[Spaceships] Real Life Non-Super Science Reactionless Engines

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Both of those things are fatal errors. They're getting the appearance of thrust from bad setup, not any real effect.

From elsewhere, I've seen it claimed that the 'negative control' there had a change that should have prevented it from working based on a particular theory about how it works, making that not so fatal on an experimental level.

Not having tested in vacuum is a pretty serious flaw though.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

From elsewhere, I've seen it claimed that the 'negative control' there had a change that should have prevented it from working based on a particular theory about how it works, making that not so fatal on an experimental level.

Without more information, it's hard to say, but it makes me inclined to think they've got an instrument error. In any case, the 'negative control' failing most certainly means it's not something that should be published as anything resembling a success.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Without more information, it's hard to say, but it makes me inclined to think they've got an instrument error. In any case, the 'negative control' failing most certainly means it's not something that should be published as anything resembling a success.

They also had a more-negative control which is described as an 'RF load'. While not specified, the implication is that they didn't detect thrust there. And mounting the drive in the reverse direction.

It's possible they messed up the whole thing, and not doing vacuum tests for something intended as a vacuum drive is a serious omission, but I don't see any reason to call this a failure.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

It's possible they messed up the whole thing, and not doing vacuum tests for something intended as a vacuum drive is a serious omission, but I don't see any reason to call this a failure.

"We had a theory, we tested it, and the theory failed to predict the results" is failure. Separately, the test is worthless junk.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Anthony

"We had a theory, we tested it, and the theory failed to predict the results" is failure.

Whether the device works is a vastly more interesting question than whether one particular theory about why the device works is correct.

Originally Posted by Anthony

Separately, the test is worthless junk.

Explanation needed.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Whether the device works is a vastly more interesting question than whether one particular theory about why the device works is correct.

Actually, no, it isn't. It means you need to figure out what went wrong.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Explanation needed.

See bad experiment setup. Seriously, the most common explanations for 'reactionless' devices are atmospheric interactions and problems with the measurement devices being used, and they don't seem to have corrected for either one, so that's just rank incompetence.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Actually, no, it isn't. It means you need to figure out what went wrong.

I really think 'we have a reactionless drive and it turns out we don't understand its mechanism' would be enormously exciting. The incremental excitement of 'also, we know how to make it not work' seems rather minor.

I don't even know what the second sentence means.

Originally Posted by Anthony

See bad experiment setup. Seriously, the most common explanations for 'reactionless' devices are atmospheric interactions and problems with the measurement devices being used, and they don't seem to have corrected for either one, so that's just rank incompetence.

Obviously, they have not properly addressed the possibility that it is interacting with the air in the chamber, and that's bad. I don't know whether or not they corrected for problems with the measuring devices, but I'd like to know how you do.