6 ms·

Given that it has so far been detected as working by two independent organisations that tried very hard to get the test right, some new science has clearly been

Given that it has so far been detected as working by two independent organisations that tried very hard to get the test right, some new science has clearly been done here. We don't yet have clear evidence that it's a new propulsion technology, as it's possible that what has been discovered is an entirely new mechanism for confounding measurement instruments, but that does not lessen the scientific value of this discovery. There is new knowledge here. Perhaps new physics. I slightly wish I was a physicist so that I could go and find out.

josu 12y ago
>two independent organisations Sorry, but one of them being Chinese, I would say that there is only one reliable source, and the chances that they made a mistake are high.
- gambiting 12y ago
  Are you saying that no good science can be made in China purely because it's China? USSR sometimes lied about their results,but they had scientists just as good as the US did. I have little doubt that good science can be done in China too.
  - josu 12y ago
    Nope, I am saying that Chinese science is not reliable. I'm not saying that they lie about all their science, or that no good science is done in China. But when you have to go with your gut, and there are only two sources and one of them is Chinese, I would never reach a conclusion such as: "some new science has clearly been done here"
    - enraged_camel 12y ago
      >>Nope, I am saying that Chinese science is not reliable Why not?
      - davorak 12y ago
        From the Chinese graduate students and professors that I have talked to the problems seems to be that it is really is to commit fraud and get a way with it. In particular in some fields you can get rich writing grants, getting a considerable amount of money and writing fake papers. There is a heavy temptation for many to do the same when all of their colleges are able to buy multiple houses and live an extravagant life style. An example from ~5-9 years ago would be a Chinese professor flying to California and buying a multi million dollar vacation house in cash. This is an extreme example and was uncommon even at the time. My understanding is that this is not the case in all fields, it is easier to get a way with fraud in the less hard sciences supposedly. I also have read about several efforts over the last several years to try and correct matters. It is also the case that many papers written by non-native english speakers suffer from grammar and spelling errors. Unfortunately incorrect grammar and or spelling often has a negative halo effect for many on the scientific content of the paper. There is plenty of good science that comes out of China, however it suffers from a negative halo effect from the above sources.
        virtue3 12y ago
        I know some phd's here in the states... it's not much better. Seriously. Lots of back scratching that goes on behind closed doors and lots of bogus papers that re-use old results or "recombine" old data in order to get funding for an actual project... really a lot of hogwash and bad science. Nothing directly to cause fraud where I am tho. Tho I'm sure some publications are better about that than others.
      - josu 12y ago
        I don't know much about the physics field, but in economics all that davorak says applies [0] [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8115275 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8115275
        lotsofmangos 12y ago
        In economics, given things like the Reinhart and Rogoff paper on debt, that would seem to apply to places like Harvard as well.
  - tedsanders 12y ago
    Here is a great paper that shows that more than 99% of Chinese clinical trials show a positive result. Either null results are being suppressed or data is being fabricated. http://www.dcscience.net/Vickers_1998_Controlled-Clinical-Trials.pdf http://www.dcscience.net/Vickers_1998_Controlled-Clinical-Tr... Good science certainly comes out of China, but a lot bad science comes along too.
    - jo_ 12y ago
      It should be noted that the paper (as I've read in the abstract) extrapolates from MEDICAL data. There's a huge prevalence of pseudomedicine and mysticism which receives incorrect confirmation (as evidenced by the aforementioned paper), but a poor publication record in medicine journals isn't necessarily a good predictor of physics journals.
    - DevX101 12y ago
      US journals aren't big on publishing null results either.
XorNot 12y ago
The Chinese tests did not include testing in a VACUUM. Not a sealed chamber, but an actual, airless, gasless, box of some sort. The power levels involved in these devices are 10-20 kW - that much power into anything is capable of heating air and producing currents from convection alone. A microwave cavity is exactly the sort of thing which would make a great make-shift reaction chamber for a very inefficient, very ordinary jet engine of some sort. I note the Wired article here also makes no mention of whether they tested the device in a vacuum chamber. Its the only test which matters, and no one ever does it, meanwhile they're pumping enough wattage to flash boil water around things. EDIT: From the NASA abstract as well - "Testing was performed on a low-thrust torsion pendulum that is capable of detecting force at a single-digit micronewton level, within a stainless steel vacuum chamber with the door closed but at ambient atmospheric pressure." Given what this thing claims to do, and how you have to operate it (allegedly) and the scale of the forces involved (tiny), not testing in an actual, evacuated vacuum chamber is absurd.
- daveloyall 12y ago
  If the microwave chamber is sealed air tight, they might need to construct a special one before they can test it in vacuum. But yes, they should get on that!
- gnarbarian 12y ago
  That much current would also create a magnetic field radiating out from the wiring. Maybe the force is that of the interaction between the earth's magnetic field and the microwave. IANAP
  - JulianMorrison 12y ago
    They tested with an RF load to look for that kind of effect.
- scottlocklin 12y ago
  If it ain't tested in a vacuum, it's almost certainly simple coronal discharge.

josu 12y ago

>two independent organisations Sorry, but one of them being Chinese, I would say that there is only one reliable source, and the chances that they made a mistake are high.

gambiting 12y ago
Are you saying that no good science can be made in China purely because it's China? USSR sometimes lied about their results,but they had scientists just as good as the US did. I have little doubt that good science can be done in China too.
- josu 12y ago
  Nope, I am saying that Chinese science is not reliable. I'm not saying that they lie about all their science, or that no good science is done in China. But when you have to go with your gut, and there are only two sources and one of them is Chinese, I would never reach a conclusion such as: "some new science has clearly been done here"
  - enraged_camel 12y ago
    >>Nope, I am saying that Chinese science is not reliable Why not?
    - davorak 12y ago
      From the Chinese graduate students and professors that I have talked to the problems seems to be that it is really is to commit fraud and get a way with it. In particular in some fields you can get rich writing grants, getting a considerable amount of money and writing fake papers. There is a heavy temptation for many to do the same when all of their colleges are able to buy multiple houses and live an extravagant life style. An example from ~5-9 years ago would be a Chinese professor flying to California and buying a multi million dollar vacation house in cash. This is an extreme example and was uncommon even at the time. My understanding is that this is not the case in all fields, it is easier to get a way with fraud in the less hard sciences supposedly. I also have read about several efforts over the last several years to try and correct matters. It is also the case that many papers written by non-native english speakers suffer from grammar and spelling errors. Unfortunately incorrect grammar and or spelling often has a negative halo effect for many on the scientific content of the paper. There is plenty of good science that comes out of China, however it suffers from a negative halo effect from the above sources.
      - virtue3 12y ago
        I know some phd's here in the states... it's not much better. Seriously. Lots of back scratching that goes on behind closed doors and lots of bogus papers that re-use old results or "recombine" old data in order to get funding for an actual project... really a lot of hogwash and bad science. Nothing directly to cause fraud where I am tho. Tho I'm sure some publications are better about that than others.
    - josu 12y ago
      I don't know much about the physics field, but in economics all that davorak says applies [0] [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8115275 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8115275
      - lotsofmangos 12y ago
        In economics, given things like the Reinhart and Rogoff paper on debt, that would seem to apply to places like Harvard as well.
- tedsanders 12y ago
  Here is a great paper that shows that more than 99% of Chinese clinical trials show a positive result. Either null results are being suppressed or data is being fabricated. http://www.dcscience.net/Vickers_1998_Controlled-Clinical-Trials.pdf http://www.dcscience.net/Vickers_1998_Controlled-Clinical-Tr... Good science certainly comes out of China, but a lot bad science comes along too.
  - jo_ 12y ago
    It should be noted that the paper (as I've read in the abstract) extrapolates from MEDICAL data. There's a huge prevalence of pseudomedicine and mysticism which receives incorrect confirmation (as evidenced by the aforementioned paper), but a poor publication record in medicine journals isn't necessarily a good predictor of physics journals.
  - DevX101 12y ago
    US journals aren't big on publishing null results either.

XorNot 12y ago

The Chinese tests did not include testing in a VACUUM. Not a sealed chamber, but an actual, airless, gasless, box of some sort. The power levels involved in these devices are 10-20 kW - that much power into anything is capable of heating air and producing currents from convection alone. A microwave cavity is exactly the sort of thing which would make a great make-shift reaction chamber for a very inefficient, very ordinary jet engine of some sort. I note the Wired article here also makes no mention of whether they tested the device in a vacuum chamber. Its the only test which matters, and no one ever does it, meanwhile they're pumping enough wattage to flash boil water around things. EDIT: From the NASA abstract as well - "Testing was performed on a low-thrust torsion pendulum that is capable of detecting force at a single-digit micronewton level, within a stainless steel vacuum chamber with the door closed but at ambient atmospheric pressure." Given what this thing claims to do, and how you have to operate it (allegedly) and the scale of the forces involved (tiny), not testing in an actual, evacuated vacuum chamber is absurd.

daveloyall 12y ago
If the microwave chamber is sealed air tight, they might need to construct a special one before they can test it in vacuum. But yes, they should get on that!
gnarbarian 12y ago
That much current would also create a magnetic field radiating out from the wiring. Maybe the force is that of the interaction between the earth's magnetic field and the microwave. IANAP
- JulianMorrison 12y ago
  They tested with an RF load to look for that kind of effect.
scottlocklin 12y ago
If it ain't tested in a vacuum, it's almost certainly simple coronal discharge.