it sounds crazy, some don't
There's another possibility. The Chinese might only be claiming they will test this drive in space, in order to get the West to waste resources on it. Meanwhile those wily orientals will have a nice private smile watching the fun.
Hey, I'm just sayin'...
-
Friday 23rd December 2016 00:55 GMT Lars
Re: Some people think it sounds crazy, some don't
"Hey, I'm just sayin'...". Much like with Trump, I would say, Big John. You have shown great belief in the Master. You have neatly written down all his promises and now I will promote you to my personal guard of promises. You can, I think, freely report about facts and fiction on this site. Apart from that all the best for next year for you and everybody else.
-
Friday 23rd December 2016 02:21 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Some people think it sounds crazy, some don't
Lars, please describe where I have "shown great belief in the Master." Personally I think you are showing great butt hurt, as the saying goes. I suppose I must be 'getting to you,' so I'll attempt to be more convivial when I debunk every rotten lie you try to propagate, okay?
-
-
Friday 23rd December 2016 15:03 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Some people think it sounds crazy, some don't
> "...you just had to wake him from his nap, didn't you. Don't you know by now that he'll be cranky all day?"
Well, when some low-life starts trash-talking me personally with no provocation, my bullshit detector goes off. But no, I'm not cranky at all. People like that aren't really worth the trouble to get cranky over. I did however, ask Lars nicely to explain his unwarranted smear and you seem to be backing him up, so why don't you do it, @atcnwt?
-
-
-
-
Friday 23rd December 2016 15:14 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Some people think it sounds crazy, some don't
> "wily orientals"
Okay, it's not PC, but that's what makes it funny. I prefer a world where we can all make jokes about each other without thin-skinned killjoys telling us we're bad to do so. I'm quite sure some of those East Asians employ colourful language when describing Caucasians.
Besides, isn't "wily oriental" actually a kind of compliment? It implies high intelligence, don't it? And repeated IQ testing has shown that East Asians are near the top in IQ, beaten only by the Ashkenazim Jews. So yes, they are wily, and the rest of us had better be aware of that or they will eat our lunch.
Good thing the US has so many East Asian immigrants...
-
-
Friday 23rd December 2016 12:05 GMT John Smith 19
"The Chinese might only be claiming they will test this drive in space"
Quite correct.
The Russians played this prank on the Americans in the 50's with the "nuclear powered bomber"
The Americans played it on the Russians with SDI.
Both with hilarious consequences as they say.
The trouble is that for a good strategic deception (which is what these are) you need something that's
a)Too important not to investigate
b)Needs vast resources to do so. IE multi $Bn budgets in today's money.
In principle an EM drive could be tested by a few cubesats. Say 1 for the drive and a couple to act as observers. Varying the shape of the chamber might need a couple more.
I don't think there's any size limit either up or down. If you can make their thrust exceed say 2x the air drag (still the largest single force on a satellite below 1000Km, everything else is smaller) then all you have to observe is do they (or at least one of them) break orbit and start flying toward whatever you've aimed it at or not?
Actually there is one high spec option which is to make the chamber walls superconductors. That would be really crank the price. You could spend $m on that.
Still not really going to bring an economy to it's knees though, is it?
-
Friday 23rd December 2016 21:13 GMT Alan Brown
Re: "The Chinese might only be claiming they will test this drive in space"
> The Russians played this prank on the Americans in the 50's with the "nuclear powered bomber"
That "prank" might well have some unintended benefits (which should have materialised about 40 years ago) as it directly led to the development of LFTR technology in the 1960s.
The ironic thing is that it's taking the chinese to take up a technology the americans explicitly threw away despite the obvious safety improvements over conventional water-moderated systems for the sake of congressional pork - and turn it into a viable commercial "thing"
-
Saturday 24th December 2016 15:32 GMT John Smith 19
"The ironic thing..the chinese to take up a technology the americans explicitly threw away"
I looked up the history of this stuff a while back.
Back in the 70's the US was looking for the next generation of reactors. Knowledge of the liquid salt reactor was mostly at Oak Ridge, while other labs knew more about the liquid Sodium fast reactor.
The US put all its funds on the LMFR.
Turned out Sodium is a real PITA compared to LBE (although I doubt the US knew this at the time), the world did not run out of Uranium a) Because it's got lots and b) Because reactors took longer and cost more to build than expected. AFAIK all the 2nd generation reactor designs had troubles. I'm not sure how many of them actually got built
Then 3 mile island happened and US utility companies learned how you could turn a $1Bn asset into a $2Bn liability.
So 40 years later the PWR remains the #1 reactor type on the planet, despite most of its design decisions being tailored for powering a submarine at 1/10 the size.
-
-
Thursday 29th December 2016 18:02 GMT Aodhhan
Re: "The Chinese might only be claiming they will test this drive in space"
No. A few 'cube' satellites is not enough to test the device.
To make it viable, along with fueled propulsion, you need to get it to go over 25,000mph and maintain this speed.
This is the speed required to break away from the Sun's gravitational effects. Otherwise, it will slowly lose speed and curve back towards the Sun like a comet.
It takes approximately 18,000mph just to maintain an orbit around Earth without falling back. To break Earth's gravitational effects from its orbit, you need to push out over 20,000mph.
-
-
-
Thursday 22nd December 2016 22:14 GMT Will Godfrey
Time for a change
Well now, first put forward in England, given serious consideration by NASA...
With the way they are developing their expertise in all things I reckon it's more than time to stop regarding China as a joke. In fact, these days it's the USA that's beginning to look like it will soon be wearing a clown outfit.
-
-
Thursday 22nd December 2016 23:03 GMT Destroy All Monsters
"This has happened before. And it will happen again."
No, the energy consumed is radiated as heat.... why would the center of mass shift?
This reminds me of the times of the "Woodward Drive":
"The Alternate View" columns of John G. Cramer: Antigravity Sightings (March-1997)
Honorably, tests were done and the idea abandoned.
Note the following text in the above-linked article: Woodward's published measurements, which appear to have been done with considerable care, record a mass reduction of several milligrams as measured using signal averaging techniques to a statistical accuracy of 10 to 15 standard deviations. He also reports a number of systematic checks which are in good agreement with the predictions of his theory.
Okay. The BBC would probably have been breathlessly reporting about new possibilities in Space Drive Technology...
-