Chaos Manor View, Thursday, March 26, 2015

0915 Niven will be here shortly to take me to Pasadena and JPL where we will spend the day.

I have a note from a reader: NASA is being cautious because some think reactionless drive does in fact work. We can hope, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof…

Meanwhile I vamp until Larry gets here.

My Surface Pro won’t turn on.  It got a bunch of updates yesterday, and died.  Nothing I can do causes it to turn on: it was that went when I went to bed, and still is.  I have held the button down for a count of 100 both in the docking station and out. More when I know more…

1530:  I left the Surface out of the dock and not plugged to power.  When I got home a few minutes ago I pushed the button.  It turned on.  I’ll experiment more but it appears to be all right. Precious accepted my user name and password and is welcoming me.  Larry is here and we’ll go to LASFS. More tomorrow.

Re: NASA refutes Mann and Rahmstorf – Finds Atlantic ‘Conveyor Belt’ Not Slowing

Jerry,

Further to the Science Daily story that you were forwarded, from that article linked in “Thin Gruel”,

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150323132746.htm

“The gradual but accelerating melting of the Greenland ice-sheet, caused by human-made global warming, is a possible major contributor to the slowdown. Further weakening could impact marine ecosystems and sea level as well as weather systems in the US and Europe.”

But this from 2010:

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/atlantic20100325.html

“PASADENA, Calif. – New NASA measurements of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, part of the global ocean conveyor belt that helps regulate climate around the North Atlantic, show no significant slowing over the past 15 years. The data suggest the circulation may have even sped up slightly in the recent past.”

And this article pulling in research on the issue from different sources:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/24/michael-mann-and-stefan-rahmstorf-claim-the-gulf-stream-is-slowing-due-to-greenland-ice-melt-except-reality-says-otherwise/

Notice that the there is not any “accelerating melting of the Greenland ice-sheet” as claimed in the Science Daily article.

http://www.dmi.dk/uploads/tx_dmidatastore/webservice/b/m/s/d/e/accumulatedsmb.png

If anything, it appears that seasonal melting is slowing and there is a small increase in year to year ice mass. That chart, referenced in the article mentioned above, is from

http://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/

Regards,

George

https://techpinions.com/its-a-different-microsoft-and-it-matters/39351

Back in the days of Microsoft’s glories, the company lived on one simple approach to the world: Every decision the company made was to promote Windows. In a period when PCs were the only thing that mattered and Windows’ control was close to absolute, this was a simple formula to building market and profits.

The nature of the industry began changing quite a while ago, but business stayed pretty good for Microsoft and there was little reason to redo things. But having finally been hit by huge changes–especially the realization that the PC, Windows or otherwise, no longer completely dominated the market–Microsoft is going through a major rearrangement that finds Apple and Android as important as Windows.

Looked interesting to me.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonbloomberg/2015/03/24/digital-cloud-modern-and-cost-effective-surprise-its-the-mainframe/

Digital? Cloud? Modern And Cost-Effective? Surprise! It’s The Mainframe

Comment Now

Follow Comments

What’s up with IBM IBM +0.88%? On the one hand, IBM is betting the company on the cloud, yet on the other, they are doubling down on the mainframe – sinking over a billion dollars into their new IBM z13 model in their z Systems mainframe line.

Furthermore, the explosion of mobile traffic is throwing a wrench into the works as digital transformation becomes the driving factor in enterprise technology purchasing decisions. Do these apparently competing forces spell trouble for Big Blue?

On the contrary – there’s method to IBM’s madness. The z13 mainframe is in fact one of the most powerful digital transaction platforms available – and in many ways also supports enterprise cloud efforts.

http://www.wired.com/2015/03/60-gadget-thatll-make-car-hacking-easier-ever/

A $60 Gadget That Makes Car Hacking Far Easier

The average automobile today isn’t necessarily secured against hackers, so much as obscured from them: Digitally controlling a car’s electronics remains an arcane, specialized skill among security researchers. But that’s changing fast. And soon, it could take as little as $60 and a laptop to begin messing around with a car’s digital innards.

: white roof –

Hi Jerry,

Just one data point for your white roof theory. Our house used to be pale blue, and now it’s dark brown. Our utility bills dropped by about 10% in the winter – and went up by about 20% in the summer (the greater amount is because the social engineers artificially raise the price of electricity in the summer beyond market rates). The net is still a cost savings to me. So what I need is chameleon paint that changes color with the season!

Cheers,

Doug=

Freedom is not free. Free men are not equal. Equal men are not free.

Chaos Manor View, Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Most of the day was devoured by medical appointments, and the rest was pleasurably enjoyed in lunch and dinner with Roberta two of our sons. Frank, who lives in Texas, came out for the day and actually joined us going out to Kaiser in Panorama City, and when we had lunch on the way back we were joined by Alex, who lives in the Valley. Then we all four went out to dinner.

In other words I didn’t write much, for this journal, for the SFWA Bulletin, on my novels, or anything else. Tomorrow Larry Niven and I will go out to JPL to have lunch with Richard, my youngest son, who lives in DC but operates out of Houston a good part of the time; after which he has a presentation at JPL, doubtless about NanoRacks and the satellite launching business. And after that my old friend Harlan Ellison will come to a LASFS meeting, and Niven and I can’t miss that, and ==

So it’s thin gruel today and probably less tomorrow. Ah well.

A little more on reactionless drives:

OK, this is most likely my last on this subject, having foolishly gotten myself into it…
Housekeeping first:
1) No, I did not dig more for further information than the popular science bits that were first presented. My research time these days is used for other things (mostly economic and social evolution, military history, and one rather nasty astrometric project.) I would submit, though, that this is precisely why the Doctor invites many different people to the Manor.
2) I stand by my opinion of Chinese research. When all things are subordinated to the State, there is a far steeper cliff of verification needed. There are Chinese researchers that I have on the trust but verify list (a very few), ones that I’ll take a look at but approach with a great deal of skepticism (the majority), and ones that I automatically dismiss (once again, a very few). By the way, I hope that nobody confuses the institution at which these researchers work with the American university – Northwestern PolytechnicAL Institute is in Xi’an, Shaanxi, China; *not* Fremont, California, USA. This paper fell under the majority rule – but on checking, looks like a fairly reliable description of a beginning research effort.
The preceding being out of the way – now to the meat…
Reviewing the links for all three published pieces (sorry, not the YouTube clips – time, again) *not* one of them is claiming a reactionless drive. (See page 2 of the Shawyer IAC presentation, abstract of the Chinese paper – NASA does not say it so simply, but “momentum transfer” is action/reaction, whether momentum is being transferred by “normal” kinetic processes or through the virtual quantum plasma.) Sorry, no breaking of the current “laws” of physics here…
Probably the best way to (vastly) simplify the Shawyer and Chinese work is to describe it as putting a nozzle on your “traditional” engine’s combustion chamber, thus turning a relatively low thrust into a far higher one. Shawyer describes a NASA test device that is quite like his own, and that of the Chinese. All of them apparently produce thrusts at a rough order of magnitude of 0.2 Newtons / kilowatt. (That’s one kilogram, accelerated at 1 meter/second/second with an input of 5 kilowatts of power – which is *extremely* good).
Where Shawyer and the Chinese part company is in what they see as the *potential* of the technology. Shawyer is, in the best Western tradition, looking at the speculative endpoint of a huge amount of further research and engineering advancement – it is a long way from 1 Newton for 5 kilowatts to a SSTO lifting large masses against a 1G field. Note that there is nothing *wrong* with that, and everything *right* with it – how does anyone think the West gained its preeminence in the first place? In any case, this is the very long view.
The Chinese, on the other hand, are seeing this technology as solving in the near term a very practical, but important problem. That is the problem with the fact that any kind of “traditional” thruster that throws mass is certain to cause interference with delicate instrumentation on your spacecraft – or, even worse, deposit that mass onto things like camera lenses, communication antennas, solar cells, etc. To them, this is a way to get small thrusts without the inevitable “pollution” of the immediate environment. It would not surprise me to see this showing up in PRC surveillance satellites, planetary probes, and the like in the near future.
The NASA link is to an engineering paper. You might think it is simply a more sophisticated version of the Shawyer/Chinese devices – but the apparatus described is *very* different, as is their description of the physical principles involved. They also measured the thrust of their apparatus at a mean of 40 *micro* Newtons – which, unless someone did something very wrong, is not in the same region as the other two, not by a very long shot. I think that, despite the superficial similarities (no propellant mass and involving microwaves), the NASA paper is describing a completely different line of approach to achieving thrust. (Apparently not an overly efficient one, either, which does not surprise if the momentum transfer is through the virtual particle plasma – it is called the “vacuum energy” for a very good reason.)

Richard Skinner

I don’t have time to analyze that. I can only repeat, any reactionless drive – any thrust without a propellant – is impossible under the Standard Theory. It blows up Relativity so far as I can tell; certainly makes it complex beyond understanding. It requires serious adjustment to Newton, much more than Beckmann’s postulating a finite speed of propagation to gravity. It makes the quantum structure more important, and certainly changes what we think we know about it. Magnitude isn’t important here. Any propellantless thrust changes our understanding of the universe.

And that’s wonderful. It’s also unlikely. Sagan was fond of Descartes’ dictum, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.” Existence of a device that can produce thrust without a propellant is a very extraordinary claim.

Jerry,

For whatever it’s worth, coming from one who consistently flunked high school math, but, having looked at the number of stars in our galaxy, and the number of galaxies in “our” known portion of the universe — and said to himself, “wow, that’s a lot of stars…” I have to ask: If a reactionless drive is indeed possible, then it would seem to my mathematically challenged mind that the upper limit of velocity, given sufficient time, would approach an impressive fraction of the speed of light.

If so, then, given the equally impressive number of stars in the sky, how unlikely is it for us to be “visited” by others?

The more I ponder the questions, the more important the warnings from Hawking et al seem — and the more idiotic any form of “active” SETI (AKA “Here we are, come and get us!”) seem.

Anon

Many years ago Freeman Dyson pointed out the mathematics point strongly to there being but one intelligent species per galaxy. The logic summarizes thus: assume a thousand years in transit in a generation ship to get to the next inhabitable planet. Assume a thousand years for the resulting colony to achieve an industrial technology to build two more star ships. How many millions of years does it take to fill the galaxy? But we have billions. The only variable is how long it takes to evolve the first star crossing industrial civilization…

I have drastically summarized a brilliant analysis, but you may now play with the assumptions, and you will find the conclusion compelling. One per galaxy.

One way or another.

Gulf conveyor slowing

From (admittedly alarmist) articles and television programs I saw at least a decade ago, I know that interruptions of the Gulf stream are likely to have played a part in historic periods of cooling in the Northern Hemisphere. Now comes this:
-Gulf Stream system: Atlantic Ocean overturning, responsible for mild climate in northwestern Europe, is slowing
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150323132746.htm
This seems to match some of your speculation.
-d

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/9edfa07c-ceaa-11e4-900c-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=intl#axzz3VFLx03DX

Apple puts clinical research tool in your pocket

Bloomberg

Tapping an iPhone’s touchscreen to take a photograph or make a phone call is as familiar as the traditional cameras and mobile phones that it displaced. Medical researchers hope to use the same simple interactions to study diseases from Parkinson’s to asthma.

Apple began its move into the digital health industry last summer when it unveiled Healthkit, a software platform that developers can use to pool data about workouts, caloric intake and weight. Apple touted its potential to alert doctors about changes to the user’s wellbeing, and several US hospitals have begun to pilot the system.

Less than a year later, almost 1,000 fitness apps are plugging in to Healthkit, giving Apple a strong base upon which to launch its health-centric Watch device.

Apple’s longer-term plans became clearer with the launch earlier this month of ResearchKit, a way for medical researchers to transform the iPhone into a tool for conducting clinical research.

“All you have to do is stick the iPhone in your pocket, walk out 20 steps and back, and the iPhone’s accelerometer and gyroscope precisely measure gait,” said Jeff Williams, senior vice-president for operations, of an app studying Parkinson’s, at this month’s launch.

Apple is not planning to make money directly from these apps, which also track diabetes and cardiovascular health. But ReserachKit is building goodwill with the medical community that could help to sell more iPhones or Watches.

“Having a common platform is a godsend to researchers at the university, hospital, clinical and government level,” says Richard Doherty, research director at Envisioneering, a technology consultancy.

Guaranteeing users’ data security and privacy will be essential. Mr Williams has said that customers will opt into any ReserachKit programmes and promised that Apple “will not see your data”.

“Apple has always believed that amazing things can happen when you put technology in the hands of the many,” Mr Williams concluded.

Force fields could be the next big battlefield innovation (WP)

By Dominic Basulto March 25 at 7:00 AM

America’s military-industrial complex keeps coming up with innovative ideas for how to win asymmetric wars in far-flung locations around the world. As if insect-like drones and Terminator bots were not enough, Boeing recently filed a patent that describes how to create a “force field” capable of shielding soldiers and military vehicles – including tanks and armored personnel carriers – from the shockwaves of IEDs.

While Boeing doesn’t actually call it a “force field patent,” that’s essentially what it is. You can see how Boeing’s “method and system for shockwave attenuation via electromagnetic arc” works in the figure below. Here, a sensor (10A) mounted on the top of a military humvee would detect an explosion and its resulting shockwave (24) in the immediate area. The sensor system would then almost instantaneously send a signal to a power source (38) to superheat the surrounding ambient atmosphere (26) around the vehicle, producing a heated, plasma-like medium (30) between the target and the explosion that would act as a buffer and shield from any shockwave.

Although some have referred to this innovation as a Star Wars or Star Trek-like shield for repelling enemy attacks, that’s not exactly the purpose of the patent. As Boeing points out in patent no. 8981261, such a system would act to “attenuate” any shockwave by a combination of means that might include “reflection, refraction, dispersion, absorption and momentum transfer.” The goal, then, is not to knock down an incoming projectile or missile, but to deploy an intermediate medium that would reduce the collateral damage from such an attack.

Unlike previous attempts at creating a similar type of shield, this Boeing patent – if it ever gets commercialized — would be a dynamic system, rather than a stationary system, relying on sensors to activate a shield in real-time. This would differentiate it from previous patents, which focused more on how a specific substance – such as an aqueous foam, gas emulsion or gel – could somehow absorb the blow of an incoming object when placed inside a barrier. In other words, the force field would be highly mobile and be capable of activating at a moment’s notice, rather than being erected in front of a structure hours, days, or months ahead of time.

Given the nature of modern asymmetric warfare, such a dynamic “force field” is greatly needed. Over the past decade, the “roadside bomb” has fundamentally changed the way the military operates as well as how it innovates. Consider the number of IED attacks in a war zone such as Iraq or Afghanistan, where over 3,100 deaths and 33,000 injuries have been sustained over the past decade. Clearly, the U.S. military needs some way to counter the ability of a terrorist or insurgent group to inflict maximum damage on unsuspecting U.S. soldiers with minimal risk.

As researchers are now finding out, even the shockwave from a detonated IED can cause internal injuries that may not be detected for years afterwards. Unlike the Hollywood movies, where heroes walk away from impressive-looking detonations and blasts as if they were nothing, researchers now say that IED shockwaves are tantamount to being hit multiple times by a ferocious NFL middle linebacker, resulting in potential head concussions each time.

There’s a huge potential market for this type of technology and that means it’s not just the U.S. military that could become buyers of such a battlefield innovation. The British Army is also working on the creation of supercharged electromagnetic fields to deflect anything up to the size of a small missile. And the Israeli Army is also working on a system to knock down incoming projectiles.

Real force fields would be a major development and require new theories…

If you haven’t got your California Sixth Grade Reader (1914) you should do so: https://www.google.com/search?q=california+6th+grade+reader&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/Sixthgradesample.html

Freedom is not free. Free men are not equal. Equal men are not free.

Chaos Manor View, Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Took a long – for me and the walker – walk this morning, discovering after we were well out of the house that I had two-pound ankle weights from doing exercises.  I can tell you if you want to induce fatigue in the legs, walk with ankle weights. It works – at least if you are as old as I am.

Spent the rest of the  day at the dentist getting a broken off abscessed tooth out. I should feel better now if I survive. Clots are dangerous.

It’s dinner (poached eggs) time. I may have more later. Meanwhile:

: Reactionless drives

Hello Jerry,

A bit more on reactionless drives:

First of all, the EmDrive, real or not, has nothing to do with the ‘Dean Drive’, which was a mechanical device. 

The guy who started this whole flap is a British aerospace engineer named Roger Shawyer.

He was a payload engineer who apparently specialized in stationkeeping and (supposedly) noticed that the spacecraft were moving around more than could be explained by ‘the usual suspects’. 

He came up with the idea and asked his bosses for a research budget to investigate it and was turned down firmly:  “Your idea is impossible; get back to work.”.

He quit his job, started his own company, got funding from the British government, and built and tested a thruster based on his idea.  It supposedly produced thrust.  His mathematical theory as to how it works is apparently bogus; I can’t do his math OR the math that reportedly proves his to be wrong.  I don’t care about the math; does it produce thrust or not?  He says it does.  So (at least for now) does NASA.  And the Chinese

Here is a link to his web site: http://emdrive.com .  He presented a paper at IAC2014 in Toronto that your son addressed re cubsats.  His IAC paper:  http://www.emdrive.com/iac2014presentation.pdf

is linked on his site along with test data from several iterations of his thruster.

This is a 14 minute YouTube presentation by Shawyer explaining the history of his idea and how it works.  It includes several pictures of various EmDrive designs and a demo of a thruster (supposedly) causing a test rig weighing around 100kg to rotate on an air bearing:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGTjy6atKMs

This is Part 2 (15 min) of the above lecture:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmfPNuhy0mc

and Part 3 (23 min) of the lecture:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2dwC5Am42Q

This is a link to the NASA Eagleworks test report. 

http://www.libertariannews.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/AnomalousThrustProductionFromanRFTestDevice-BradyEtAl.pdf

Contrary to the comment on your blog today they in fact DID do a null test, substituting a 50 ohm load for the thruster.  The load produced no thrust. 

The Chinese team at Northwestern Polytechnical University, College of Astronautics built a frustum thruster similar to Shawyer’s, tested it, and produced this report in 2011:

http://www.emdrive.com/yang-juan-paper-2012.pdf

about which Richard Skinner made the following comment:

“Having a third-hand popular science account gives me really nothing – except to note that a measurement in thousandths of grams is not particularly a good “proof.” (I treat Chinese releases of “science” for popular consumption in just about the same way as I used to treat Soviet releases of such – i.e., with a thirty pound block of pasture salt.)”

Without taking sides re the reality of the EmDrive effect, I think that Mr. Skinner may be a bit cavalier in characterizing a paper, with experimental data, by six researchers, including at least on PhD,  from the Northwestern Polytechnical University, College of Astronautics as a ‘Chinese release of science for popular consumption’.  I suspect that he never read the paper.   Also, if he is actually interested in the papers, rather than third hand popular science accounts, you could pass him some of the links here, which include Shawyer’s work, NASA’s report, and the Chinese report.

As far as I know, the Chinese have not published anything on the technology since.  There are several possible explanations including:  “Oops!  We screwed up; lets just keep our mouths shut and hope no one notices what suckers we were and hope it goes away.” and “Holy Crap!  Do the idiots who published that report realize how important this is and what an advantage it will give us if we just keep our mouths shut and hope everybody blows it off as test error or something?”  I have no idea which, if either applies, but apparently the outfit which built and tested the device is a bit like China’s version of JPL.  They may be wrong (I suspect that even JPL may have been wrong a time or two in the past.), but the report was NOT a ‘Chinese release of science for popular consumption’.

There is a hot forum going on (since last September) over on one of the NASA blogs with a bunch of folks, including several highly qualified PhD’s, busting their humps trying to figure out if or how it works.  The first thread ran a couple hundred pages (the usual is less than 10 for a given topic), before things got so rancorous that the moderator pulled the thread.  This is the original thread:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.0

which was cut back to 183 pages after the moderator threw out the last 50 pages or so because it was degenerating into a food fight.

The moderator started a new thread:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.0

which is now up to 76 pages and counting. 

A related subject is a cosmological theory, Modified inertia by a Hubble scale Casmir effect (MiHsC) by a British (or Scottish, not sure) PhD Physics professor, Mike McCulloch, who claims that his theory requires neither dark matter or dark energy to explain such various observations as the rotation rates of galaxies which, to preserve GR, requires that 90+ % of the universe consist of unobservable dark matter and dark energy, the Pioneer Anomalies (which JPL explained by an EXTREMELY complicated analysis of the thermal radiation from the spacecraft), the observed motion of Proxima Centauri, which is double the speed predicted by Newton/GR and which dark matter/dark energy cannot explain…….and also predicts thrust from frustum shaped cavities the same order of magnitude as that observed by Shawyer, the Chinese, and by NASA’s Eagleworks in Houston.

Dr. McCulloch’s blog is here:   http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com

and includes at least three posts addressing EmDrive theory.

At any rate, there are (at least) three different entities who have built and tested EmDrive frustums, all of whom detected thrust far above (orders of magnitude) anything that could be produced by the same power in a microwave beam.

The experimenters have been accused of everything from incompetence to outright fraud, but to date, except for ex cathedra proclamations by a variety of self-proclaimed experts who took no part in the experiments that the measured results are impossible, no one has actually driven a stake through the heart of ANY of the experiments by Shawyer, the Chinese, or NASA’s Eagleworks.

As for me, I am not a ‘true believer’, but I am very definitely a ‘true hoper’.

Bob Ludwick

Dark matter is straining belief in the Standard Theory. First we assume that we don’t live in a unique part of the universe; then it turns out we must live somewhere unusual, and more and more hypotheses about dark matter, which we can’t see, and dark energy which we can’t detect are generated. They pile up.

The late Petr Beckmann’s book, Einstein Plus Two http://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Plus-Two-Petr-Beckmann/dp/0911762396 and the popularization by Beckmann’s friend Tom Bethell Is Einstein Necessary? http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0971484597/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_2?pf_rd_p=1944687642&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0911762396&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0Y3RQTK11P7KKPB85ZR1 claim that every crucial experiment supporting Relativity can be explained in a much more simple way by Newton if you assume a finite propagation speed – probably c – for gravity. It is not that Einstein’s Relativity, Special and General, are wrong: but they are very much more complicated, taking pages of tensor calculus with Einstein, while two or three equations comprehensible to anyone who knows Maxwell’s Equations.

This doesn’t mean that Beckmann was right or wrong; but it does give a reason for asking if he is necessary. Beckmann’s theory assumes an aether, as did Newton. Beckmann’s aether is the system gravitational field which is entailed by Earth as it moves in its orbit. For more read bethel, or Beckmann. Bethel manages without equations. Beckmann assumes standard university calculus, but not more.

Relativist friends tell me there are phenomena better explained by Relativity; Beckmann’s champions say there are not. Those who question Einstein point to spectroscopic binaries, which you would think could not exist were Special Relativity true. I haven’t the expertise to have an opinion. Obviously the consensus opinion held by a vast number of physicists is Einstein. Not so obviously, most of those physicists have never looked at the question since graduate school, nor have needed to, or wanted to. There are only a few hundred to a few thousand people with the math training to participate in the argument. I am certainly not one of them. I do admit the spectroscopic binary phenomenon seems crucial, and the Relativist argument seems lame, but that is my layman’s view.

A data point like reactionless drive – action without equal reaction —  is not an argument; facts are stubborn things. If a real reactionless drive exists, Newton must be modified; it is difficult to see how Relativity will survive.

Greg Benford is convinced that the NASA data are incorrect. He and most Western physicists think an attempt to duplicate the Chinese results should be tried but he does not believe it will work.

I continue to root for the data. Facts are real, and theories are expendable, The NASA data seem much more serious than I first believed.

One thing is certain: the existence of a working reactionless drive – mechanical or quantum – will change the world.

Freedom is not free. Free men are not equal. Equal men are not free.

Chaos Manor View, Monday, March 23, 2015

Remember when The Phone Company was a public utility regulated by the FCC under the 1932 law under which Obama pressured the FCC into applying to the Internet? Today a Time Warner robot called me to tell me my bill was way overdue. The robot wasn’t clear in its messages, but said I could pay by credit card, but every time I poked in a credit card number it said it could tell I was having trouble, did I want to talk to a human for Five Dollars. We went through this dance three times, and I hung up in fury. Of course Time Warner in Los Angeles or at least where I live has no competition I can’t change to a cable provider who employs humans or can afford better robots.

Somehow I don’t think the FCC grab – which will be years in court – is going to help. I pay my bills by Robot or thought I did, and records show that I did pay last month but not this month; not sure why. So I sent two month’s worth—a considerable sum—electronically and I can let the payment system and Time Warner fight it out. The robot said it would have me talk to a bill collector unless I paid, but then didn’t let me, but I could talk to a human but it would cost me five bucks.

I have had the monopoly cable people—three prior to Time Warner—for twenty five years and always paid the outrageous bills, this I think the first time I have been late, but neither robots nor Time Warner cares. I remember The Phone Company having a human bill collector call back when it was a regulated public utility but even he was embarrassed when I pointed out that was the first late payment in twenty years. That was in the 60’s. I doubt things will ever be better now that the Internet is a regulated public utility. Politicians will still find ways to grant “regulated” monopolies, and while the Time Warners can talk to the regulators, we’ll talk to robots.

There was the annual paperback book expo yesterday in LA – well actually in Glendale – and often a bunch of will get together for dinner afterwards. Yesterday began with brunch with Larry—we sign together since there are a lot of collaborations, this time more because Barnes was there with us – but the surprise was that at brunch we were joined by Greg Benford.

I’m now going to post some mail about NASA and the reactionless drive. As it happens I discussed this report with Benford, who is a retired Professor of Physics University of California at Irvine and was aware of it, so after the mail I summarize his views. Understand that I have no real qualifications to examine the technical details. I do know enough to state unequivocally that if this holds up and we do have a reactionless drive, it’s revolutionary, with a particularly large impact on Relativity, both General and Special.

Violates the Laws of Physics?

Jerry,

Making statements such as “Violates the Laws of Physics” alarms me. The statement makes unstated assumptions. The most ridiculous of these is that we know and understand everything about the physical universe. Nothing, of course, could be farther from the truth.

If we are to make progress we must be able to maintain an open mind and not be afraid to abandon theories that no longer adequately explain the phenomena that we are able to observe.

Government Research Grants appear to favor the status quo by favoring theories that have popularity. Grants should be made on the basis of results.

Jerry’s ideas for X Prizes to encourage privately funded development of research yielding specified results would seem to be a more productive use of Government Funds.

Bob Holmes

Cannae or Can’t, and black or white

Dr. Pournelle,
I hadn’t commented on the Dean Drive link because I was waiting for more to come out. Sadly, I’ve seen little that was new. The Wired UK link is from July last year, and almost everyone has published a partial retraction as of August ’14. Seems as if someone re-linked an old, unverified article.
I can’t imagine NASA going without a major press release, from a director-level mouthpiece, on this accomplishment (unless, of course, it somehow fails to reaffirm a Muslim self image, or has a high carbon footprint). Damn shame, ’cause I’d like to have it.
-d

Dean Drive

Dr. Pournelle:
It is interesting to read of the Cannae Drive and the related Chinese device. I recall a G. Harry Stine ‘Alternate View’ column in Analog that postulated something of the sort, thrust produced by a microwave resonant cavity tuned JUST right.
It is tough getting old and not being able to watch the spaceships take off.

Jim Watson

Cannae Drive

Might as well stick my neck out on this one, too. Although I can’t get it quite as far as on climate “science.”
I’m probably not qualified to evaluate properly this even if I had a peer-reviewed paper in front of me (or even an account in one of the reputable space technology media sources). Having a third-hand popular science account gives me really nothing – except to note that a measurement in thousandths of grams is not particularly a good “proof.” (I treat Chinese releases of “science” for popular consumption in just about the same way as I used to treat Soviet releases of such – i.e., with a thirty pound block of pasture salt.)
I think it quite likely that this will end up being a measurement error, “debunked” either by better instrumentation, more carefully calibrated instrumentation, or instrumentation that is measuring a force that they did not consider originally. For one thing, bouncing microwaves back and forth is going to cause heating of your “containment” vessel – and if there is a slight difference between the heating of one end and the opposite end, you will get some amount of net thrust from the “hot” end.
Of course, I would be ecstatic if this proves out on closer examination – but I remember my (brief) excitement over FTL neutrinos all too well…

Richard Skinner

Cannae Drive

I have worked with Johns Hopkins APL who did some testing for NASA on a similar engine design. They confirmed that they were able to achieve positive thrust. The thrust level was less than predicted by the UK inventor. It appears that they didn’t exactly duplicate the design resulting in a lower Q for the resonant cavity, which the inventor’s published theory says is a major performance criteria.
Many years ago in the 90’s I talked with an inventor of a similar engine that was actually patented by the USAF. He worked for the then Air Force Weapons Lab and developed and patented such an engine. It exploits non-linear electromagnetics. I have the patent number but not with me – I can send it later. The thrust achieved was greater than the conservation of photon momentum would predict, but was consistent with the predictions of non-linear EM equations.
Also of interest is the following AF report on DTIC from 1989 (AD-A227 121) Electric Propulsion Study. Physics E (Vol 48 Num 2 – August 1993) has a paper that describes under what conditions energy can be extracted from the quantum vacuum.
Lastly Heisenberg in the late 50’s stated a belief that quantum mechanics should be evolved to a full non-linear version, just as Maxwell’s equations and Relativistic Gravity are. This would potentially resolve the background dependency of QM issue.
Bottom line for me, is that now there are 3 independent tests that successfully demonstrate thrust of this engine design (UK inventor, NASA (via APL) and Chinese researchers). This may be experimental demonstration of a need to reformulate Quantum Field Theory in a manner similar to how Heisenberg envisioned.

John Garnham

That is a fair sample of mail on Cannae. We all want it, and there are now reports of data. Dr. Greg Benford thinks it is a result of differential heating and bad instrumentation. Of course as a Relativist he would not think it possible, but he also points out they did not even do a null experiment – and that is bad experimental design. I’m quite competent to comment on that.

We also speculated on why such a quiet announcement of such revolutionary data. If they were certain of having reactionless drive, as opposed to uneven heating and inadequate instrumentation, they should be shouting from the rooftops. Regarding the supposed Chinese reports of spectacular results, the same is true: Chinese scientists are well aware of the revolutionary nature of such data.

Some years ago I hosted a small conference on reactionless drives. I reported it in

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/sciences/dean.html and I really have nothing worth saying beyond that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_drive gives a reasonable history of the original Dean Drive and summarizes my minor role in that.

I completely agree with the late Dr. Forward; until we have a repeatable demonstration of a reactionless drive it is useless to speculate. If NASA actually has data showing a propellantless acceleration of any amount no matter how small – or the possibility of such – it certainly worth the cost of building an unambiguous demonstration. I they do not, NASA can’t afford to tease us. It’s too important.

I still do not understand the low key announcement last August and silence ever since.

I have this, with specific links:

Dear Dr. Pournelle,
The conference papers alluded to in the Wired.uk article concerning the “Dean Drive” are posted on the NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS). The papers identify the drive as either a “Q Drive” or as an “RF Cavity Resonator.”
The first paper on the RF Cavity Resonator, “Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF Test Device Measured on a Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum”, was published on 24 SEP 2014. The abstract is available here:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20140006052
and as a PDF document here:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140006052.pdf
The full paper (Report ID: JSC-CN-31446) is available at this link (the result of a search of the NTR Server):
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20140009930&qs=Nm%3D4293582119%7CAuthor%7CBrady%2C%2520David%7C%7C4293435800%7CAuthor%7CDavies%2C%2520Frank%2520J.%7C%7C4293259353%7CAuthor%7CLawrence%2C%2520James%2520T.%7C%7C4293902967%7CAuthor%7CMarch%2C%2520Paul%7C%7C4293259354%7CAuthor%7CWhite%2C%2520Harold%2520G.%26N%3D0
The paper was presented at a Propulsion conference sponsored by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, among other organizations, and was held in late July 2014.
With one exception, the authors of both papers are based at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) in Houston.
Interestingly, one of the authors (Dr. Harold White) published a second article, “Human Outer Solar System Exploration via Q-Thruster Technology” (Report ID JSC-CN-31446), which discusses mission analyses for spacecraft using what is termed a Q Thruster. The description of the Q Thruster is similar to that of the RF Cavity Resonator: “quantum vacuum plasma thruster.”
You will recognize Dr. Harold White from his involvement with the Alcubierre Drive, mentioned some time ago in “The View from Chaos Manor.” Dr. White’s Wikipedia entry is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_G._White_(NASA)
The abstract of the RF Cavity Resonator paper indicates “Future test plans include independent verification and validation at other test facilities”; however, I was unable to find published results from other organizations attempting to verifying the findings. (Of course, the initial report was published only eight months ago.)
Very respectfully,
Jim Bonang

which makes this a serious publication. I still do not understand the low key announcement.

White Roof, Black Roof

Discussion continues; my point, really, is that if we want to alter the Earth’s solar energy intake, CO2 control is not the cheapest, and certainly not the only, way to do it.

Counter point to your white roof discussion, recently it was announced California could have all the electricity it needs by having essentially black roofs: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/03/17/california-could-power-itself-three-to-five-times-over-with-solar/. From the article, researchers propose covering about 2000 square miles of California roofs and parking lots with photovoltaic panels.
We’ve corresponded in the past on the consequences of predicting output from solar electric panels. A few new features to add to those prior posts: thermal retention (the things retain lots of heat that white roofs would shed), PV manufacture has a carbon footprint that takes about 3 years of electrical production to overcome (and seldom figured into cost estimates), and when kept spotlessly clean, lose about 1% electrical efficiency per year. The article also doesn’t provide the source of the $5 or so installed cost per watt.
-d

White Roofs and heating from SPS

Jerry:

If we assume an eventual global population of 10 billion people and a lavish urban allowance of 100 square meters of roof per person, then the affected roof area is 1eex12 square meters. This is 0.2% of the Earth’s total surface area of about 5eex14 square meters.

We could run around the barn to calculate average insolation of urban areas taking into account latitudes of urban areas, the Earth’s rotation, and cloud cover. However; I would point out that given the fact that given the fact that thermal radiation is proportional to surface temperature raised to the fourth power, it can be estimated that the net decrease in the Earth’s equilibrium temperature resulting from white roofs might be on the order of (0.998)^1/4 or about .0005 or about .14 Kelvin.

This is of course assuming that white roofs would have the same IR emissivity as dark roofs.

James Crawford=

White roofs – again…

I find that I must retract a trifle on earlier comments – blame a consistently tired brain that on occasion has some absorption problems.
Your statement that the “white roofs” concept would almost certainly do more to ameliorate global warming than anything being done now – sigh, that is completely correct. (I say “almost certainly,” because of the Pournelle Iron Law, sir. There would certainly be new parasites hired to enforce the regulations – and I am not sure whether the long-term heating avoidance would, or would not, be more than balanced by the heating produced by their activities.)
Of course, just about anything would be more effective in reducing the net heat gain by Mother Earth than what they are doing now. Every last thing being done now actually increases the gain, thanks to the Universe Iron Law (that pesky one about entropy). Dark photoelectric panels absorbing radiation that would otherwise be reflected back to space, emitting some of that as heat loss during conversion to electricity. Acres and acres of mirrors focusing radiation that would otherwise be reflected back to space onto salt column absorbers, emitting a great deal of that as heat loss during conversion to electricity.
And then there is the use of that electricity (after more heat loss during transmission – can’t neglect that). Except for the tiny bit consumed for outdoor lighting (that which escapes to space rather than being absorbed, that is), every human use is essentially converting radiation that would otherwise be reflected into space into radiation that will be (mostly) trapped by “greenhouse” gases.
So the “white roofs” idea is actually different in SIGN, not just in magnitude, from every scheme (and scam) being promoted by the worshipers of the Church of Global Warming.

Richard Skinner

What we have not done is devote much thought to alternative to giving the government higher taxes. No surprise there. Developing nations like China and India ignore the whole matter.

As Demand for Welders Resurges, Community Colleges Offer Classes

By PATRICIA COHENMARCH 10, 2015    nyt

HOUSTON — Ryan Gassett had already put in a full day, moving heavy boxes and furniture for $15 an hour, when his introductory welding class began at 10 p.m. By the time he arrived at Lone Star College north of Houston, the highway toll collectors at the exit for the school had closed for the night and the campus janitors were mopping bathrooms.

The graveyard-shift course was not his first choice, Mr. Gassett, 19, explained, but “there were no other openings.” So he took what he could get.

In recent decades, welding — like other blue-collar trades that once provided high-school graduates with a reliable route to the middle class — seemed to have about as promising a future as rotary phones. But many of these once-faltering occupations are finding new life in Texas and the Gulf Coast region, where an industrial revival built around the energy boom continues to spawn petrochemical plants and miles of new pipeline despite the plunge in crude oil prices.

The Fcc is supposed to be an “independent” “bi-partisan” regulatory agency

http://www.wsj.com/articles/gordon-crovitz-the-obamanet-crack-up-1427065066

The Obamanet Crack-Up

The FCC has rolled out 400 pages of slapdash regulations, ensuring years of litigation.

By

L. Gordon Crovitz

March 22, 2015 6:57 p.m. ET

President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet went on tour in Washington last week. If politics worked like Broadway, the show would have closed on opening night.

Congress held three hearings—two more are planned this week—to surface new information on how the White House political machine bullied Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler. Mr. Wheeler had long opposed the reactionary step of regulating the Internet as a utility.

ENLARGE

Photo: Getty Images

Nov. 10 was the turning point. The day began with Mr. Obama issuing a surprise video insisting on the most extreme regulation for the Internet, submitting it to laws written in the 1930s for Ma Bell. The same morning, a group of protesters swarmed Mr. Wheeler’s house, blocked access to his car, and demanded that he obey the president.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee obtained Mr. Wheeler’s email later that day complaining to his senior staff about being bludgeoned. With the subject line “FW: The President wants you to see this,” forwarding Mr. Obama’s demands, Mr. Wheeler emailed:

“FYI. Isn’t it interesting: 1. The day of the [net neutrality] demonstration just happens to be the day folks take action at my house. 2. The video of POTUS just happens to end up on the same message as the video from POTUS. 3. The White House sends this email to their supporter list asking ‘pass this on to anyone who cares about saving the Internet.’ Hmmm.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2015/03/23/apple-isnt-just-satisfied-reinventing-health-care-its-targeting-clinical-trials-as-well%E2%80%8B/

Apple isn’t just satisfied reinventing health care, it’s targeting clinical trials as well (WP)

By Vivek Wadhwa March 23 at 7:00 AM

When Apple announced, last year, that it was developing a watch that had the functions of a medical device, it became clear that the company was eyeing the $3 trillion health care industry; that the tech industry sees medicine as the next frontier for exponential growth. Apple’s recent announcement of ResearchKit shows that it has an even greater ambition: It wants to also transform the pharmaceutical industry by changing the way clinical trials are done.

Apple isn’t alone. Companies such as Google, Microsoft, and Samsung and hundreds of start-ups also see the market potential — and have big plans.  They are about to disrupt health care in the same way in which Netflix decimated the video-rental industry and Uber is changing transportation.

The upshot? We will receive better health care for a fraction of the cost.

This is happening because several technologies such as computers, sensors, robotics and artificial intelligence are advancing at exponential rates.  Their power and performance are increasing dramatically as their prices fall and footprints shrink.

We will soon have sensors that monitor almost every aspect of our body’s functioning, inside and out. They will be packaged in watches, Band-Aids, clothing, and contact lenses. They will be in our toothbrushes, toilets and showers.  They will be embedded in smart pills that we swallow. The data from these will be uploaded into cloud-based platforms such as Apple’s HealthKit.

Artificial intelligence–based apps will constantly monitor our health data, predict disease and warn us when we are about to get sick. They will advise us on what medications we should take and how we should improve our lifestyle and habits. Watson, for example, the technology that IBM developed to defeat human players on the TV show Jeopardy, has already become capable of diagnosing cancer more accurately than human physicians can. Soon it will be better than humans are in making any medical diagnosis.

The key innovation that Apple just announced is ResearchKit, a platform for app builders to capture and upload data from patients who have a particular disease. Our smartphones already monitor our activity levels, lifestyles and habits. They know where we go, how fast we move, and when we sleep. Some smartphone apps already try to judge our emotions and health based on this information; to be sure, they can ask us questions.

ResearchKit apps will enable constant monitoring of symptoms and of reactions to medications. Today, clinical trials are done on a relatively small number of patients, and pharmaceutical companies sometimes choose to ignore information that does not suit them. Data that our devices gather will be used to accurately analyze what medications patients have taken, in order to determine which of them truly had a positive effect; which simply created adverse reactions and new ailments; and which did both.

The best part is that the clinical trials will be continuing — they won’t stop once the medicines are approved by the FDA.

Apple has already developed five apps that target the most prevalent health concerns: diabetes, asthma, Parkinson’s disease, cardiovascular disease, and breast cancer. The Parkinson’s app can, for example, measure hand tremors, through an iPhone touchscreen; vocal trembling, using the microphone; and gait, as you walk with the device.

Combined with genomics data that are becoming available as plunging DNA-sequencing costs approach the costs of regular medical tests, a health-care revolution is in the works. By understanding the correlations between genome, habits, and disease — as the new devices will facilitate — we will get closer and closer to an era of Precision Medicine — in which disease prevention and treatment is done on the basis of people’s genes, environments, and lifestyles.

Google and Amazon are one step ahead of Apple in the data they capture — they offer a repository for DNA information. Google also announced last year that it is developing a contact lens that can measure glucose levels in a person’s tears and transmit these data via an antenna thinner than a human hair. It is developing nanoparticles that combine a magnetic material with antibodies or proteins that can attach to and detect cancers and other molecules inside the body and notify a wearable computer on the wrist. And it wants to control aging. In 2013, Google made a significant investment in a company called Calico, to research diseases that afflict the elderly, such as neurodegeneration and cancer. Its goal is to understand aging and, ultimately, extend life. It is also learning how the human brain works. One of its chief scientists, who is a mentor to me, Ray Kurzweil, is bringing to life the theory of intelligence expounded in his book How to Create a Mind. He wants to enhance our intelligence with technology and allow us to back up our brains onto the cloud.

We may have been disappointed with the advances in medicine in the past because things have moved slowly because of the nature of the health care system itself. It hasn’t been focused on delivering health care — it has been about sick care. That’s because doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies only make money when we are in bad health; they don’t get rewarded for keeping us healthy. The good news is that the technology industry is about to change all this.

I have little doubt that the next 20 years will be nothing less than amazing — as the technology industry “eats medicine.” But I’ll admit that I am not quite ready for Kurzweil to beam my intelligence up into the cloud. I’d rather keep this in my limited local storage.

A book review that gives some interesting discussion of big data:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/you-can-run-from-big-data-but-can-you-hide/2015/03/20/082ea46c-c805-11e4-a199-6cb5e63819d2_story.html

In ‘Data-ism’ Steve Lohr gives his take on how Big Data will shape our future.

A server room at the new Facebook Data Center in Lulea, Sweden. (Jonathan Nackstrand/AFP/Getty Images)

By Sarah E. Igo March 20

Sarah E. Igo is a professor of history at Vanderbilt University and the author of “The Averaged American: Surveys, Citizens, and the Making of a Mass Public” (2007).

DATA-ISM

The Revolution Transforming Decision Making, Consumer Behavior, and Almost Everything Else

By Steve Lohr

HarperBusiness. 239 pp. $29.99

Freedom is not free. Free men are not equal. Equal men are not free.