Jump to content

Talk:Dean drive: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
talk page is getting long; implementing archive with search and indexing; let's start with archive time of 365 days
MiszaBot I (talk | contribs)
234,552 edits
m Archiving 27 thread(s) (older than 365d) to Talk:Dean drive/Archive 2, Talk:Dean drive/Archive 1.
Line 3: Line 3:
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 1
|counter = 2
|minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(365d)
|algo = old(365d)
Line 14: Line 14:
|indexhere=yes}}
|indexhere=yes}}


==Comment Regarding Unjustified Tagging==
== Comment Regarding Unjustified Tagging ==


I'm appalled that WP is allowing these biased reversions and unsubstantiated tags to be continually applied to this article. Further, I am challenging the neutrality and factual correctness of this article because the unsubstantiated use of edit reversions and tags without ANY justification on this page prevents an open discussion of the problems the article may have and thereby prevents corrections to factual errors.
I'm appalled that WP is allowing these biased reversions and unsubstantiated tags to be continually applied to this article. Further, I am challenging the neutrality and factual correctness of this article because the unsubstantiated use of edit reversions and tags without ANY justification on this page prevents an open discussion of the problems the article may have and thereby prevents corrections to factual errors.
Line 30: Line 30:
[User: I] 02:42:01, 29 May 2008
[User: I] 02:42:01, 29 May 2008


== Testing ==
==Comments on Removal of Magazine Cover and Pseudoskepticism==


And I'm appalled that the image of a magazine cover was removed, when that particular magazine issue was THE reference document that introduced the Dean Drive to the wider world. (That is, a TV demonstration may have preceded the publication of the magazine issue, but can copies of that show be found today as easily as the magazine? Ha!) How dare you imply that there are no citations at all, when there were (and still are, despite your removal of the magazine image) several informal citations within the text of the article.

Here's a link to the text of John W Campbell's article in the June 1960 Analog. I hope the skeptics choke on it.<br/>
http://www.rexresearch.com/dean/campbl.htm <br/>
Here's a link to the text of another John W Campbell article, in the November 1960 Analog. I hope the skeptics start to realize that Dean was no mere amateur technician.
http://www.rexresearch.com/dean/instrum.htm <br/>
Here's a link to the text of Dr. William O Davis' article in the May 1962 Analog. I ask the skeptics to prove there cannot be such a thing as a "Critical Action Time" (because if there isn't, then faster-than-light travel would be happening all the time!).<br/>
http://www.rexresearch.com/dean/davis4.htm <br/>
The point of a Critical Action Time is that this can be very different amounts of time for very different objects. So, if two such very different objects have a force simultaneously applied to them, they CANNOT physically completely respond to that force simultaneously. One will respond faster, while the greater CAT of the other makes it respond slower. The ESSENCE of the operation of the Dean Drive, according to Davis' hypothesis, is that {1} There is a point in the machine cycle where Part A can hold still while Part B moves in one direction. {2} The CAT of Part A can be modified/reduced due to the way the machine was engineered/constructed. {3} Another part of the machine cycle allows Part B to move in the opposite direction, while Part A now moves in the direction that Part B originally moved. {4} The CAT of Part A can be modified/increased. {5} Repeat {1-4}.<br/>
Here's a link to the text of G Harry Stine's article in the June 1976 Analog. I DARE the skeptics to answer this question, "What pushed against his hand while the machine, not attached to anything, stayed in place? (and an equivalent force applied by the hand when the machine was off easily moved it)"<br/>

http://www.rexresearch.com/dean/stine.htm <br/>

<small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.9.73.99|216.9.73.99]] ([[User talk:216.9.73.99|talk]]) 07:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

COMMENT REGARDING MAGAZINE COVER AND PSEUDOSKEPTICISM

The magazine cover is still available but I've had zero success at reinstalling it because of the abusive reversions by the self-appointed censors of this article. Perhaps it is time to get formal permission from Analog to use the cover and enter it in the article as a fair use item. That will no doubt provoke a battle royal with the current crop of censors.

The last citation noted above links to a report of EXPERIMENTAL results that indicate Dean MAY have been at least partially right. It is interesting to note that both Dean and his critics uniformly rejected the research, the former because it didn't provide enough support for and the latter because it didn't provide enough support against. There's something to be said for results that inflame both camps. It is probably nearer the truth than either side is willing to admit.

This Dean Drive article has been controversial from the start and has been a magnet for [[Pseudoskepticism]]. Some editors periodically insist on applying abusive tagging and attempt to censor others with whom they disagree. These individuals make a bad situation worse by absolutely refusing to allow any neutral revision of the article to correct the very objections they are supposedly addressing with their tagging and reversions.

The focus of the article needs to be shifted away from the scientific elements and towards the historical and human interest aspects because there are just too many unanswered scientific questions. There is virtually no chance that anyone is going to produce an edit that "proves" or "disproves" the validity of the Dean drive one way or the other. But there may well be some very interesting pieces of information that could emerge from an examination of this intriguing historical incident - that is, if open editing is not continually thwarted by self-appointed censors.

I'd like to see the magazine cover restored as it was in place for a very long time before this bout of editing and contributed greatly to the article because it is a part of the historical record this article deals with. I seriously doubt that the current crop of censors will allow this, however. As far as the copyright situation is concerned, if there's a better case for fair use, I've never seen it.

[[Special:Contributions/63.230.204.90|63.230.204.90]] ([[User talk:63.230.204.90|talk]]) 05:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[User: I]

==Davis Mechanics==

[http://www.halexandria.org/dward137.htm Davis Mechanics] proposes a critical time lag in momentum transfer for real physical systems. The notion of a critical action time is logical and does not especially violate current scientific knowledge.

A version of Newton's Cradle that has 200 balls is a good illustration of this reasoning. When the first ball in the row impacts, the last ball does not swing out instantly. (which would be in violation relativistic limitations) A critical action time for that system must exist, even if it is called something else in ordinary mechanics.

What Davis Mechanics claims is that there is a force proportional to the rate of change of acceleration, a change that occurs during that critical action time. If a suspended wrecking ball is hit with a sledgehammer, the near side of the ball immediately experiences the applied force, while the far side of the ball must wait a small fraction of a second for that mechanical impact-force to arrive. That fraction of a second is the time in which the wrecking ball is experiencing a rate of change of acceleration.

The Davis claim needs to be tested. Implications of this theory and the theory itself have been ignored by the scientific mainstream, a not infrequent reaction to unpopular ideas throughout history.

The problem here is that rather than entering the scientific arena and being rigorously tested, such orphan science often gets hijacked by the purveyors of hokum. Even a good idea can become so tainted that no reputable scientist will risk being tarred with the same brush and any kind of peer review becomes impossible.

The resulting breakdown of the peer review process so central to scientific endeavour undermines the quality of mainstream science because only "safe" ideas are considered. Anything not properly sanctified by peer review is irretrievably lost and classified as pseudophysics,pseudoscience and the like. [User: I] 2115:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

==Debunking==

:: I have seen video of this ... a group of researchers have demonstrated this device ... it works ...
:: [http://www.google.com/search?q=Thomas%20Valone&svnum=30&hl=en&lr=&safe=off Thomas Valone] IIRC was the presenter at a "breakthrough technology / free energy confrence) ... there is a video of a canoe in a pool at a university ... the device is in the canoe ... and it propels the vessel forward ... rotary into linear directional forces ....
:: [[User:Reddi|J. D. Redding]] 11:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC) (not to mention the various patents that exist on this technology ... ''can you provide a citation that _really_ debunks the real physics''? )


I'll see what I can dig up. The terms [[Davis mechanics]] and [[G. Harry Stine]] are related. In more detail, Stine mentions that Robert A. Heinlein used the phrase "Davis Mechanics" in Chapter 9 of his novel ''Podkayne of Mars'', "so I guess it's official". Stine wrote a final summary article in the 1980's (?? I'm aware of an article in the June 1976 issue of ''Analog Science Fiction/Fact'', which contains the Heinlein detail) about his experiences attempting to prove/disprove/reproduce the Dean drive. In that article he remarks that the device he saw didn't look much like the patent drawings. He also remarks that he never got to hang it as a pendulum, which is a truer test that bathroom scales.

Davis did present a paper on the 4th law of motion. It was given verbally, and only the abstract is in the proceedings. At this date I don't recall the journal/conference -- I did find it once, but it's useless. [[User:Ab762|Henry Troup]] 20:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC

The paper was titled, ''Some Aspects of Certain Transient Mechanical Systems'', and was delivered April 23, 1962 at the Washington DC meeting of the American Physical Society. Another paper was more completely published, ''The Energy Transfer Delay Time'', in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol 138, Article 2, pp 862-863, February 6, 1967

I'll add a bit of hearsay. I believe a number of years ago in ''Discover'' magazine, there was an article that mentioned something called the "Foster Drive", which had been tested in a boat, and passed that test. Perhaps the boat was that canoe? This is not the Dean Drive, though, so may be irrelevant to this discussion, other than possibly offering evidence that Dean's drive might have worked.

Rather less in the way of hearsay, though, is the Sept 1961 issue of ''Popular Mechanics'', pg 131, which has an article ''Engine With Built-In Wings'' which is about the Dean Drive, and includes a number of pictures, one of them showing it on a bathroom scale.

Quoting from the article:

Three brass chains, hanging from the ceiling in the center of the room, held a V-shaped structure of clear Plexiglas a few inches above the floor.

'This model is a version of a commercial anchorless winch', Dean said. ...

While I watched, Dean attached an 18-pound load of boards to a set of skids on the floor. He fastened the skids to the V-shaped machine with a rod. Another rod, on the load of wood, held an index pointer that was lined up with a plumb bob hanging from the top of the framework. A second plumb bob was lined up with the two back chains.

(end quote)

There is a photo of this V-shaped machine, and the caption reads, "Anchorless winch will not only move in any direction in which it is pointed, it will also remain still while pulling loads to it."

Quoting further from the article:

He closed two switches ... The load of boards began to move across the floor. Incredibly, though it still hung suspended like a pendulum from those three chains, the V-shaped unit remained still. The chains stayed in alignment with the plumb bob.

(end quote)

The article is real, even if skeptics wish to claim that the demonstration was somehow rigged.

==Difference Between Patent And Device Stine Saw==

The foregoing comments regarding the difference between the device as depicted in the patent and the device Stine saw hint at the possibility that Dean used an old trick of inventors to discourage intellectual property theft - "undisclosed embodiments".

(Can anybody supply a quote of Stine's statement?)

Here are some quotes from the June 1976 issue of ANALOG, the article "Detesters, Phasers and Dean Drives" by G. Harry Stine:
(pg 63) Dean obtained US Patent #2,886,976 on his device, and even today it can be obtained from the US Patent Office. But it will not tell you much about how to build a Dean Drive.<br/>
(pg 67) We could not get our hands on a Dean Drive with which to experiment. Nor could we legally attempt to construct one from the patent data, John Campbell's excellent photos, and our own memories. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.9.73.53|216.9.73.53]] ([[User talk:216.9.73.53|talk]]) 08:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

'''Why Use "Stealth" Protection?
''' <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/65.103.199.34|65.103.199.34]] ([[User talk:65.103.199.34|talk]]) 04:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

In the case of the Dean Drive, the more vociferous skeptics deny the possibility that the device shown in the patent is not the device demonstrated to the few who saw it. That is a difficult proposition to prove - especially since those who deny the difference never saw the actual demonstration device. Such skeptics are in an especially difficult position because some eyewitnesses, like Stine, say that there was a difference.

It should also be noted that Dean had previous encounters with forced appropriation by the federal government involving his Stellar Spatial Inertial Gyroscope (see discussion below) and presumably knew that if his device worked, he faced a similar situation again.

If, however, the government concluded that the device did not work and the patent issued, Dean would free to pursue commercialization. This would have been a powerful incentive to use some form of "stealth" protection.

Let us also not forget that inventors are, well... creative. A less inventive individual looks at a patent disclosure document and sees only the preferred embodiment. But an inventor (and sometimes the courts) look at that same document and see an array of other embodiments - all covered by the same patent.

Patents are notoriously difficult and costly to defend, especially today with the advent of [http://www.ptcforum.org/article%2020034.htm patent flooding] by large corporations with more dollars than ideas. And inventors, always a paranoid lot anyway, have responded to this piracy by neatly using byzantine patent rules to make unrestrained theft more difficult. This form of intellectual property protection is extremely subtle, which is why it works.

'''Undisclosed Embodiments as a form of "Stealth" Protection
'''

In order to protect an idea with a utility patent, the most general form of protection, an inventor must explain the workings of the device in the patent disclosure document. The rules of the patent process prohibit a patent by another if the idea disclosed in the later patent application is obvious to "one ordinarily skilled in the art" or is merely a change in form of an earlier patented concept.

That rule is essential to the utility patent process, otherwise a utility patent would be nothing more than a design patent where the patented form is all that is covered. By law, an inventor with a utility patent is entitled to protection of every similar variation of his patented idea, not just the disclosed embodiment. That is the basis of this unique protection against theft. (Yes, yes, the explanation is a little oversimplified but let's not be pedantic about this.)

Here's how "stealth protection" works in practice. The inventor omits a critical embodiment of the patented idea by not directly showing it in the preferred embodiment of the patent disclosure. This missing information is often overlooked by would be thieves - not to mention even less creative skeptics.

There is a commonly used clause in the claims portion of nearly every utility patent which covers all the other undisclosed embodiments of the invention. This clause claims protection for all embodiments of the patented invention.

Take a the hypothetical case where an inventor patents a firearm shell. (Underline "hypothetical" nineteen times!) In the disclosure document, the gunpowder is depicted sealed inside the casing and ignited by the shock of the hammer falling on the rear of the cartridge, propelling the projectile.

As anyone who has ever seen a firearm in action knows, this is essentially how the device works. But just try building the device that way and you quickly find that it doesn't work. Gunpowder is normally not very shock sensitive and will usually fail to ignite when the hammer falls.

This problem is easily fixed with a minor change in the form of the invention. Furthermore it is protected by the patent because it is obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of constructing firearms. The wording in the claims section of the patent specifically covers other obvious embodiments of the patented idea.

If one adds a small bit of shock sensitive priming compound to the back of the shell before filling it with gunpowder, the device will work, even though the patent itself makes no reference to this other embodiment.

Was there an embodiment that the Dean patents did not disclose which really worked? Only Dean knew for sure and he presumably took the secret with him to his grave.

Or maybe there wasn't a working embodiment, as the skeptics claim. But if that is true, how do you explain testimony of experienced, competent individuals like Stine and Campbell who claim to have witnessing a working device? They had to know they would face potentially career-destroying criticism.

Did they suddenly and inexplicably go mad? Not very likely since such an event would certainly have attracted media attention and there is no record of any such affliction in either case. Or did they decide to become liars to further the ambitions of Dean? Hardly. Both individuals were highly regarded men who had a reputation for integrity. And why, after a lifetime of insight and intelligent behavior, would both men suddenly be incapable of exercising good judgment regarding operation of the device Dean demonstrated?

Troubling questions with no good answers.

[invent] 2045:01, 20 August 2007

==Astounding Cover==

I remember reading the original articles in Astounding and it must
have been mentioned then. I also recall an Astounding cover in
which a U.S. submarine was shown orbiting above the Earth -- according
to what Campbell wrote inside, I vaguely recall, if the U.S. would only
take the Dean device seriously, they could almost instantly put a big
model inside a submarine and thereby sent it into orbit. Thereby
leaping ahead of the Russians, who had only fairly recently launched
Sputnik. Geez, that anyone could ever have taken this guy seriously...
[[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 00:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the cover picture actually showed the sub orbiting Mars - could be wrong [[User:Agingjb|Agingjb]] 21:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
::Hmm, you could well be right. I probably haven't seen the cover in 45 years or so. I'd love to see it again, however. It would be a great addition to this article. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 21:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
This looks like it: http://www.efanzines.com/JTE/set60/01060.jpg [[User:Agingjb|Agingjb]] 16:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


Apparently someone thought the picture was not appropriate, Oh well. [[User:Agingjb|Agingjb]] ([[User talk:Agingjb|talk]]) 09:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

==Pseudophysics==

Link to [[pseudophysics]] at end of the article has been removed. Juxtaposition of pseudophysics page and subsequent link to pseudoscience as a related topic gives the impression (perhaps unintended) that ALL aspects of the Dean Drive have NO basis in real physics. Certainly this is not the case since witnesses state that the thing was a real device and therefore had to act in accordance with the laws of physics, whether imperfectly understood or not. [User: I] 22:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

==Electromagnetic tether==

One type of "reactionless" drive has already been built and demonstrated, the [[electromagnetic tether]]. [http://www.bookrags.com/sciences/astronomy/tethers-spsc-04.html]. -- The electromagnetic tether as described in the linked article obviously doesn't challenge any basic current understanding of physics. (It '''is''' a reactionless drive as the term is used, but it's obviously interacting with the Earth's magnetic field.) On the other hand, I'm not perfectly clear on just what the interactions involved actually are. Can somebody please clarify this? (And I don't know whether there's a Wikipedia article on this somewhere under a different name -- if so can we make a redirect?) Thanks -- 08 November 2005

:: It's 2 different concepts ... this is a "rotary into linear" drive ... the other is a "amp-volt"drive ... [[User:Reddi|J. D. Redding]] 11:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

There is lots of information available on the Web regarding the theoretical underpinnings of electromagnetic tethers, including links in the main article itself. One thing you should know, Electromagnetic tethers ARE NOT reactionless drives, per-se. The momentum transfer is done electromagnetically between the earth and the tether, By strict definition such a momentum coupling can not be reactionless - which is why it works. The problem here is as much with the language as it is with the science. [User: I] 23:40 18 February, 2006

== Testing ==
It might be nice to add a few words saying that most alleged reactionless drives employing rotating unbalanced weights seem to work when placed on a surface, or hung on a rope, because they can scoot themselves along by "slip and stick friction," employing the fact that the coefficient of stationary friction is greater than the coefficient of sliding friction. When you hang such devices from a ballistic pendulum, where they can't get any traction, they show no net acceleration in any particular direction.
It might be nice to add a few words saying that most alleged reactionless drives employing rotating unbalanced weights seem to work when placed on a surface, or hung on a rope, because they can scoot themselves along by "slip and stick friction," employing the fact that the coefficient of stationary friction is greater than the coefficient of sliding friction. When you hang such devices from a ballistic pendulum, where they can't get any traction, they show no net acceleration in any particular direction.


Line 208: Line 44:
:::Absolutely have people not yet given up. Here's a site where it is claimed that a Dean Drive has been succussfully reconstructed and tested. http://www.inertialpropulsion.com/ Very likely the reconstruction differs from the original, but they are calling it a reconstruction because the Dean Drive patent was the starting point for their efforts. And, yes, patents have been filed for this device. [[User:Objectivist|V]] ([[User talk:Objectivist|talk]]) 22:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
:::Absolutely have people not yet given up. Here's a site where it is claimed that a Dean Drive has been succussfully reconstructed and tested. http://www.inertialpropulsion.com/ Very likely the reconstruction differs from the original, but they are calling it a reconstruction because the Dean Drive patent was the starting point for their efforts. And, yes, patents have been filed for this device. [[User:Objectivist|V]] ([[User talk:Objectivist|talk]]) 22:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


==Unsourced addition==
== Unsourced addition ==


I just moved this from the [[Dean drive]] page:
I just moved this from the [[Dean drive]] page:
Line 243: Line 79:
cautious, and some would call paranoid....any wonder?
cautious, and some would call paranoid....any wonder?


== Objectivity Needed ==
== Comments on Unsourced Addition==

A couple things: First, this needs to be sourced. It's a pretty big claim. Second, assuming the material can be vetted, we need to decide if it belongs in the Dean Drive article or an article about Dean himself. Finally, once the first two are answered, this needs some real cleaning up. I'm exercising a 'shoot first, ask questions later' approach to this as the editor who added it was anonymous. - [[User:Chairboy|C<small>HAIRBOY]]</small> ([[User_talk:Chairboy|☎]]) 07:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I am very concerned about this tendency towards surpression. This
is how the so-called "scientific skeptic" operates. While this
unsourced addition may well be suspect, so is the "shoot first, ask questions later" attitude. It is one thing to demand attribution. It is quite another to surpress information just because the individual doing the surpressing happens to disagree with what has been written. [User: I] 23:40 18 February, 2006

==Modest revision==

Happened across a version of this article which was extremely uncritical of a highly dubious idea, and badly written/organized in addition to being scientifically inaccurate. I tried to correct the worst mistatements and to slighly improve the organization, but if anyone cares, further improvement is possible. ---[[User:Hillman|CH]] 04:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Highly dubious idea? It's been proven to work in experiments (a canoe in a pool was driven forward with this device ... and, no, there was ''nothing'' paddling ... only the device in the canoe converting it's rotating masses into a linear force ... )! How is that highly dubious? [[User:Reddi|J. D. Redding]]

Could you provide source citations for those experiments? (And their interpretation?) BTW the interaction between a canoe and the water around it is nonlinear, so I don't see why this proves anything... you can drive a canoe forward without paddling by jumping around in it just right... why would anyone choose this form of demonstration? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] [[User_talk:dpbsmith|(talk)]] 13:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

==Dean Drive Impossible==

There is no reason whatever to expect that anything like the "Dean Drive" is even physically possible. ---[[User:Hillman|CH]] 10:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, a reason was published in the May 1962 issue of ''Analog Science Fiction/Fact'', in Dr. Davis' article ''The Fourth Law of Motion''. You might not like that reason, but it is certainly more than "no" reason, and until it is put to the test and formally falsified, we MIGHT be able to say that something like the Dean Drive is physically possible. Especially since G. Harry Stine's June 1976 ''Analog'' article indicates they found a small amount of reliable and repeatable evidence that supports Davis' hypothesis. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.9.73.71|216.9.73.71]] ([[User talk:216.9.73.71|talk]]) 07:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Objectivity Needed==


The tone of criticism regarding this article is beginning to suggest that outright suppression of subjects like this one is a good thing. Perhaps a blank page might be better. While we're at it, why not start burning the books we don't like as well.
The tone of criticism regarding this article is beginning to suggest that outright suppression of subjects like this one is a good thing. Perhaps a blank page might be better. While we're at it, why not start burning the books we don't like as well.
Line 271: Line 85:
This subject is not interesting for its scientific content. It is clearly deficient in that regard. It is, however, an intriguing historical episode and as such has a human interest element. More objective commentary is desirable and while the skeptic has a duty to point out the facts, supression of material merely because one happens to disagree with it is not compatible with the long history of Western culture.
This subject is not interesting for its scientific content. It is clearly deficient in that regard. It is, however, an intriguing historical episode and as such has a human interest element. More objective commentary is desirable and while the skeptic has a duty to point out the facts, supression of material merely because one happens to disagree with it is not compatible with the long history of Western culture.


==Cautionary Statement to Students==
== Commentary Regarding "Cautionary Statement to Students" ==

I had been monitoring this article for bad edits, but I am leaving the WP and am now abandoning it to its fate.

Just wanted to provide notice that I am only responsible (in part) for the last version I edited; see [[User:Hillman/Archive]]. I emphatically do not vouch for anything you might see in more recent versions. Given the past history of this article, I have reason to believe that at least some future versions are likely to present slanted information, misinformation, or disinformation.

Good luck in your search for information, regardless!---[[User:Hillman|CH]] 23:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

==Commentary Regarding "Cautionary Statement to Students"==


Students should maintain a healthy skepticism not only in regard to pages like this one, but should also learn to recognize pathological skeptics who are intolerant of new ideas. Those who would deny any possibility that some "far out" ideas might have validity are not supported by the history of scientific and technical advance.
Students should maintain a healthy skepticism not only in regard to pages like this one, but should also learn to recognize pathological skeptics who are intolerant of new ideas. Those who would deny any possibility that some "far out" ideas might have validity are not supported by the history of scientific and technical advance.
Line 288: Line 94:


Good luck in your research..... and remember - today's wild ideas may well be tomorrow's established facts. [User:I]
Good luck in your research..... and remember - today's wild ideas may well be tomorrow's established facts. [User:I]

== Patent's Suck! ==

This 'Dean Drive' thing either doesn't work or these Dean fellas are worse than the RIAA when it comes to intellectual property tyranny!

If somebody makes one of these, put full notes and everything on the web and on Emule (P2P) too (to prevent nationalization / militarization) on a copyleft license (Design Science License - DSL is best for science work; GPL, CC-by-sa are copyleft too). You can still charge money for non-copyleft compliant usage. This is how MySQL works - dual copyleft/commercial licensing. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:GreatInca|GreatInca]] ([[User talk:GreatInca|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/GreatInca|contribs]]) 19:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->


== Really? ==
== Really? ==
Line 310: Line 110:


[User: I] May 6, 2007
[User: I] May 6, 2007

== Uncle Sam banning your invention? ==

Well then use the internet, especially the file sharing networks (eMule, BitTorrent) as your publisher. Less likely to spread, more likely to be plagiarized (its a piracy network after-all), but at least it will be out there and public. Especially if you and your seedbox and the tracker/indexer are all in different countries. It is simpler with the bible though as it doesn't involve secrecy laws. Its just contraband in China and Arab countries like weed and cocaine are in the USA. You get the free-ride on international legal differences to spread the gospel! The same exploit might work for your national-security sensitive invention! As long as you're not in it for the money that is.--[[User:YeshuaAgapao|YeshuaAgapao]] ([[User talk:YeshuaAgapao|talk]]) 07:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

==These Dean Fellas==

Greetings from one of "these fellas". I have tried to be patient, but every time I add something that is factually correct -from the horses mouth- (my great grandfathers records). someone that has no rhyme or reason to remove it REMOVES IT. I cannot post every piece of paper that makes reference to things that happened 40-50 years ago because there are 4 trunks full of it. So what is with you people? I'm not saying that the devices should not work or that they even work (they do by the way, I built one myself.) but I am trying to factually correct based on his records about what he did who he talked to and what happened with his work. It doesn't really matter anyways, there is a book being written that wont have an [edit] button next to each paragraph.

You editing people suck! arrg

Norman M. Dean <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Nurotoxin|Nurotoxin]] ([[User talk:Nurotoxin|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Nurotoxin|contribs]]) 22:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Think that's Bad?==

Unfortunately, you are not the only one who has encountered the scourge of [[Pseudoskepticism]] in connection with the Dean drive article. Just look at the latest revisions and the discussion above and you will see that the self-styled censors are at it again. I for one have gotten fed up with these individuals and have begun a long term effort to stop this blatant abuse. If informal efforts don't work, I intend to ramp up the challenge to more formal means. I would very much like to see a neutral, historical article with some of Norman L. Dean's work included to counterpoint the skeptical hyperbole.

If you would like to add your comments to the request for informal mediation, go to the top of the page and follow the links (click on "request") to the discussion now ongoing at the Mediation Cabal.

[[Special:Contributions/63.230.204.90|63.230.204.90]] ([[User talk:63.230.204.90|talk]]) 06:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC) [UserI]

== From the "unsourced" ==

Much of the "unsourced" materials removed was written by ME, Bruce D. Dean, grandson of Norman Dean, and the man who controls the models, archives and all materials left by the inventor- my GRANDFATHER. We are in the process of cataloging and and scanning all these letters and all correspondence between Dean, the government and MIT and others. You people need to grow up- I've had the same witless idiots chasing us for years. I have all the documentation and verifiable info from a man who kept impeccable records. Pictures, recordings, dictation belts, and more- as well as the original models.If you need it- ask for it. Thank you.[[Special:Contributions/70.232.150.62|70.232.150.62]] ([[User talk:70.232.150.62|talk]]) 01:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

:Please read [[WP:V]] which is Wikipedia's core policy on verifiability. All information in Wikipedia articles need to be verifiable by readers from published, independent sources. Dean's own archive is neither published nor independent. [[User:Gwernol|Gwernol]] 09:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

: We appreciate verifiability, and THE TRUTH. It is unfortunate that first hand historical documents from the archives are considered "useless" since they were not published. I cant count the amount of history that would not qualify for Wikipedia, based on these merits. Verifiable , third party witnesses, have been listed, and then removed by overzealous persons. What must we do? How can we present the truth? Many of the encounters have been presented in various magazines and journals. Without Edison's notes, Tesla s notes and personal records, we would not have any information regarding their important works.
:Dean's notes and archives contain records and communications form notable persons around the world. Are these persons also considered "un-verifiable? It seems that we are at an impasse. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.238.136.16|76.238.136.16]] ([[User talk:76.238.136.16|talk]]) 05:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::The threshold for inclusion of material in Wikipedia is verifiability not truth. There are hundreds of free web hosts you could use to publish your work. This, however, is an encyclopedia, which means we do not publish information that cannot be verified by readers from independent, published sources. There is no way to use Dean's own, unpublished notes to verify his work. Edison and Tesla's work were published after independent verification. This is one of the core principles of the scientific endeavor. Dean's work has not undergone peer review, so it is not comparable to Edison's and Tesla's. Where Dean's work has been discussed with third parties and those third parties have published their accounts, those accounts can, and should be used to create the article. One such account is Pournelle's which clearly states that Dean's drive does not and cannot work. This is a good example of a verifiable source that we can use. [[User:Gwernol|Gwernol]] 10:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
:::Don't tell stupid lies. Here is a quote from Pournelle's Dean Drive page:<br/>
::::If it worked I never saw it work, and neither did the 3M team. The original device as described by Campbell and Stine was never found after Dean died, and the thing described in the patent doesn't work and isn't, according to Stine, what Dean showed as a working device. My own conclusion is that the thing didn't work. It would sit on a scale and vibrate enough that it appeared to lose weight, but that has to do with pendular motion and resonance with the scale springs. The same kind of thing will climb a string. It seems to lose weight, but it doesn't. I think Dean built the same gidget that excited Hitler, although I doubt that Dean ever knew of the earlier device.<br/>
:::See? Pournelle is expressing opinion and speculation, not fact. Because he plainly says he did not see the device, he cannot say from personal experience that it did not work, nor can he say what it might actually be doing, when he didn't actually witness it in action. Meanwhile, there appears to be a *contact* here who knows what happened to the devices, and in theory could power one of them up. How about if he makes a YouTube video of it versus the Pendulum Test? It should be hung from a pendulum, kind of like the V-shaped unit did in the Sept 1961 Popular Mechanics article, and when turned on it should move to one side and hang there at an angle until turned off. The original machine that was claimed to have acted against gravity enough to have lost some weight on a bathroom scale should be able to do that, if it really worked. Put it in a black box to ensure it doesn't push air. The longer the pendulum, the more sensitive the test. When the black box is hanging at an angle, somebody could wave a yardstick all around it, showing that no external connection is pushing or pulling it, to hold it at that angle. (Power would have to be supplied from the ceiling, parallel to the pendulum strings.) Make TWO videos, two different cameras at the same time, from different angles (but not too different). Played at the same time side-by-side, a stereoscopic viewing experience would be possible. If such videos could actually be made, Wouldn't posting them count as *publishing* it? Could Wikipedia use that as a verifiable source, that the machine appears to move reactionlessly? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.9.73.71|216.9.73.71]] ([[User talk:216.9.73.71|talk]]) 06:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::One other thing. There are those who have examined Dean's EXPLANATION of how his device was supposed to work, and found flaws in it. Kind of like those copper-oxide high-temperature superconductors, something that works but physicists are still arguing about the explanation. And maybe more like [[Cold Fusion]], something that might work and won't die, with no as-yet-acceptable explanation. Only someone who saw the Dean Drive "working" and discovered a cheat would be able to make a valid claim that it didn't actually work. That proposed video still has a possible cheat; if a STIFF pendulum support is used, it can be pushed to an angle from above the camera view. Strings or chains or long long springs, that are shown to be very flexible, in the video, before the Drive is turned on, are needed. And power should be delivered through a wire that is coiled like a telephone handset cord. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.9.73.15|216.9.73.15]] ([[User talk:216.9.73.15|talk]]) 14:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Un-constructive edits???==
In response to my "un-constructive edits"!
My additions to the Dean Drive page have been some of the only constructive work added. If you want to say that putting actual work from the inventor that explains the device INSTEAD of someone explaining why it doesn't work is un-constructive than you need to pick up a dictionary!

"Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Dean drive. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Gwernol 09:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)"

I give you people good stuff and you crap all over it, I even uploaded never seen photos! Whats with taking them down? How about the Astounding cover! How is that un-constructive! You keep adding a felonious testimony from one Jerry Pournelle's website where he says he never saw the device! A website of some old kook is not a verifiable reference BUT a signed letter from Sir Alwin Crow IS!

Look I have no problem with a whole section that explains why it should not work or that it doesn't work, in fact someone removed it before I started posting. BUT there should be allowed a section that at least explains the theory and the HISTORY.

If this impasse can not be remedied I will request that the page be removed from the site

Norman M. Dean
--[[User:Nurotoxin|Nurotoxin]] ([[User talk:Nurotoxin|talk]]) 16:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

:Once more, sources must be published and independent. Family papers are neither published nor independent. Take, for example, the Alwin Crow letter - what evidence do we have, beyond your assertion, that this exists. Can a reader of this article read that letter? The answer is, they can't, so the information about the letter is not [[WP:V|verifiable]] by readers. Verifiability is one of the very core principles of Wikipedia. Let's say that the Crow letter was published, in that case the letter could (and should) be quoted in the article. However, the vast majority of your addition wasn't even sourced to this level, it was pure hypothesis on the part of the Dean family. [[User:Gwernol|Gwernol]] 17:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
::Just to give one example, you changed the first sentence from "Its is claimed that the Dean drive is a [[reactionless drive|reactionless thruster]] ..." to "The '''Dean System Drive''' is a [[reactionless drive|reactionless thruster]] that generates a uni-directional force." What independent, published source do you have for this assertion that drive actually works? We have multiple sources that say the drive does not and cannot work. You don't have a single [[WP:RS|reliable source]] for the assertion that is does work. [[User:Gwernol|Gwernol]] 17:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
:::Another stupid lie. You have NO sources WHO SAW IT IN ACTION who also say the drive does not and can not work. Meanwhile, Dr. William O Davis, a physicist, saw the device in action and (with assistance from others, such as Dr [[Henri Coanda]], developed a logical rationale to explain how it COULD work. Admittedly, that hypothesis needs further testing. And all those who claim there is no possible way the Dean Drive could work are at least ignorant of Davis' hypothesis. Do you know that there are at least 5 other starting points in Physics, besides the one that Davis started from, that can lead to conclusions compatible with Davis' hypothesis? The [[Woodward effect]] is one of them. Are you aware that if Davis' hypothesized *gravitational inertial radiation* can exist, it would solve a problem first posed by Isaac Newton and ever since only ASSUMED to be true: Why is inertial mass identical to gravitational mass? Answer: Because the graviton is the same thing as a *quantum of momentum". That is, a quantum theory that only described the exchange of virtual momentum-quanta between inertial masses would actually be a theory of quantized gravitation. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.9.73.71|216.9.73.71]] ([[User talk:216.9.73.71|talk]]) 06:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


-I bloody posted a scanned image of the letters I referenced! <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Nurotoxin|Nurotoxin]] ([[User talk:Nurotoxin|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Nurotoxin|contribs]]) 17:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
-I even posted a scanned image of a letter from a third witness that was present when the Astounding Science guys were there taking pictures for their article. But that was taken down too. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Nurotoxin|Nurotoxin]] ([[User talk:Nurotoxin|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Nurotoxin|contribs]]) 17:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Verifyable content ==

How is it then that WP allows people (me) to publish (third party) documents using wiki-commons for everyone to see, but you say that that same published work cannot be referenced in an article. According to you the only verifiable content is that which users can reference and verify for themselves? Then the only reference-able material on the Dean Drive are his two patents. Because they are given and archived by a third party.

Users cannot pickup a 50 year old Popular Mechanics Magazine or an Astounding Science and read it, unless we post it on wiki-commons for all to see. Therefore for historical documents we must scan and post them so they are user reference-able and verifiable. But WP removed them too - hey look they are no longer reference-able and verifiable, they don't exist!

Norman M. Dean --[[User:Nurotoxin|Nurotoxin]] ([[User talk:Nurotoxin|talk]]) 17:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

:The problem there is that what was posted was copyrighted material. You should obtain permission from Popular Mechanics and Analog, to post those articles (and the permission needs to be posted with the articles, to prevent all-new removal). <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.9.73.71|216.9.73.71]] ([[User talk:216.9.73.71|talk]]) 06:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


A revision near the start of the article has been undone, and then undone again. The text that got revised CLAIMED (with no supporting evidence) that Dean's claims that his gadget produced thrust were shown to be false. It might be correct to say that Dean's EXPLANATION OF HOW it produced thrust was shown to be false, but that is not the same thing as saying that the device itself, claimed by Dean to produce thrust, did not actually produce thrust. Hopefully, the person who undid the revision will see this and respond. One FACT that might be pointed out in advance is that Math is not Physics. In Math, if it is correctly proved that (for example) an angle cannot be generically trisected by compass and straightedge alone, then that means that no matter what tricky construction is used, leading to a claim that a generic angle can be trisected using only compass and straightedge, there must be a flaw in the demonstration. But in Physics, Math FOLLOWS Observation; it does not control observation. Math can be used to lead to reasonable expectations that something might or might not be observed, but it does not guarantee that that's the way it will always be. A major reason the Dean Drive is arbitrarily declared to be faulty is simply that it represents an observation that differs from what Accepted Math predicts. But this is exactly why the observation needs to be discussed widely and repeated if possible, not suppressed by arbitrary claims that since it disagrees with Accepted Math, the observation must be flawed. That is not the way Physics works! <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.9.73.90|216.9.73.90]] ([[User talk:216.9.73.90|talk]]) 16:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Please read the section titled "Science fact" in the article. Note the properly [[WP:V|sourced]] information: "The Dean drive was later shown to develop no net weight loss over time". So there is supporting evidence in the article to show that Dean's drive does not work. The opening paragraph is a correct summary of the article as written, please stop edit warring to change it to be inaccurate. Thanks, [[User:Gwernol|Gwernol]] 23:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
::Thank you for the reply, Unfortunately, your so-called "source" is OBVIOUSLY WRONG on at least one point, and therefore you cannot immediately be sure that he is right on another point. I quote (with one tiny addition):
:::One Analog cover of the period depicted a converted submarine, operating under Dean Drive power, landing on the Moon. *WRONG* Alas, the work reported by Campbell served principally to demonstrate that bathroom scales are not reliable instruments for investigating antigravity or for overthrowing the laws of physics. Later more detailed studies showed that the Dean Drive developed no net time-averaged force and that Newton's 3rd Law remained intact.
:: The Analog cover painting depicts a sub near Mars, not the Moon. It was "Fair Use" posted as part of the main article here for quite a while. Did it get overzealously removed simply because that FACT disagreed with your so-called "source"??? AND, did you even look to see what references there were, at the bottom of that "source" to support the claim that "later more detailed studies showed that the Dean Drive developed no net time- averaged force" ---THERE ARE NONE. All the Dean Drive references listed (which I've read) are in favor of it working. Therefore, this "source" is actually worthless in terms of what you are sourcing it for!! Finally, because the way the "science fact" section differs from this source, but seems similar to stuff written by Jerry Pournelle in another place, I suggest you look above, to the "from the Unsourced" section, to sww why what Pournelle wrote is worthless, too! I await your response. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.9.73.50|216.9.73.50]] ([[User talk:216.9.73.50|talk]]) 02:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::Once again, please read [[WP:V]], and while you're at it, [[WP:OR]] would be useful too. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability not truth. That means that unless you have an independent, published source for information you '''cannot''' include it in a Wikipedia article. Your opinion about Pournelle and Cramer as sources is lovely and all but is is simply your opinion. Unless you have a published, independent source that shows that the Dean drive actually worked, you cannot include that in the article. [[User:Gwernol|Gwernol]] 05:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
::::THAT IS STUPID. All someone has to do, per your description, is publish any lie at all, anywhere, and suddenly it becomes a valid source for Wikipedia. It is NOT merely "my opinion" that Pournelle is expressing an opinion, he himself says, "If it worked I never saw it work" and "My own conclusion is that the thing didn't work." That conclusion MUST be opinion simply because he didn't SEE the Dean Drive not work! What data is he using? DUH! He is simply assuming (like Cramer, because Cramer didn't provide any references for his statement) that the Math of Newton's Third Law of Motion has no flaws in this part of Mechanics, when it obviously does. That is, Newton built in the assumption that objects respond instantly to applied forces, and THAT assumption is easily proved false, especially since it would require Einstein's Speed Limit to be violated. What Newton's Math is "good enough" for is ORDINARY events. It is not good enough for everything; the development of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics is proof of that FACT. The Dean Drive inspired Dr. Davis to pay attention to the faulty assumption about instant responses, and modify the Newton's Math to eliminate that assumption. ALL of those statements are verifiable fact, even for Wikipedia's standards. Which means YOU are faced with a dilemma: Why should you insist that YOUR "sources" are more correct than the ones I can find to support what I just wrote?<br/>
::::Next, your definition of "original research" appears to be flawed, too, when I linked the [[Caloris Basin]] article and described a couple things in it. The thing about shock waves taking time to travel through a planet is a well-known fact of seismology, perhaps I should have linked an article about that, too? Or, what about this picture: http://courses.ncssm.edu/hsi/pacsci/pdf/tennis.pdf
::::which simply shows a tennis ball being smacked by a racket. Did you ever stop to think that if the impact force could travel from the impact-side of the ball instantly to the far side of the ball, there would be no reason for the ball to deform? It is OBSERVABLE FACT THAT NEWTON IS WRONG, regarding instant responses to applied forces! <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.9.73.49|216.9.73.49]] ([[User talk:216.9.73.49|talk]]) 06:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:::::[[WP:V]] and [[WP:OR]] are not my rules, they are Wikipedia's rules. In fact they are two of the core policies of Wikipedia. They are the bedrock of what makes this an encyclopedia, not just a blog. If you don't like the rules, you are welcome find somewhere else to edit, since these policies are not going away and all editors are required to abide by them. If you cannot abide by them and continue to vandalize the article, you will be [[WP:BLOCK|blocked from editing]] no matter which IP address or username you post from. Thanks, [[User:Gwernol|Gwernol]] 08:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
:::::I see YOU are doing the vandalizing now, since you have "undone" some legitimately verifiable references. AND you failed to answer my question about how a dilemma should be resolved, when two references disagree with each other. Such obvious bias on your part has no place in Wikipedia; what I wrote in the main article (last attempt) at least tried to preserve some of the other side argument, not just replace it with one side. So, obviously I need to contact a higher-up at Wikipedia, and get you barred, right? P.S. I connect to Internet using dialup modem. My ISP assigns my IP address, the last part apparently at random, when the connection is made. I don't have anything to do with that assignment.
::::::I assume the "vandalism" you are referring to is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dean_drive&diff=217488898&oldid=217488738 this edit], in which case it was a different editor who reverted your additions, not me. If you want to throw around accusations of vandalism, please take the time to make sure you are accusing the right person. If you want to get me "barred" I suggest you look at our [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] procedures. You never asked how to resolve references that disagree with each other. I'm afraid I don't count mind reading amongst my skills, so it is a little unreasonable of you to expect me to know that you were asking that. Ranting about tennis balls is not, I'm afraid, the same thing as inviting a discussion about the relative merits of differing sources. Again, if you want to do that, let's have a civilized discussion about it here, or you can pursue [[WP:DR]] if you prefer. [[User:Gwernol|Gwernol]] 18:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
:::::::You are right; since you had undone other recent edits, I assumed you had undone that last one, too. I apologize for the assumption. Next, there is indeed a question that is posted above. I quote "YOU are faced with a dilemma: Why should you insist that YOUR "sources" are more correct than the ones I can find to support what I just wrote?" Some things I can find which are compatible if not directly related. For example, Dr. Davis modified Newtonian Mechanics to describe how a mass experiencing a changing acceleration might emit "gravitational inertial radiation", and thus Conserve Momentum and allow the Dean Drive to work. Here's a paper where a Jeffery Cameron used General Relativity to reach similar conclusions: http://web.archive.org/web/20030609100320/http:/tdimension.com/documents/AIAA+2001+Manuscript.pdf If I was to describe/reference it in the main article here, because of the similarities, what would be the rationale, if any, for deleting it?
(deindenting) Since that paper doesn't mention the Dean drive it cannot be used in this article to make a claim that the Dean drive works. Taking one theory and using it to claim that the Dean drive could work is [[WP:OR|original research]] on your part - in particular please read up about [[Wikipedia:Or#Synthesis_of_published_material_which_advances_a_position|synthesis as original research]] in the policy. To make this claim in the article you would need to reference a published, independent paper that makes a specific claim relating this research to the Dean drive. [[User:Gwernol|Gwernol]] 12:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
:You have jumped to an incorrect conclusion. There is no need to use that paper to claim that it indicates that the Dean Drive works. Instead it could be used to point out that there is more than one line of reasoning that reaches conclusions similar to Dr. Davis' "4th law" stuff. It's a fact the paper exists, and it's a fact that it reaches certain conclusions, and it's a fact that those conclusions are similar to Dr. Davis' conclusions. It does not have to mention the Dean Drive to bolster Dr. Davis' conclusions about how the machine MIGHT be able to work. It would qualify as additional evidence that the mere claims that it was "proved not to work" are opinion, not fact. (I have privately contacted Dr. Cramer, and it turns out HIS claim was very likely based on a misremembering of something in the April 1978 Analog. Of course, you only have my say-so at this time regarding that...) Finally, how many articles in Wikipedia have a "related topics" section, or something similar to a "related topics" section? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.9.73.101|216.9.73.101]] ([[User talk:216.9.73.101|talk]]) 17:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::The following are true and undisputed: "It's a fact the paper exists", and "it's a fact that it reaches certain conclusions". The following, however is [[WP:OR|original research]] unless you have a [[WP:RS|reliable, published source]] that draws this specific conclusion: "it's a fact that those conclusions are similar to Dr. Davis' conclusions". Until you have a published, independent source that connects the Cameron paper to Dean, you cannot include it. Not in the article, nor in a related topics section. [[User:Gwernol|Gwernol]] 18:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
:::Now you are quibbling. Anybody who reads the text (not the equations) will see that Davis and Cameron reach similar conclusions. If Cameron's paper was linked without any explanation, the average reader might click just to see why it was there, and would quickly see the similarities. So, why does a third party have to say that a similarity exists, before average readers are allowed to see the evidence of it for themselves? Are you so foolish as to DENY that there is any similarity in the conclusions of the two authors? If you can't deny it, then how can you object to it, UNLESS YOU HAVE AN AGENDA OF KEEPING PEOPLE IGNORANT OF TRUTH/FACTS. How is Wikipedia served by such an attitude? Hey, how about THIS as an intro: "Here's something that may or may not be related; decide for yourself!" By the way, there is ANOTHER paper that also reaches conclusions similar to Davis', and even mentions Davis in the paper (I don't recall off-hand if it mentions the Dean Drive, though, will have to hunt it down and look it up). Anyone reading it can easily see that the paper was written while the author was in communication with Davis, while reaching his similar conclusions (from a different starting point in Physics than the one Davis used). Note that if we count Cameron's paper, that makes THREE different starting points in Physics from which similar conclusions can be reached (and I happen to know of 3 more starting points and compatible lines of reasoning, besides, one being the [[Woodward effect]]). The Davis-referencing paper is mentioned by G. Harry Stine in his June 1976 Analog article about the Dean Drive. It is called "Stochastic Approach to the Laws of Motion", by Hermann von Schelling, published as a research paper internal to General Electric Company, Report #63GL106, Advanced Technology Laboratories, July 1, 1963. I obtained a copy just by asking, but obviously it came out long before the Internet, and probably is nowhere to be found on the Internet. Can a paper be referenced if it is not on the Internet? This Dean Drive article mentions in its main text the May 1962 and June 1976 issues of Analog, but no references to them are currently at the bottom of the page (and the one time I added them, they got deleted). <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.9.73.84|216.9.73.84]] ([[User talk:216.9.73.84|talk]]) 07:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::This is not "quibbling" this is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. You may not like it, but it is not negotiable. Please go and read our policy on [[WP:OR|original research]]. You may not synthesize a conclusion from source material. As I mentioned above, if you don't like Wikipedia's policies, there are innumerable free web sites where you can post anything you want. This, however is an encyclopedia. It contains information that has been published elsewhere in [[WP:RS|independent, published sources]] and nothing more. Yes, papers absolutely can be referenced even if they are not on the internet. [[User:Gwernol|Gwernol]] 14:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
:::::It sure is quibbling when you try to stretch that policy to places where it doesn't go, just to get and keep your biased view in place. I see you STILL haven't answered my question about the dilemma of sources that disagree. I'm aware that Wikipedia policy on that matter is to present both sides, but YOU are trying to prevent the other side's information from being presented, even when there is MORE data supporting it than you have been able to dredge up (mere opinions only, that's all you've got!) for your side. I now quote from the "original research" page: "you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented". The Cameron paper IS directly related to the Davis paper if it talks about the same subject (masses that are stressed by forces applied to them). The Cameron paper DOES directly support the Davis paper by reaching similar conclusions (emission of gravity waves). I can in fact legitimately say that "Including Davis' work, There is more than one starting point in Physics, and line of reasoning, that can reach similar or compatible conclusions", because of the von Shelling paper. Then I can legitimately reference von Schelling AND Cameron, and even the [[Woodward effect]], too. And that will NOT violate Wikipedia policy! I don't need to SAY anything about the Woodward and Cameron similarities, nor even say anything about anyone else saying anything about such similarities; simply including them as references will be self-explanatory to anyone who studies all the references --they will find no disagreement inside them with the statement "Including Davis' work, There is more than one starting point in Physics, and line of reasoning, that can reach similar or compatible conclusions". Now HERE is something that even I would say qualifies as Original Research: "The synthesis of the ideas in the [[Weber bar]] and [[T-symmetry]] articles clearly indicates that if a mass can be distorted by absorbing some energy from a passing gravity wave, then if the mass is distorted by other means, it should emit a gravity wave." Since T-Symmetry comes to us from Quantum Mechanics, we now have Modified Newtonian Mechanics (per Davis), Constructed Stochastic Mechanics (per von Schelling), General Relativity (per Cameron), Quantum Mechanics (per Original Research), and a Mystery (per Woodward; since he mentions stressed masses and a problem with Momentum-Conservation, but not gravity waves as a possible solution) all compatible with each other, and disagreeing with the unsupported mere opinions that currently dominate the article because of biased editing! <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.9.73.32|216.9.73.32]] ([[User talk:216.9.73.32|talk]]) 07:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

(deindenting) OK, one more time. You cannot cite a paper that ''you'' claim supports Dean and use that in the article. You can only use that paper if an ''independent, published source'' says that the paper supports Dean's claims. If there is a reliable source making the connection, then it can be used in a Wikipedia article. If there is no such source, then it is simply your opinion that there is a connection and it cannot be used. Please read [[Wikipedia:Or#Synthesis_of_published_material_which_advances_a_position]] again since that explicitly covers this case. I'm not stretching the policy at all, that's exactly what it says and this is a very clear example of exactly the situation the policy is designed to address. [[User:Gwernol|Gwernol]] 13:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
:You are STILL quibbling. The synthesis-example you mentioned describes TEXT THAT WAS WRITTEN BY AN EDITOR (of a Wikipedia article), and it was THAT TEXT which policy considers to be "synthesis". Meanwhile, the text I carefully wrote in quotes above, "Including Davis' work, there is more than one starting point in Physics, and line of reasoning, that can reach similar or compatible conclusions.", is entirely acceptable because both Davis and von Shelling talk about Davis' conclusions, and thus make my text accurate and non-sysnthesis. That single stamement could absolutely be followed by references to the Davis and von Shelling papers. Now, once the statement is undeniably verifiable, simply extending the list of references to include the Cameron paper and the [[Woodward effect]] article, which anyone reading them can see the obvious similarities, is NOT writing article-text that qualifies as "synthesis". However, to also link the [[Weber bar]] and [[T-symmetry]] articles WOULD count as synthesis, because they would have to be put on the same line and connected with the new-article-text word "and", at the very least. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.9.73.27|216.9.73.27]] ([[User talk:216.9.73.27|talk]]) 17:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Neutrality and Factual Accuracy Challenged==

I removed the following recently added comments (labelled (1) and (2)for identification) from the article because they are unsubstantiated by citation, analysis or experiment:


(1) "Dean's claims of thrust generation have subsequently been shown to be false."

(2) "The Dean drive was later shown to develop no net weight loss over time and does not violate Newton's Third Law of Motion."


Who "showed" (proved) these facts, where did they publish and did they determine this by theoretical analysis or by experiment???

The people who are placing the abusive tagging on this article regarding citations and lack of substantiation are themselves doing the very thing they object to. All such rabidly negative claims are no better than crackpot ravings. Neither supporting or dissenting edits should appear in the article without a shred of proof!

If you want to post speculative edits, do so here on the discussion page and defend them, NOT in the article!

[User: I] 14:16:22, 08 June 2008

:Did you read the article or this talk page before leaping to that conclusion? See the section headed "Science facts" which say "The Dean drive was later shown to develop no net weight loss over time" with a published source. [[User:Gwernol|Gwernol]] 21:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

INTERJECTION FROM User I

Gwernol is missing the point. From everything I've seen, he's what is known in literature as a "pseudo-skeptic". His is not a NPOV (neutral point of view). He is as much an advocate as those he is castigating.

People ought to be presented with the facts and judge for themselves, not given a viewpoint handed down from on high. There is a good deal of experimental evidence that has NOT been presented in the article that indicates Dean may have been onto something. There are a lot more "dots" to connect.

It is true that Gwernol did present some limited THEORETICAL analytical underpinnings from a minor sampling of sources, but nothing approaching the pursuasiveness of experimental evidence. I just don't buy the argument that Dean's claims have unequivocally been "shown" (i.e., proven) false. I don't think anything has been "proven" one way or the other - except that this whole subject is highly controversial and filled to the brim with emotional commentary.

The article does need improvement but it MUST NOT be a one-sided presentation. Moreover, there is more to this story than JUST the science. Historical material that is relevant to the whole controversy surrounding the Dean drive needs to be included to provide a context for any debate.

(End interjection by User I) <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/63.230.204.90|63.230.204.90]] ([[User talk:63.230.204.90|talk]]) 07:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::Your published source also offers no citations within itself; it merely makes a statement that is exactly as unsupported as if you hadn't referenced it, and therefore qualifies as opinion, not fact. This has already been pointed out elsewhere on this discussion page. You are guilty of spreading hear-say, Gwernol! That's why I also pointed out that any old lie posted anywhere could end up in Wikipedia, worthlessly, if ALL you want as a criteria for referencing it is the fact that it exists somewhere outside of Wikipedia. Furthermore, in an effort to find out just what data was behind your source, I contacted the author, Dr. Cramer, and this is quoted from his reply: "There was science fact article in Analog sometime before I wrote my 1997 column in which someone had built a Dean drive and various other similar machines, tested them, and found no violations of Newton's 3rd Law or other laws of physics. In my column I didn't give the reference because I did not have it (and still don't), but I remember reading it." As it happens, I also remember reading an article like that (the only one I've ever seen like that in Analog), and I also happen to have that article handy. It is just barely possible that I am mistaken in this identification (I'm currently waiting for verification from Dr. Cramer), but the odds are quite good that this is it: "In Search of the Bootstrap Effect", by Russell E. Adams, Jr, in the April 1978 Analog. I can now quote from the article, "I first heard of the Dean Drive in 1963. The principle fascinated me --conversion of energy into motion without reaction. A friend had shown me the article in Analog about the Dean Drive and the article by Davis on his fourth law of motion. We were both active in our high school's science fairs and these two related articles seemed to us to have terrific possibilities for science fair projects. So we divided the research. My friend embarked upon the construction of a model of the Dean Drive,..." I can quit quoting because this is enough to INDICATE that Dr. Cramer mis-remembered the article, if it was this article, since his private communication indicates he thought the author of the article built the model. (The author did build several models, but not one of the Dean Drive.) Furthermore, we can legitimately wonder about what data the author's friend (a high school student) had to work with, in constructing his model. Stine's 1976 article clearly indicates that Dean's patent does not closely-enough resemble the Drive he saw demonstrated. Pournelle's referenced Dean Drive page reiterates Stine making that claim. Finally, toward the end of the article, the author describes trying to build a model of something called the "Foster Drive", but he took some shortcuts. I quote [with 2 minor edits]: "The model jumped around and torqued but appeared only to move in a random fashion. [...] Since the model is not an exact copy of the Foster Drive, the fact that the model did not thrust [unidirectionally] does not rule out the possibility that the Foster Drive does work." Note that this also INDICATES that Dr. Cramer misremembered the article, if he is extending from the failure-to-work of one known-not-identical device (Foster Drive) and one likely-not-identical device (Dean Drive), to conclude that the genuine devices were shown not to work. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.9.73.35|216.9.73.35]] ([[User talk:216.9.73.35|talk]]) 08:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::One of the three core content policies of Wikipedia is [[WP:V]]. To quote that policy: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is '''verifiability, not truth'''" (emphasis in the original). The purpose of an encyclopedia is to report information published elsewhere. It is not a place to publish original conclusions or primary research. I've added another published paper, from NASA, that specifically mentions the Dean drive and describes that it doesn't work. This is material we can use to make a claim in the article that the Dean drive does not work. Arguming from your own theoretical knowledge or from unpublished material is not how an encyclopedia works. Sorry, [[User:Gwernol|Gwernol]] 11:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
::::OK, I have examined the Millis paper, and it appears that once again you have no case. Dean is mentioned only twice in that paper, the second being a reference to his PATENT, not to the device that Stine and others saw demonstrated. I quote again from the Sept 1961 issue of "Popular Mechanics":
:::::Three brass chains, hanging from the ceiling in the center of the room, held a V-shaped structure of clear Plexiglas a few inches above the floor. 'This model is a version of a commercial anchorless winch', Dean said. ... While I watched, Dean attached an 18-pound load of boards to a set of skids on the floor. He fastened the skids to the V-shaped machine with a rod. Another rod, on the load of wood, held an index pointer that was lined up with a plumb bob hanging from the top of the framework. A second plumb bob was lined up with the two back chains. ... He closed two switches ... The load of boards began to move across the floor. Incredibly, though it still hung suspended like a pendulum from those three chains, the V-shaped unit remained still. The chains stayed in alignment with the plumb bob.
:::: There is a photo of that V-shaped machine in the magazine article, and the caption reads, "Anchorless winch will not only move in any direction in which it is pointed, it will also remain still while pulling loads to it." In case you don't know, the first part of that caption is a claim that the Dean Drive passes something that Stine called "the Pendulum Test". (There seems not to be a Wikipedia article about that. However, there are also two completely different tests that can be called by that name, only one of which is Stine's.) Here's a link to a description of Stine's version: http://www.nemitz.net/vernon/Pendulum.gif Stine's 1976 "Analog" article says that they tested a great many "reactionless drives", NONE of which passed the Pendulum Test--but they were never able to put the actual Dean Drive to that test. The "Popular Mechanics" picture caption is therefore likely a claim made by Dean, since the article describes a demonstration that is different from the exact Pendulum Test. Nevertheless, in that demonstration, why didn't the force that moved the load of boards also pull the suspended Dean Drive toward the load of boards? Millis paper lumps the Dean Drive with other oscillation devices that rely on the "stick-slip" frictional phenomenon to move unidirectionally. THAT IS AN ERROR, as proved by the Sept 1961 Popular Mechanics article--and therefore invalidates your usage of Millis paper to claim that the REAL Dean Drive (not the gadget he patented and Millis referenced) "was shown not to work". Why do YOU keep doing the "Original Research" of insisting that because Dean's patented gadget does not work reactionlessly, the actual Dean Drive of the Analog and other articles was "shown not to work"? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.9.73.105|216.9.73.105]] ([[User talk:216.9.73.105|talk]]) 19:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==NPOV Is An Issue In This Debate==

Editor/User Gwernol appears to subscribe to the theory that if he disagrees with someone, their point of view is wrong and must be removed so that others will not see that there is any other side to the story. He is entitled to his opinion but needs to temper that with respect for the views of others and for the rules of Wikipedia regarding the maintenance of a Neutral Point of View (NPOV).

Enough evidence exists to indicate that Dean MAY have been onto something with his drive. Whether or not his views are vindicated in the future, at the VERY LEAST, these unpublished historical records ought to be available to the public (i.e., PUBLISHED) in the one article in Wikipedia where they are an obvious resource. To be fair, the source must be prominently labeled and material presented in a neutral fashion, but NO ONE, Gwernol included, should have the right to act as the final arbiter of all things historical or scientific.

I'd like to see a lot less name-calling and a lot more information from everyone in this debate. AND - the article MUST include material from ALL legitimate sources. Nothing less is permitted under the Wikipedia rules.

[[Special:Contributions/63.230.204.90|63.230.204.90]] ([[User talk:63.230.204.90|talk]]) 06:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC) [User I]

'''Response by User Gwernol'''

:No such evidence exists.

'''Interjection by User I:'''

OK, PROVE there is no such evidence. You must be able to show unequivocally that there is absolutely NO evidence ANYWHERE, especially EXPERIMENTAL evidence, that there is any deviation from the currently held views of the scientific community. Since there IS such evidence, although by no means universally accepted, you will fail in your proof.

Your statements continue to make my point that you are not a neutral party. [[Pseudoskepticism]] is simply another non-neutral position masquerading as an NPOV.

You seem to be laboring under the illusion that ANY evidence which challenges the mainstream viewpoint is pure advocacy for all of Dean's claims and can't be presented under any circumstances. Many people who don't buy Deans claims uncritically nevertheless are willing to look at evidence that there may be lines of reasoning which might lead to a better understanding of the Dean apparatus and experimental results that seem to indicate that the mainstream viewpoint is not entirely correct.

An example of the kind of reasoning I'm referring to is [[continental drift]]. By itself, the old [[continental drift]] hypothesis did not "prove" that the continents were actually "drifting". The arguments did, however, call attention to the fact that something was not entirely correct with the mainstream viewpoint generally held at the time.

Only when [[plate tectonics]] theory was developed was it recognized that [[continental drift]] did in fact lead to a valid point of view that simply had not yet matured. And until that happened there were some pretty ugly incidents of [[Pseudoskepticism]] that tarnished the reputations of those who sought to have the evidence for [[continental drift]] examined.

'''End Interjection by User I:'''

[[WP:NPOV]] is not a caret blanche for every viewpoint. Wikipedia is ''not''' a venue to publish previously unpublished material. It is an encyclopedia. The role of an encyclopedia is to summarize material that has already been published elsewhere. This is the core definition of what Wikipedia is. We never publish unpublished material. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is '''verifiability not truth'''. If material is verifiable (comes from independent, published sources) it can be included, otherwise it cannot.

:The only name calling comes from you and the other Dean supporters. When you are ready to put your own house in order and follow the rules of Wikipedia as they are written, not as you would like them to be, then you will make some progress. [[User:Gwernol|Gwernol]] 11:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

'''Response from User I:'''

Let's address your statements. Again and again you try to put your own spin on [[WP:NPOV]] policy, as though you and you alone are the final arbiter.

Quoting from [[WP:NPOV]]:

"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors"

End quote from [[WP:NPOV]]

Your allegation that anyone not subscribing to your viewpoint is a "Dean supporter" is itself an act of bias under the policy. There is an element of fairness in [[WP:NPOV]] policy that is painfully absent in your misrepresentation of the affiliations, motives and purposes of those who do not agree with you.

[[WP:NPOV]] policy also requires that "... all significant views published by reliable sources be presented as far as possible without bias". [[John W. Campbell]] and [[G. Harry Stine]] are unquestionably reliable sources and both published information about the Dean drive in [[Analog Science Fiction and Fact]] as well as many other venues. Their published works regarding the Dean drive are well known and therefore allowable under [[WP:NPOV]] policy.

Your interpretation of what "publishing" means is also excessively narrow and some would argue excessively insular. For some time now online publishing has been recognized as a legitimate means of distributing intellectual content. All manner of works that formerly only appeared in print now routinely appear online. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Ashcroft v. ACLU affirmed that First Amendment protection under the United States Constitution applies to material published online, placing it on an equal footing with traditional print publication in that regard.

Online publishing has made material available that was formerly unpublished because of the sheer difficulty and prohibitive cost of print publication. There is a staggering amount of material now being published and widely distributed online. Excluding material under [[WP:NPOV]] policy merely because the publishing was done online subverts the intent of the policy. Indeed, Wikipedia itself is entirely an online publication and it's articles are extensively quoted both inside and outside the publication as well as in traditional print articles.

In the case of the alleged "unpublished" material you object so strenuously to, a fair amount of it has already been published online in one form or another, though very little of this has made it's way into traditional print media. Since you seem to regard publishing as mainly traditional print publications, the so-called "unpublished" material I referred to earlier comes from online sources. From my perspective and that of many others as well, much of this material has, for all intents and purposes, already been published.

[[Special:Contributions/63.230.204.90|63.230.204.90]] ([[User talk:63.230.204.90|talk]]) 05:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[User I]

'''Glimmer of a Compromise?'''

:::I've made some changes that are intended to demonstrate that a compromise is possible. I doubt the changes I've made are going to be entirely acceptable, but I'm reasonably confident that some form of compromise can be achieved. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 12:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
::::Thanks Phil, your changes seem like a good step forwards. I'm comfortable with them. [[User:Gwernol|Gwernol]] 13:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
:::::I corrected an error I made earlier (left out something; the [[Woodward effect]] IS a known theoretical mechanism to cause a mass to move one way while nothing moves the other way, and that's exactly why it is controversial), and corrected one of two errors introduced by Gwernol, backing up both my changes with references. Also added title of Popular Mechanics article (I have a copy of that issue). Also adjusted some phrasing (two different definitions of "mechanism" needed to be un-confused). <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.9.73.69|216.9.73.69]] ([[User talk:216.9.73.69|talk]]) 22:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::::::Thank you Phil. I agree with Gwernol that the changes you propose are a good step towards resolving the issues we are confronting. I too am comfortable with most of them and particularly like the historical tone. Dean and his device are, after all, part of a long and not-yet-completed search for better propulsion methods. There are bound to be many mistakes and false starts in any such undertaking.

::::::[[Special:Contributions/63.230.204.90|63.230.204.90]] ([[User talk:63.230.204.90|talk]]) 05:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC) [User I]

==Suggested Changes==

I'd like to ask both of you if it might not be better to phrase the sentence;

"Dean's claims of thrust generation have subsequently been shown to be false."

in some other way that is less accusatory while still conveying the essential meaning. Dean obviously believed he had discovered a means of generating thrust using his device. It may well be that he was wrong but I doubt that he actually intended to deceive anyone. I think a better and more neutral way of phrasing that statement might be:

"Dean's claims of thrust generation have subsequently been shown to be in error."

I'd like to suggest the following change as well:

"Dean's experience with forced appropriation of his non-precessing gyroscopic inertial guidance system by the US military (for use in intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarines), combined with his cautious nature led him to terminate earlier relations with investment banker Robert L. Vesco who coincidently fled to Cuba in 1973."

While the suggested wording above is a a run-on sentence, the current wording is pretty confusing:

"Combined with his experience of forced appropriation of his non-precessing gyroscopic inertial guidance system by the US military (for use in intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarines) and Dean's cautious nature, led him to terminate relations with his most recent interested party investment banker Robert L. Vesco who coincidently fled to Cuba in 1973."

[[Special:Contributions/63.230.204.90|63.230.204.90]] ([[User talk:63.230.204.90|talk]]) 06:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC) [User I]

:You have pointed out the second of Gwernol's errors. The truth is, "Dean's claims of thrust generation have subsequently been CLAIMED to have been shown not to work, by people who never saw the devices he actually demonstrated." There is no evidence that any of those people had sufficient information to work with to reach a valid conclusion about the devices that Dean demonstrated. They certainly had information such as Dean's patents, and his explanation of how he thought it worked (such an explanation is presented in the Sept 1961 Popular Mechanics article). And certainly both of those are flawed, as far as they have anything to do with reactionless thrust. But so what? We have, in another part of this Web page discussion, information indicating that Dean deliberately didn't fully describe in his patents the devices he actually demonstrated. And we have plenty of historical cases of people discovering things that they couldn't correctly explain (two recent examples are the copper/ceramic high-temperature superconductors and possibly Cold Fusion). <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.9.73.26|216.9.73.26]] ([[User talk:216.9.73.26|talk]]) 07:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::Or possibly "Dean's claims of reactionless thrust generation have subsequently been shown to be in error; the thrust generated is understood to be reliant on friction with the surface on which the device is resting." [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 23:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

:::That may work. The problem here is one of encompassing the "understanding" of the mainstream and the possibility that the mainstream may later be proven wrong. Perhaps, "... the thrust generated is presently understood to be reliant on friction with the surface on which the device is resting." That is a little less assertive but is probably a more neutral way of stating the matter.

:::Since we are engaged in mediation to resolve controversial content, I think it is important to hear from all the parties to get their comments regarding the above referenced changes. I would especially like to hear from Gwernol regarding the change to the statement that Dean's claims have been refuted before they are implemented in the article. If we can all agree, I would like to have Phil to implement the changes.

:::Are there any other changes we need to address?

:::[[Special:Contributions/63.230.204.90|63.230.204.90]] ([[User talk:63.230.204.90|talk]]) 01:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC) [User I]
::::One problem with editing only that 2nd introductory paragraph is that it cannot be edited by itself. Gwernol is repeating an error in the "Purported Weight Loss" section. Thus both parts need to be edited, which I've now done. I might mention that the weight loss experiment was NOT observed by Stine, and it is portrayed in a picture in the Sept 1961 Popular Mechanics article. I THINK this is a still image from a TV show hosted by [[Dave Garroway]]. I'm almost certain that that picture is duplicated in one of the old Analog issues (perhaps the June 1960 issue, but I don't have a copy of that), because that's where the caption mentions Dave Garroway's name and a TV appearance of Dean. The TV host is not mentioned in the Popular Mechanics article. (Instead the caption for the picture that includes Garroway only reads, "Inventor, left, demonstrates a model engine that has lifted itself so that paper can be slid under it") Perhaps our resident Dean relative can enlighten us on the Garroway thing. Thanks in advance! <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.9.73.115|216.9.73.115]] ([[User talk:216.9.73.115|talk]]) 06:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

'''Interjection by User I'''

I agree that the section entitled "Purported Weight Loss" as originally written was a little too brief and perhaps even a bit one-sided. But the changes as they currently exist are pretty big and need to be well-anchored by verifiable references.

I do think that the changes proposed by [[User:PhilKnight]] should be retained:

::"Dean's claims of reactionless thrust generation have subsequently been shown to be in error; the thrust generated is understood to be reliant on friction with the surface on which the device is resting."

... but expanded upon along the lines suggested by:

"Dean's patented devices, and his explanation of how his Drive was supposed to work, were later shown to develop no net weight loss over time and do not violate Newton's Third Law of Motion."

Some of these changes bother me, however, and those parts are noted below:

::"Dr. William O. Davis, who witnessed the latter demonstration, wrote in his notebook about Dean's explanation of how the device worked, "... does not strike me as valid ... For this reason I have decided to undertake a theoretical study of dynamic systems to see if a concept can be evolved which will describe a world in which Dean's Drive can exist and yet where other known facts are not contradicted."[2] He succeeded at devising such a concept, and it was published.[6]"

I read your text and noted the references but was unable to find a direct link to the referenced text. Is there a link I can actually follow to read for myself what the source you have quoted actually said?

::::I was the one who posted that quote, which came from the June 1976 issue of Analog. The article is not formally available on-line. Thus you would technically need a copy of the magazine to verify the quote. It is a weakness of Wikipedia that references are expected to be findable on-line. Sometimes such formal references are actually findable, if only informally (and likely temporarily). Stine's article may (at this writing) be found at the fourth of the "rexresearch" links presented near the top of this discussion page. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.9.73.95|216.9.73.95]] ([[User talk:216.9.73.95|talk]]) 18:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

I'm not trying to be overly critical here, but it seems to me that we have to give people a chance to judge for themselves the validity of what has been written in the article. It is important to provide this independent verification for two reasons. First, to prevent other editors from claiming that the quotes are "unsourced" (as justification for removing the text) and second, to actually establish that there is some evidence out there that contradicts the mainstream view.

I don't see how we can legitimately hold Gwernol to a standard that we ourselves don't meet. If I have misunderstood any of this, please feel free to set the record straight. That way it will be here for all to see and no one can claim it doesn't exist.

'''End Interjection by User I''' [[Special:Contributions/63.230.204.90|63.230.204.90]] ([[User talk:63.230.204.90|talk]]) 01:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC) [User I]

:::::I see Gwernol is back to lying about the sources he has selected. NONE of those sources ACTUALLY SHOW how the ACTUAL Dean Drive can not work. Pournelle specifically states an opinion. Cramer states that something was shown; HIS STATEMENT IS PRECISELY A MERE CLAIM BECAUSE IT IS UNSUPPORTED. And ditto with Millis, since the only reference he provides for Dean stuff is the patent, which is known to be different from the demonstrated Drive (that is, at best Millis is confusing the two devices). <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.9.73.3|216.9.73.3]] ([[User talk:216.9.73.3|talk]]) 06:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::Next, I finally got around to looking at another worthless Gwernol "source", which has the title "The Physicist's View of Nature". I quote: "Dean's machine made such a splash with readers of science fiction that it is now customary in science fiction circles to refer to a reactionless drive as a Dean drve." What a crock! I've read many hundreds of science fiction novels, and this is the first I've heard of such a "custom". The custom that I'm aware of is, in fiction a drive is typically named after its inventor(s) (Google for "KK drive"); in the real world it is called whatever its inventor names it (Google for "gyroscopic inertial thruster"). Dean's drive remains a unique device, not a generic label. Next quote: "The physicist Russell Adams wrote an entertaining article (also published in Analog)..." That would be the April 1978 issue, described elsewhere on this Discussion page. The article in that magazine has no indication that Adams is a physicist. It does have this as an editorial/introductory blurb: "Negative theorems are the hardest to prove. But to an engineer, negative experimental results are proof enough." So now there are two indications that the author of Gwernol's "source" is clueless. Especially since the actual demonstrated Dean Drive does not work at all as described in "The Physicist's View of Nature". Only in Gwernol's imagination has that PARTICULAR device been "shown not to work"; all he has are mere CLAIMS. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.9.73.12|216.9.73.12]] ([[User talk:216.9.73.12|talk]]) 09:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:::::That source was added by [[User:PhilKnight]], the mediator in this case, not by me. Please stop making unfounded and inaccurate personal attacks on me. Thanks, [[User:Gwernol|Gwernol]] 23:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

::::::One thing I think we CAN say is that the Dean drive has probably been written about more than any other apparatus of its type. So much so that both skeptics and supporters are begining to refer to it as a kind of "shorthand" to characterize reactionless drives in general. There are indeed pitfalls to this, as you point out.

::::::Some writers get carried away and call every sort of reactionless concept a Dean drive. That's wrong for obvious reasons. Others are more careful to indicate that such-and-such a device is "similar to" (or words to that effect) a Dean drive. We can quibble with this for the same reasons some take issue with calling any machine reproduction of a written document a "Xerox copy" but it is happening for much the same reasons. It's simply easier to characterize a concept by juxtposition rather than by laboriously explaining it. [[Special:Contributions/63.230.204.90|63.230.204.90]] ([[User talk:63.230.204.90|talk]]) 01:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC) [UserI]


'''Interjection by User I''' <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/63.230.204.90|63.230.204.90]] ([[User talk:63.230.204.90|talk]]) 01:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Could we please dispense with bellicose rhetoric impugning the character of those whose arguments we oppose? I didn't much care for Gwernol's methods along those lines either. I'd say he could well have been mistaken, but only Gwernol knows if he was lying or not.

By the way Gwernol, glad to see that you're monitoring and are commenting. In spite of the fact we don't necessarily see eye to eye on everything, I still value your contributions. This article is controversial and I believe we need everyone's viewpoint if we are to have a truly NPOV piece. Welcome back to the discussion!

Pournelle says point blank that he never SAW the device work. That's not the same as saying it didn't work and hence can't be referenced to "prove" the Dean drive doesn't work, merely that Pournelle never actually witnessed its performance one way or another. He may have an opinion - and he's entitled to one. It is, however, just an opinion - nothing more. I do think we need to be clear about that.

Cramer, Millis, and anyone else who hasn't actually witnessed the Dean drive in action is limited to either pure speculation or theoretical analysis. Either of these are highly suspect since initial assumptions and methodology can influence the results. Speculation that starts negatively will probably end that way. Analysis that allows only mainstream techniques will likewise produce results in accordance with accepted theory.

Only actual experiment, performed with suitable safegards to ensure repeatability, will decide the matter. I'd sure like to see something like THAT in this article. Has anyone ever independantly reproduced the Dean drive and tested it? If it has been reproduced and the experiments repeated, that would justify a web page (along the lines of those by Jean-Louis Naudin) in its own right!

'''End Interjection by User I''' [[Special:Contributions/63.230.204.90|63.230.204.90]] ([[User talk:63.230.204.90|talk]]) 01:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC) [User I]


I made some minor changes near the front of the article mainly to make it clearer. I did my best not to alter the meaning of the text but merely tried to make it more streamlined and to better relate the thoughts being expressed there.

: .... changes which were promptly reverted by Gwernol.

:Gwernol, I don't mind editing and reversions, per se. What I do mind is removal of material WITHOUT any countervailing attempt to make the article BETTER. If you're going to contribute, then do so. Don't just sit back and act as a dog in the manger. Getting this right is tough. (Look what just happened with a MINOR wording change.) Some of the editing is poorly worded and I think we can do better.

:OK, Let's do this the hard way. Here's the changes I propose:

::"The Dean drive is a device intended to be a reactionless thruster that was invented by Norman L. Dean. Dean claimed that it was able to generate a uni-directional force, in violation of Newton's Third Law of Motion. A truly reactonless drive is generally considered to be impossible in Physics. A reactionless thruster would have many practical applications, including the propulsion of spacecraft."

::"While is theoretically possible according to the Woodward effect for a mass that moves in one direction to have its momentum balanced by something other than a reaction mass, there has as yet been no satisfactory demonstration of this principle outside of limited laboratory experiments."

:Here's what the article said before:

::"The Dean drive is a device intended to be a reactionless thruster that was invented by Norman L. Dean. Dean claimed that it was able to generate a uni-directional force, in violation of Newton's Third Law of Motion. Such a violation is generally considered to be impossible in Physics. While it is theoretically possible for a mass that moves in one direction to have its momentum balanced by something other than a reaction mass, there is no known theoretical mechanism for a mass to be moved one way while nothing moves the other way, besides the Woodward effect. A reactionless thruster would have many practical applications, including the propulsion of spacecraft."

:Let's break this down:

::"The Dean drive is a device intended to be a reactionless thruster that was invented by Norman L. Dean. Dean claimed that it was able to generate a uni-directional force, in violation of Newton's Third Law of Motion. Such a violation is generally considered to be impossible in Physics."

:So far, so good. But the next logical comment:

::"A reactionless thruster would have many practical applications, including the propulsion of spacecraft."

:which would round out the basic description by showing the import of the device and completing the thought (by indicating one of the more important uses), is stuck at the very end of the paragraph AFTER:

::"While it is theoretically possible for a mass that moves in one direction to have its momentum balanced by something other than a reaction mass, there is no known theoretical mechanism for a mass to be moved one way while nothing moves the other way, besides the Woodward effect."

:Which is a new thought dealing with the momentum transfer concerns. This could itself be made clearer by saying:

::"Reactionless drives are controversial because by definition they transfer momentum "reactionlessly"; that is, impelling the drive forward without a corresponding reaction mass moving in the opposite direction. While is theoretically possible according to the Woodward effect for a mass that moves in one direction to have its momentum balanced by something other than a reaction mass, there has as yet been no satisfactory demonstration of this principle outside of limited laboratory experiments".

:Nobody is suggesting that the article is about the Woodward effect, as you indicate in your reversion comments. What would you suggest to improve the opening wording if you don't like what I did? The opening needs to be more concise and broken down into segments that are easy to digest.[[Special:Contributions/63.230.204.90|63.230.204.90]] ([[User talk:63.230.204.90|talk]]) 23:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC) [User I]

::Thank you for the analysis. There are still some points to cover, though. One is that DEAN thought he had a reactionless drive. That's what he thought, regardless of whether or not it was true. Next, most detractors simply work from Standard Physics which allows no such thing. The Woodward effect is controversial; it is not really part of Standard Physics yet. Next, one point I posted a while back in the main article (but got deleted) related to a Wikipedia article, [[Nuclear photonic rocket]]. It can be important for any reader of this article to be confident that Standard Physics will allow something other than reaction MASS to Conserve Momentum. The Woodward effect so far offers no simple form of Momentum Conservation (perhaps the whole Universe "moves", the way the Earth "moves" when you jump upward), and Momentum Conservation is the main Law of Physics that a truly reactionless drive would violate. Finally, Dr. Davis' "Fourth Law of Motion" invokes gravity waves (or something rather similar) as a means of Conserving Momentum. Standard Physics should have no real objection to such a concept, since gravity waves are already a part of Standard Physics, and nobody has any reason to think they can't carry some Momentum (similar to massless photons carrying Momentum). And there is also Hermann von Schelling's and Jeffery Cameron's work (described elsewhere on this discussion page), which provide two more independent lines of reasoning, reaching conclusions about stressed masses and gravity waves, similar to Davis' work. One "Original Research" notion was also presented somewhere above, showing yet another starting point to get at that conclusion (and I know of still another Original Research starting point and line of reasoning yet to be mentioned here!). It is not impossible that the controversy of the Woodward effect could be resolved by also invoking gravity waves, partly because Woodward also talks about masses that experience certain stresses--but of course that, and the two Original Research notions, are outside the scope of this article. Nevertheless, anyone studying gravity waves knows how difficult it can be to detect them, so IF they were being generated while the Dean Drive operated, per Davis' hypothesis, is it any wonder Dean thought his drive was "reactionless"? And so the Dean drive could LOOK like a reactionless drive, without actually being one! <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.9.73.84|216.9.73.84]] ([[User talk:216.9.73.84|talk]]) 06:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:::[[User:PhilKnight]] has suggested we find and incorporate wording from a reference that is acceptable under Wikipedia policy that links the Dean drive and the [[Woodward effect]]. That would at least be a start.

:::Your statement about the Dean drive perhaps being a reaction drive with a means of reacting with the rest of the universe that isn't obvious or maybe even understood yet has some validity at this point. [[Stochastic Electrodynamics]] offers one possible avenue for finding a "hidden" reaction pathway, although it too is highly controversial and hotly contested. And there are other possible explanations, as you point out.

:::I understand that there are a lot of other pieces to the puzzle we could, and perhaps should mention in the article. But remember, a lot of people don't even accept the premise that the Dean drive is a legitimate subject, let alone that thinking is finally beginning to change in regard to reactionless drives in general.

:::By the way, thank you for your lower-key approach. The best way to get this article closer to a balanced perspective is through communication and cooperation. If we can all DISCUSS changes rationally without lobbing zingers at each other we might just succeed in presenting all sides of the issue, though perhaps not entirely was each of us might like.

:::I think we need to go back to the statement [[User:PhilKnight]] proposed:

::::"Dean's claims of reactionless thrust generation have subsequently been shown to be in error; the thrust generated is understood to be reliant on friction with the surface on which the device is resting."

:::But incorporate some of the present wording as well; maybe:

::::"The Dean drive is a device intended to be a reactionless thruster that was invented by Norman L. Dean. Dean claimed that it was able to generate a uni-directional force in violation of Newton's Third Law of Motion. Such a device is generally considered to be impossible in Physics because there is no reaction mass moving in the direction opposite the motion of the apparatus. A reactionless thruster, if one could be built, would have many practical applications, including the propulsion of spacecraft.

:::(I believe that we need the "link" [[User:PhilKnight]] proposes between the Dean Drive and the [[Woodward effect]] at this point.)

::::"While it is theoretically possible for a mass that moves in one direction to have its momentum balanced by something other than a reaction mass, there is no known theoretical mechanism for a mass to be moved one way while nothing moves the other way, besides the [[Woodward effect]]. Reactionless drives are controversial because by definition they transfer momentum "reactionlessly"; that is, impelling the drive forward without a corresponding reaction mass moving in the opposite direction.

::::While is theoretically possible according to the [[Woodward effect]] for a mass that moves in one direction to have its momentum balanced by something other than a reaction mass, there has as yet been no satisfactory demonstration of this principle outside of limited laboratory experiments". Dean's claims of reactionless thrust generation have subsequently been shown to be in error; the thrust generated is understood to be reliant on friction with the surface on which the device is resting."

:::I know this doesn't fully satisfy your view on the matter but it represents a start. If we can get Gwernol to agree to at least this much, we can begin to make progress on a NPOV article.[[Special:Contributions/63.230.204.90|63.230.204.90]] ([[User talk:63.230.204.90|talk]]) 04:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[User I]

::::The first of the three suggested paragraphs is fine (except "Newton's Third Law" and "Physics" should be linked to the Wikipedia articles). But I think the other two paragraphs are somewhat mutually redundant and could be combined. That is, since we are discussing an introductory overview/summary, some of the relevant pieces of Physics can simply be mentioned and linked without going into a lot of detail. The links exist, after all, for those who want to see the details. For example:
:::::The Law of [[Conservation of momentum]] is one of the foundations of Physics. While it is theoretically possible for a mass that moves in one direction to have its momentum balanced by something other than a [[reaction mass]] (see [[Nuclear photonic rocket]]), there is no known theoretical mechanism for a mass to be moved one way while nothing moves the other way, besides the controversial [[Woodward effect]]. Any truly [[reactionless drive]] will likewise be controversial, because by definition it will violate momentum-conservation and shake Physics to its foundation. Many devices that are claimed to be reactionless actually employ something known as the "[[stick-slip phenomenon]]". Dean patented at least one device that belongs in that category, but at least one device he demonstrated was described as operating differently. Confusion regarding the two devices, plus faults in Dean's explanation of how his demonstrated device was supposed to operate, has led most researchers to conclude that Dean was entirely mistaken. However, at least one scientist who saw a demonstrated device decided it needed a better explanation than Dean's, and went on to find a way to avoid a violation of momentum-conservation.
::::As pointed about previously in this discussion, the Millis paper includes a reference to Dean's patent, and apparently assumes that's all there is to the Dean Drive. The Russell Adams Analog article, certainly referenced by the "Physicist's view of nature" paper and likely referenced by the Cramer article, does not indicate that enough data was available to build a true copy of the device that Dean demonstrated. I therefore strongly object to the article baldly stating that the DEMONSTRATED device was 'shown not to work'. Meanwhile, the main article text now has two short quotes in it from Davis' lab notebook, and the previous paragraph would be correct in its overview of Davis' role. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.9.73.52|216.9.73.52]] ([[User talk:216.9.73.52|talk]]) 10:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Consensus Points==

I'm beginning to see the outlines of the problem more clearly. Moving to suggested wording is premature. I believe we need to characterize the points we agree on and those we disagree on. Otherwise we are only going to have endless wording changes that simply "yo-yo" back and forth.

I'm going to start a list of points that are not in dispute and a list of those that are. Hopefully we can start to work towards a consensus by slowly eliminating the disputed points. At some juncture there ought to be enough undisputed points to produce a consensus wording for the article based on those.

If anyone believes that any point is disputed, please feel free to remove it from the "Points Not Disputed" list and add it to the "Disputed Points" list and indicate your rationale somewhere below the two lists.

Try to keep the lists intact - don't simply delete any of the points or mix them into the conversation. (you can refer to them, of course) Add to the points if you feel that there are any others that need to be addressed. The numbering is unique - that is, the numbers of each point are not duplicated in either list. That way there is no need for complicated idenifiers. Just refer to the point number.

Later on I will start a "Deadlocked Points" list, IF we find that there are points which cannot be reconciled by any compromise or pursuasion. Let's hope that list is either nonexistent or very short. [[Special:Contributions/63.230.204.90|63.230.204.90]] ([[User talk:63.230.204.90|talk]]) 03:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[User I]

'''Points Not Disputed'''

:(1) The Dean drive was invented by Norman L. Dean

:(2) The Dean drive was believed by its inventor to be a reactionless drive

:(3) Reactionless drives are controversial because they would violate Newton's Laws of motion and the law of conservation of momentum

:(5) Dean believed that models of his drive successfully demonstrated reactionless behavior.

:(6) It is generally accepted that Dean's drive did not actually demonstrate reactionless behavior.

:(7) Dean demonstrated some models of his drive that were not described in his patents

:(9) G. Harry Stine and William O. Davis witnessed a demonstration of the drive by Dean

:(12) William O. Davis (and team) developed a theoretical explanation of how the Dean drive operated

'''Disputed Points'''

:(4) The only generally accepted mechanism by which a reactionless drive might actually work is the Woodward effect.

:(8) Many believe that the Dean drive operated by means of "stick-slip" frictional effects.

:(10) G. Harry Stine's experiments did not confirm Dean's claims

:(11) G. Harry Stine's experiments partially verified some of Dean's cliams

OK - that should be enough to start. I didn't address the issue of publication and what is (or is not) a valid published work. Feel free to add any points about this element (or any other). [[Special:Contributions/63.230.204.90|63.230.204.90]] ([[User talk:63.230.204.90|talk]]) 03:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[User I]

:On the list of undisputed items, I think that (4) could be phrased better. The [[Woodward effect]] is not, I think, "generally accepted"; even the Wikipedia article about it states that it is controversial. I'd say it's kind-of in a no-man's-land where those who object to it haven't been able to muster a good enough argument yet to shoot it down (and thus it persists, as a thorn in the side of Orthodoxy). I'm sure that both sides of the controversy want more experimental evidence, one way or the other.

:I edited (9) and (12) a bit because of definite inaccuracies. Stine and Davis visited Dean jointly, and saw the same demonstration on Sept 28, 1960. Stine's 1976 Analog article includes, and I quote: "I have taken the liberty of quoting extensively from written notes made within a day or so of witnessing ... because they more accurately express our joint observations of the time and do not exhibit the ravages of time on the memory." Next, the "team" that Davis assembled, to more-fully develop his initial hypothesis to explain how the Dean Drive MIGHT work, included the moderately well known physicist [[Henri Coanda]] and a professor of physics at New York University, Serge Korff, who (according to Stine) later became president of the New York Academy of Sciences. Davis himself had at one time been Chief of Scientific Research, Headquarters, Air [Force] Research and Development Command (per a bio in May 1962 Analog). A less notable (but likely not less valuable) member of the team was a mathematician named E. L. Victory, an M.I.T. graduate. Toward the end of Stine's article he wrote: "With several very very intelligent and respected scientists involved in the program, we never once ran up against a flaw in the logic, a trivial consequence, an irrational conclusion, or any result that did not appear to jibe with the real world." One very specific example of that is described, and I'll quote it after reiterating that Davis' hypothesis is basically Newtonian Mechanics with a small addition to it, the notion that there is a force proportional to the rate of change of acceleration. That is, when a force is applied to an object, a small part of it causes the object to experience a changing acceleration, while the bulk of it does the normal thing and causes the object to accelerate. (Note that something known as "[[Dimensional analysis]]" requires a what Davis called a "Critical Action Time" to be involved in his force-equation. That's the time it takes for the applied force to fully permeate the object, at the speed of sound in the substance of the object, typically less than a thousandth of a second for ordinary objects. It's the time during which the object experiences a change of acceleration, and because the time is so short, that's why the associated/hypothesized force is typically a small part of the total applied force, and is typically ignored by physicists, although engineers are well aware of a temporary thing often called "jerk" or "kick" or starting transient" in mechanical systems.) And now the quote, "One meeting really sticks in my mind; in late 1961 I sat astounded and watched Professor Serge Korff derive [[Planck's Constant]] and the quantum condition from Newtonian Mechanics using the hypothesis of Davis..."

:Regarding the disputed points, for (6) I would prefer it to be expressed something like, "It is generally accepted that Dean's drive could not actually demonstrate reactionless behavior." This would accommodate both the Standard View and even Davis' view, since his hypothesis would make the Dean Drive a reaction drive that has an invisible and difficult-to-detect "exhaust". I cannot object to (8), since that belief appears to be rooted in confusing Dean's patented gadget with his demonstrated gadget. And (10) is more correct than (11). Stine's experiments were designed to confirm aspects of Davis' hypothesis. To the extent they succeeded, they simply support the notion that Dean's demonstrated device MIGHT have worked in accordance with that hypothesis. In other words, Stine's experiments could only be taken as indirect evidence in favor of Dean's claims (in effect) that his drive exhibited nonstandard behavior. I now await remarks from the opposing POV.

::In the absence of opposition comment regarding the [[Woodward effect]], your point is well taken with regard to (4). I therefore moved this point into the "disputed" column. I originally phrased the wording somewhat tentatively by using the word "might". What wording would you suggest?

::Perhaps we ought to specify who the other members of the "team" were in regard to (9) and (12). The rest of your comment involves quotes which ought to be referenced. Were these from unpublished notes? If so they must have been published, else how would we know about them? As I recall that was one of Gwernol's big gripes - the use of unpublished sources.

::I moved (6) from the "disputed" category to the "not disputed" category. (pending further comment from the opposition) As far as I can see, this adequately addresses the desire of skeptics to refute the validity of the Dean drive but without personally attacking Dean or using over-the-top hyperbole. The aim here is an NPOV article that reflects the views of all sides.

::Since you do not object to (8), should we move it to the "not disputed" column? (Bearing in mind, of course, that the opposition may want to make it more explicitly negative - probably by removing the "Many believe ..." prefix.)

:: OK, I agree that (10) is the preferred wording because it is more NPOV and reflects the more negative prevailing view. But I still want to leave this for further discussion from those who oppose any hint that Dean might have been at least partially right.

::It occurs to me that Gwernol (and perhaps other skeptics) will not comment but simply be content with sitting back, reverting, blocking and in general preventing more proactive people from contributing to an article whose content they object to. Inasmuch as I intend to take this dispute to the next level if no agreement is reached, I think in the absence of any participation by the skeptical opposition, we ought to assemble the objections Gwernol has penned into one section (minus the personal attacks and threats) so that they can be summarized and addressed. If anybody objects, they can join the discussion and we can add their views to the end results. [[Special:Contributions/63.229.113.180|63.229.113.180]] ([[User talk:63.229.113.180|talk]]) 02:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[User I]
:::About the Woodward effect, because it is theoretical and controversial, it should not be given a large focus in the article. That's why I wrote (elsewhere above) "... there is no known theoretical mechanism for a mass to be moved one way while nothing moves the other way, besides the controversial Woodward effect. ..." If you re-read the stuff surrounding it, you will see that it is simply mentioned and not much else.
:::Regarding quotes, the sources of the quotes ARE and WERE mentioned in the main article. However, at the time Gwernol complained, they had not been FORMALLY referenced there. Now formally referenced are the Sept 1961 Popular Mechanics, May 1962 Analog, and June 1976 Analog. Most quotes are from that third magazine. Note the June 1960 issue is still mentioned without formal reference; that is the issue in which the editor of Analog, John W Campbell Jr, first introduced the Dean Drive to his readers (and the cover of that issue had for a time been part of the article). In this discussion page I have also quoted from the April 1978 Analog; I happen to possess a copy of each magazine listed here (except June 1960 Analog). Davis' notes are quoted in the June 1976 Analog, along with a description of the members of his research team, although that article was actually written by G. Harry Stine. Some of those magazine articles have been copied and posted on-line (some links can be found near the top of this discussion page). Copyright violation may have occurred in posting those copies.
:::I don't know why you moved (6) without changing "did not" to "could not". A relevant point concerns a quote that is in the Wikipedia article, where Davis and Stine agreed they had witnessed a "real anomaly". They saw the demonstrated device behave in a way that *DEAN* considered to be "reactionless", but they weren't willing to accept that as the actual explanation of the demonstrated/observed behavior. I ask you to look at that [[Nuclear photonic rocket]] article, and consider the possibility of such a rocket emitting infrared. From a distance, if you saw it accelerate, you would SEE no exhaust, right? Because infrared is invisible to the human eye, it would be a reaction drive that LOOKS like a reactionless drive. There is no doubt that observers of the demonstrated Dean Drive thought it looked like a reactionless drive. Those who *DIDN'T* observe it *ASSUME* it didn't even actually do that much, because their "working data" for reaching any kind of conclusion was mostly only Dean's patent. And of course there is the highly respected Law of Conservation of Momentum, which is precisely why Davis and Stine , a scientist and an engineer respectively, were reluctant to fully embrace Dean's claim that his gadget behaved truly reactionlessly. So, it happens that "could not" is a less "firm" kind of statement than "did not", and thus I think it is a more appropriate phrase in item (6).
:::Regarding (8), and in light of what I wrote in the previous paragraph about people assuming the Dean Drive didn't even behave anomalously, "believe" MUST be the accurate word. For them to do more than "believe" that, they would have needed hands-on access to demonstrated-FAILING device. And they didn't have that.... Let's see the opposing side offer a supported-by-data rationale why "believe" should be replaced by something stronger!
:::Regarding (10) and (11), there is one thing in the June 1976 Analog that I forgot about. I quote [with edits]: "... in May 1961 we decided to take a very close look at precisely the harmonic drive mechanism that was used in the Dean Drive [and his patent]. This is a device known as a "Buehler Drive" and it is commonly used throughout industry to generate vibrations or oscillatory motion. I consists of two counter-rotating eccentric masses. I designed the device and had it built [...] In our meeting on Sept 28 1960, Norman Dean claimed that the classical situation of a simple harmonic motion drive is incorrect. Classically, when the [eccentric] masses are displaced to their maximum extent to [one direction], the carriage [holding the rotating eccentric masses] will be [in sync] at its maximum displacement to the [other direction]. [...] Dean claimed that the motions [could get out of sync by a "phase angle" of 45 degrees at 1500 RPM] ... When simple harmonic motion is considered as the driving force in Davis [hypothesis], this phase angle does indeed appear [in the math]... but not to the extent claimed by Dean. With our oscillating device, we were looking for a phase angle." End of edited quoting. They were able to reliably obtain a 3-degree angle with both that oscillating device and a second one having a different design, and this was in good agreement with Davis' calculations. They were not able to verify Dean's claim of a 45-degree phase angle. Stine's article describes something of a "spat" about that when descriptions of Dean's "phasing behavior" and Stine's gadget were published in the reader's feedback ("Brass Tacks") section of certain issues of Analog (which I do not possess, but Stine's article references them as the May and Sept issues of 1963). NEVERTHELESS, please remember that Classical Newtonian Mechanics does not allow *ANY* degree of phase angle in *ANY* mechanical system! So, is (10) more correct than (11), or is (11) more correct than (10)? You decide! (The thing I had forgot about was Dean's involvement-from-a-considerable-distance in Stine's phase-angle tests.) Here is a link to a .pdf file that describes (among other things) two eccentrics working together to create oscillatory motion along one dimensional axis:<br\>
http://www.ntn.ca/Catalogues/NTN/C-4100%20Spher%20Roller%20Brgs%20for%20Vibrating%20Screens.pdf <br\>
:::Regarding people like Gwernol acting as you described, you could always just post a properly NPOV article-introduction and see what happens to it. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.9.73.117|216.9.73.117]] ([[User talk:216.9.73.117|talk]]) 04:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Analog "Submarine" Cover ==

Does anyone have a good idea of how to make this well-known cover showing a U.S. submarine (powered by a Dean drive) in the vicinity of Mars available to readers of the article? I believe that presentation of the cover in this context is [[fair use]]. Others may disagree. The cover was present in the article for a long time before it was removed in the current debate.

One possible way of avoiding yet another heated debate about copyright verses free speech might be to use a link to a relatively stable online source where this cover exists. Does anyone know if Analog has an image of this cover in their online archives? [[Special:Contributions/63.230.204.90|63.230.204.90]] ([[User talk:63.230.204.90|talk]]) 01:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC) [User I]


I hate that they got rid of the Analog cover! The page was about the Dean Drive and the Analog cover was from a 1960 edition where it was talked about. There was no legal problem with the cover. That guy Gwernal destroyed the page they are trying to put back now. Why does Wiki let people like that to trash pages like this one???

[[Special:Contributions/189.176.186.99|189.176.186.99]] ([[User talk:189.176.186.99|talk]]) 21:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


This Dean Drive article has history value even though these people can´t see it. There is a link to the Analog cover earlier in the discussion page.

http://www.efanzines.com/JTE/set60/01060.jpg

I agree that they should put it back. And they should stop deleting everything because they don´t like it. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/189.176.183.36|189.176.183.36]] 22:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP -->

== Found in the History Tab ==

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dean_drive&oldid=216548324

This is a very thought out article that was ripped down and deserves some reconsideration, with the right references of course. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.216.244.231|24.216.244.231]] ([[User talk:24.216.244.231|talk]]) 08:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:OK, but what is it about the article you refer to that is HISTORICAL? [[Special:Contributions/63.230.204.90|63.230.204.90]] ([[User talk:63.230.204.90|talk]])[USER I]

::I found it on the history tab for this article.

:::Oh, I thought for a moment that something IN the article had historical significance. I wish we had a timeline for the Dean drive. It might provide some historical perspective, even if it only appears on the discussion page in the end. [[Special:Contributions/63.230.204.90|63.230.204.90]] ([[User talk:63.230.204.90|talk]]) 04:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[User I]

::::That is correct! no one has been deleting anything on the discussion page. Nice! <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.216.244.231|24.216.244.231]] ([[User talk:24.216.244.231|talk]]) 05:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Attempts to Resolve Disputed Matters ==

:::::Actually, that's not quite true. I've had content left on the discussion page recently removed during the ongoing dispute (See [[Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-06-08_Dean_drive|request]]). Such deletion is always a problem when there are individuals bent on surppression rather than an exchange of ideas. [[Special:Contributions/63.229.113.180|63.229.113.180]] ([[User talk:63.229.113.180|talk]]) 02:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[User I]

::::::You've made this accusation several times. Would you care to provide a [[WP:DIFF|diff]] that backs it up? I have seen no removal of content from this discussion page. Its a fairly serious accusation, and one you should provide evidence to support. [[User:Gwernol|Gwernol]] 11:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

:::::::Glad to see you're still monitoring [[User:Gwernol|Gwernol]]. Wish you would participate in resolution of the main issues rather than addressing minor items that only add to controversy. I don't have any interest in keeping the pot boiling, but since you ask, just consult the material behind the history tab:

::::::::21:42, 8 June 2008 Gwernol (Talk | contribs)(Most recent comments go at the bottom of the talk page

:::::::and

:::::::: 21:39, 8 June 2008 209.181.97.245 (Talk)(→Neutrality and Factual Accuracy Challenged)

:::::::While the comments occurred during the heat of the discussion, They were intended to be be juxtiposed with my comment on regarding unjustified tagging for illustration of the comment that followed. You deleted it from that position because you didn't think it ought to be there. That reflected your editing NOT mine. From my perspective that was a deletion since it no longer reflected either my intent nor did it have the desired illustrative impact.

:::::::I am not inclined to argue the point, however. As far as I'm concerned, the matter is dead and I'd like to move on to resolving the main issues. Would you PLEASE participate in a resolution? We are now at a point where I think [[User:Nurotoxin|Nurotoxin]] and others involved in the discussion may be willing to work together with you to reach a concensus.

:::::::Nobody is asking you to change your mind about the issues. We only want to come up with specific wording that results in a balanced (NPOV) article that provides readers with all the elements of the Dean drive story. If there were no controversial issues to discuss, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. Your comments are valuable precisely because they represent an opposing view that must be taken into account.

:::::::I do hope that you will add your comments to those now ongoing in the appropriate forums. [Special:Contributions/70.58.112.58|70.58.112.58]] ([[User talk:70.58.112.58|talk]]) 07:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[User I]

(deindenting) As I have repeatedly noted, I ''have'' discussed the substantive issues on this talk page. The result of engaging in discussion have been repeated personal attacks against me, accusing me of censorship, lying, vandalism and not understanding the policies of Wikipedia, amongst others. It takes two to have a debate. Since those who disagree with me are unable to hold a civilized and constructive conversation, I have no wish to take further part in it.
As a case in point, you have claimed several times that I have removed comments from this talk page. I have '''not''' done so. The single example you cite is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADean_drive&diff=218036798&oldid=218036357 this edit] where I '''moved''' a comment from the top of the page to the bottom. Not only does this comply with [[Wikipedia:Talk#New_topics_and_headings_on_talk_pages|Wikipedia's guidelines on talk pages]], but it made that comment more visible. Your claim and the claim of others was that content was deleted from this page. That is clearly untrue. Are you going to apologize for making that groundless accusation? I strongly object to being told I am censoring others' comments. There is no evidence of this: if you were serious about holding a rational debate, you and others would withdraw these unfounded allegations. Instead they are still being repeated. This is the third time that an accusation against me has been shown to be groundless.

'''Interjection by User I'''

You may believe what you like. Nobody is going to challenge that, it is after all your opinion and you are entitled to it. But I notice you are putting much more time and effort into defensive writing and much less into constructive engagement. I also have an opinion and I'm entitled to mine. I am not attacking you. YOU brought up the subject. From this point on, I will not comment on any similar matters because it seems to me as though you are using these issues as an excuse to avoid real discussion and I do not wish to enable further withdrawal from the more important matters at hand.

To facilitate your entry into a real discussion, I am prepared to retract my statements regarding the allegations as you demanded in your response above. I have stated that I was willing to do this before and I now make good on that pledge. I have no interest in perpetuating petty squabbles. I formally withdraw my former accusations and apologize for any other slights. It was not my intention to inflame the situation.

I still strongly believe that you should have engaged in discussion regarding the more drastic changes you made. Had you relied less on confrontational editing and more on cooperative discussion, others might well have reacted less strongly. You of all people should understand that such actions as have occurred here have caused others in this discussion to feel the same way you do and react accordingly.

Now that I have done what you have asked me to do, will you please engage in a constructive discussion? I and others in this effort would really like to hear some proposals from you regarding wording for the more difficult parts of the article that will strike a more neutral tone AND address the controversial subjects as well.

We don't need to suger coat anything. But we DO need to address the matters that are the elephant in the room. I do not believe in suppression of inconvenient facts precisely because it is these facts that leads mainstream science inexorably towards a better understanding of the world. As long as the sources of these facts meet real (as opposed to interpretive) Wikipedia standards, I see no reason why they should not be discussed in the article.

'''End Interjection by User I''' [[Special:Contributions/71.35.28.231|71.35.28.231]] ([[User talk:71.35.28.231|talk]]) 07:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

When someone here proposes an edit that improves the neutrality of the article, we will be taking a step forward. The proposal that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dean_drive&oldid=216548324 this version] of the article meets Wikipedia's policies on [[WP:V|verifiability]], [[WP:NPOV|maintaining a neutral point of view]] or [[WP:OR|avoiding original research]] is so far from accurate that its hard to know what to make of it. This article, like all other articles, can only reflect what is available from independent, published sources. That means the Dean family papers - neither independent, nor published - cannot be used. It means that the material from Pournelle, Goswami, Mills and Analog magazine must be used. It means that the various theories connecting the (purely mechanical) Dean drive's operation to quantum effects cannot be included - they are original research. Neutral does not mean that all claims have to be treated equally. We do not treat the claim that the sun revolves around the earth with the same seriousness that we treat other theories of celestial mechanics. Dean's claims are extraordinary, so they need extraordinary proof before we can present them as anything except in interesting historical sidenote and a failed idea. [[User:Gwernol|Gwernol]] 11:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

:Gwernol, please help us to write a better article. So far, I nor anyone else has been given any constructive critizism about what we put up, we need guidence. You have a quick and to the point way of editing the article without much input on why it was taken down. What can we put up, how can we publish unknown works to satisfy Wikipedia's standards? The reason so many of us are upset is that when we add things to the article they are taken down without much input on how we can improve or make it worthy. I appologize for how we have been treating you, but remeber every action has an equal and opposite reaction that includes the human psyche. -[[User:Nurotoxin|Nurotoxin]] ([[User talk:Nurotoxin|talk]]) 20:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

::I second that request. I believe that "someone" referred to above regarding suggested wording that improves the neutrality of the article should be [[User:Gwernol|Gwernol]]. As long as the others in this discussion can constructively engage with him and we can move together towards wording that resolves the dispute, we can achieve something we can all live with. [[Special:Contributions/71.35.28.231|71.35.28.231]] ([[User talk:71.35.28.231|talk]]) 07:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC) [User I]

:::I looked at that "this version" that Gwernol linked, and one thing in it, about Dean claiming that action and reaction are non-simultaneous, is actually supported in Davis' published May 1962 Analog article (thereby meeting Wikipedia "verifiability" and "original research" standards). I suspect Gwernol is failing to understand the distinction between the FORCE that causes action and reaction (the force always exists perfectly simultaneously), and the PHYSICAL RESPONSE to an applied force. If two very different objects have some force come into existence between them, why should we expect the objects to respond simultanously? Suppose one is a steel bearing-ball and the other is a 40-pound cannonball. Suspend both on wires so that they touch, and pull the bearing-ball away and let it loose. Take high-speed pictures. At the moment of impact a single force comes into existence that is simultaneously applied to both objects. If you recall some basic physics, one can lean against a wall and theoretically be applying a force to it, but if the wall doesn't move, SOME might say that you actually aren't (I remember hearing in school that since F=ma, then if there is no "a", there can be no "F"). Others would say that the wall is associated with an equal opposing force. In this case the cannonball is much bigger than the bearing-ball; the applied force cannot affect the far side of the cannonball instantly (without violating Einstein's light-speed limit). Yet where is "time" a factor in F=ma? Newton ASSUMES an object instantly and in its entirety responds to an applied force! Well, it is hardly "original research" to claim that Newton is wrong and Einstein is right, about macroscopic things happening instantly. So, put any FINITE speed-of-force-affecting-an-object into the equation (like Davis did), and guess what happens? The smaller bearing-ball will obviously totally respond to the applied force faster than the larger cannonball. NONSIMULTANEOUSLY they respond to the applied force, that is. In the first moments just following the impact, the cannonball is like the wall mentioned earlier; it is associated with a force that helps the bearing-ball to bounce. In a few more moments the force of that impact has time to affect the totality of the cannonball, and THEN it starts to swing on its suspended wire. A high-enough-speed camera should be able to catch that nonsimultaneous-ness in the act; Newton, of course, had no tools available to notice such a tiny difference in response times.
:::The only other question is, what is Gwernol's definition of NPOV? Facts are supposed to be PRESENTED in a Neutral way in a Wikipedia article. But if the facts themselves support a particular conclusion (or point of view), Gwernol has absolutely no case in (apparently) attempting to suppress them, or to present only CLAIMS (not facts) that support the opposite conclusion. Example: Cramer CLAIMS that the Dean Drive was "shown not to work" but he presents no facts in his article to support that claim. Why, therefore, is this Wikipedia article written to include only the "shown not to work" but not include the fact that that statement is only a claim? I'm going to tweak that; let's see how long it lasts, and what excuse (if any) Gwernol or some other like-minded NON-NPOV person uses to justify reverting it! <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.54.28.10|216.54.28.10]] ([[User talk:216.54.28.10|talk]]) 14:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::And the answer is: Gwernol told another lie. Tsk tsk. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.54.28.10|216.54.28.10]] ([[User talk:216.54.28.10|talk]]) 14:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::Your repeated [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]] reveal a great deal more about you than they do about me. Once again, please justify your claim that I have "lied", or retract it. You have been caught making false claims about me before and haven't had the honor and decency to apologize when caught out. Will you do so this time?
:::::If you want to read my definition of what a neutral point of view is, in regards to Wikipedia, then here it is: [[WP:NPOV]]. Nothing more, nothing less. The text you just disputed is not sourced to Cramer, it is sourced to Goswami. Goswami says: "Dean's drive doesn't work". Therefore the article must say that Dean's drive doesn't work. Inserting your own caveats that are derived from your own research is exactly [[WP:OR|original research]]. Reporting what the source actually says is maintaining a [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]]. [[User:Gwernol|Gwernol]] 14:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::QUOTING GWERNOL: "The article as it exists reflects the source. Your additions are original research" The first part of that is true; the second part is the lie, and it is easily proved to be a lie. The Wikipedia article reflects the source (Goswami or Millis), in stating that "the thrust generated is understood (etc)". But that source (either source, actually), is just a CLAIM, exactly as Dean's own published statements are claims. The Wikipedia article label's Dean's published statements "claims", but you want us to believe that it is "original research" if other people's published statements are labelled "claims"? THAT IS THE LIE (of hypocrisy, the essence of NON-NPOV). <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.54.28.10|216.54.28.10]] ([[User talk:216.54.28.10|talk]]) 14:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::::If you continue to misuse the talk page in this manner, I'll semi-protect the page to prevent you from posting. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 15:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Dean's claims are labeled as claims because they are not sourced to independent, published sources. Goswami's work is published in an independent source so we can state it as fact. That's the difference. This is entirely consistent with Wikipedia's policies. [[User:Gwernol|Gwernol]] 15:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::::I object to PhilKnight thinking that it is "misusing" a page in which discussion is SUPPOSED to allow Truth to prevail over Lies, to prove someone is telling a lie and therefore qualifies as a "liar". Do you think POLITENESS will cause a liar to quit lying? Only EXPOSURE works! Next, obviously some people do not understand the meaning of the word "claim". Everything ever written as if it was a fact is a CLAIM, first and foremost. Check the dictionary definition and see for yourselves! Dean made various statements that were certainly published (and in a referenced source, too, such the Sept 1961 Popular Mechanics, thereby revealing another lie by Gwernol). I think none of those statements have been quoted directly in the article here, but certainly they have been DESCRIBED. Just as statements made in Gwernol's preferred sources have been DESCRIBED. Both sets statements are claims, pure and simple. It is of course possible that certain claims can ALSO be facts, but that NEVER changes the essence of the fact that the claims are still claims. Person A might hold an apple and state it is yellow; Person B might be in the vicinity and make his own claim that Person A's claim is a fact, but Person C at a distant location and informed by voice-telephone can only consider both the claims to be only claims. STATEMENTS OF FACT ARE ALWAYS AT LEAST CLAIMS, while claims might not always also be facts. (As an imagination exercise, replace "an apple" with "a demonstrated Dean drive" and "yellow" with "exhibiting anomalous behavior", and ask why statements by Goswami, a Person C, should not be called claims, while statements by Stine or Davis, both being Persons B, and Dean, the Person A, should be called claims.) And so, because claims are defined in many a dictionary compatibly with my description here, in conclusion I repeat that it is a lie to say, in essence, "It is 'original research' to say that things written by Goswami or Millis or Cramer (or Adams, another Person C who was author of article referenced by Goswami and possibly by Cramer) are claims." <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.54.28.10|216.54.28.10]] ([[User talk:216.54.28.10|talk]]) 17:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::::::::I've fully protected the article. Regarding your comments, I suggest you focus on article improvement, instead of attacking other editors. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 19:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

And right there, is exactly the reason why attempting to engage in discussion on this page is pointless. Instead of trying to reach [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]], anybody who disagrees with the IP editor above is subject to screaming invective and repeated personal attacks. This IP is clearly not interested in a civilized debate, only in trying to bully other editors into accepting their point of view. Until this behavior stops, I see no point in continuing to engage here. Many thanks to PhilKnight for his efforts to find a reasonable solution, and I'm very sorry you got drawn into this morass. [[User:Gwernol|Gwernol]] 19:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
:This morning I wrote, most civilly, "Why, therefore, is this Wikipedia article written to include only the "shown not to work" but not include the fact that that statement is only a claim? I'm going to tweak that; let's see how long it lasts, and what excuse (if any) Gwernol or some other like-minded NON-NPOV person uses to justify reverting it!" Then I made a change to indicate, basically, that Dean's claims were being countered by other persons' claims, and it got reverted. The excuse used was "original research". I then posted a statement to the effect that Gwernol, who did the reversion, told a lie. Gwernol responded, "please justify your claim that I have "lied"" --and I did exactly that. It took two attempts, since I didn't know I had to point out the meaning of "claim" in the first attempt. I do not see any counter-argument regarding my proof that Gwernol told a lie. I only see PhilKnight swallowing the lie (by apparently preventing someone who knows what "claim" means from correctly placing it in the main article), and Gwernol complaining that being proved a liar AS CHALLENGED counts as a "personal attack". Tsk tsk. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.54.28.10|216.54.28.10]] ([[User talk:216.54.28.10|talk]]) 22:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

(Deindenting) I just read the above exchange and have a few comments I'd like to offer. First, I agree with [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] regarding personal attacks. Emotions are running high and we are just beginning to get some engagement with [[User:Gwernol|Gwernol]]. While I can understand the desire to communicate intensity of your feelings, the wording you chose was not helpful and merely reinforces the belief which [[User:Gwernol|Gwernol]] has expressed, namely that he is being unfairly attacked.

What we want is for all parties in this dispute to come together for a resolution. All of us have valuable contributions to make and all of us have strong viewpoints. This isn't going to be easy and it will be made all the more difficult if we continue using language that can be misconstrued as a personal attack. There has already been enough of that to go around from everyone.

Whether it is by words or by actions, what we DON'T need are provocative measures right now. The best thing that we can all do is shed the propensity for squabbling and get down to the business of addressing those SPECIFIC points in the article that are causing so much of problem in reaching a neutral, fair and complete article that can stand the test of time.

[[User:Nurotoxin|Nurotoxin]] also has it right. [[User:Gwernol|Gwernol]] needs to stop being so defensive and participate in the discussion. I believe that we all got off on the wrong foot and we need to put aside the petty squabbling to achieve an article that is something better than mere skepticism and a poster child for Wikipedia standards.

The standards are important, yes, but I doubt that they were intended to be used as a barrier to informative writing. Carl Sagan (among others) has stated that "Extraordinary results require extraordinary evidence." But it's not enough to quote only accepted mainstream views. There is published, legitimate evidence that all is not as it should be in the standard model.

It is precisely these kinds of discrepancies, such as the [[Tests of general relativity#Perihelion precession of Mercury|anomalous perihelion shift]] of Mercury and the controversial evidence for [[continental drift]] that lead to better science and major revisions of the standard model. That can't occur if these discrepencies are simply surpressed merely because they are not widely accepted or fully explained by science in its current state. I believe we MUST address NOT ONLY the accepted mainstream viewpoint, but also the more controversial evidence as well.

That was what I was hoping would happen when I drafted the "Consensus Points" in the discussion above. I doubt we can agree on specific wording changes UNTIL we identify specific points we disagree on. I believe it is CRUCIAL that we direct our efforts towards this task.

How about it? Can we proceed? Or are we just going to continue squabbling over how badly each of us is treating the others? [[Special:Contributions/71.35.28.231|71.35.28.231]] ([[User talk:71.35.28.231|talk]]) 07:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[User I]

:I'm interested in seeing how Gwernol tries to defend his claim that it is "original research" to put in the main article the simple fact-of-English-language that what Cramer and Millis and Adams and Goswami wrote qualify as "claims". It MIGHT be "original research" to indicate that their claims are "UNSUPPORTED claims", but it is not "original research" to simply label their writings as "claims". An article cannot possibly be NPOV if only one side's statements are called "claims", so why is Gwernol's NON-NPOV reversion being allowed to stand, of the change I made yesterday morning?. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.54.28.10|216.54.28.10]] ([[User talk:216.54.28.10|talk]]) 16:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::For the record, [[User:Gwernol|Gwernol]] never did participate in this discussion even though he recieved the apology he demanded. And he never apologized to other editors for the unfounded acusations he made against them (see: [[Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-06-08_Dean_drive|request]]) Whatever he may say, it seems clear that he never intended to justify what other editors consider abuse of his administrative responsibilities. [[Special:Contributions/65.101.0.149|65.101.0.149]] ([[User talk:65.101.0.149|talk]]) 01:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC) [User I]

== Summary of Debate Needed ==

I was just rereading some of the debate that was generated by the disputed editing made by [[User:Gwernol|Gwernol]] and reverted article information on the "history" page. It occurs to me that the debate produced some good information about the Dean drive and the controversial subject of whether or not it really works. Maybe we ought to summarize the "best of" material on this page.

That would include a summary of quotes where applicable by [[User:Gwernol|Gwernol]], juxtaposed with material taken directly from Wikipedia policy documents. It may be that we can get a reconsideration of certain changes in the article with regard to a more neutral presentation. There are clearly differences of opinion regarding what Wikipedia policy IS. I think a convincing case can be made that some of the material presented in the article that was subsequently reverted ought not to have been removed.

IF the case can be made convincing enough, we COULD take the next step in the dispute resolution process for a more formal review of the dispute. This isn't going to be easy though and we will have to stick to the facts. (i.e., no personal attacks or emotional arguments. [[Special:Contributions/71.35.28.231|71.35.28.231]] ([[User talk:71.35.28.231|talk]]) 02:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC) [User I]
:To some extent, dealing with the issue can be a matter of starting off with remarks to the effect that the Dean drive is controversial, as demonstrated by the various claims and counterclaims that have been made over the years. Some of the claims are factual --e.g., a device actually existed which Dean demonstrated to various people, some of whom were quite technically competent, and who became convinced that the device exhibited anomalous behavior-- and some counterclaims are certainly factual --e.g., devices that Dean described in patents cannot exhibit anomalous behavior-- and some counterclaims may be flawed --e.g. of those who flatly state the demonstrated device did not or could not work to exhibit anomalous behavior, none present any evidence they ever saw Dean demonstrate it, so how could they know?. How is it "original research" to simply read the counterclaims and the articles they reference (when possible), and state such an obvious thing about the authors of those counterclaims? Meanwhile, here's a [slightly edited] quote from William O. Davis' article in the May, 1962 Analog: "Actually, the situation [with respect to theory and the Dean drive] is no worse than it once was in the field of electricity. It was sincerely believed a century or so ago that it would be impossible to do work with alternating current without violating Conservation of Momentum, since the average current was zero. Although the current in one direction is balanced by an equal flow in the opposite direction, the flows are not equal and opposite ''simultaneously'' and thus work can be done. Furthermore, when all else failed, radiation was invoked to preserve the Conservation of Momentum. We are going to try the same approach. ..." That's how Davis starts leading up to the notion of "gravitational inertial radiation" as a means of Conserving Momentum and thus explaining how the demonstrated Dean drive could exhibit the anomalous behavior that he witnessed. They actually published in the article a fairly complicated equation (with integrals) way "over the heads" of most readers of a science fiction magazine in 1962, and Davis basically wrote that the equation indicates that if a "changing acceleration" and the necessarily associated "critical action time" are added to Newtonian Mechanics, then some of the energy associated with an applied force does not become kinetic energy of the object to which that force was applied, and (since Energy must also be Conserved) could be expected so appear in some other form (such as a radiant form). So far as I know, NOBODY making counterclaims about the Dean drive has ever challenged Davis' equations. In G. Harry Stine's June 1976 article, he indicates that Davis' team "... wrote a scientific paper. Entitled "Some Aspects of Certain Transient Mechanical Systems," Davis delivered it on April 23, 1962 at the Washington, DC meeting of the American Physical Society. There were no comments." Regarding Davis' 1962 Analog article ("The Fourth Law of Motion"), Stine wrote: "... the article didn't draw the sort of comment we had expected ..." It's almost as if a lot of people found Davis' ideas too alien to be worth discussing or even remembering. Even today people who say certain things (as on this very discussion page, see the first sentence in the "Dean Drive Impossible" section) are at the very least demonstrating considerable ignorance of the WHOLE story. I really wish there was an easy way, besides waiting decades for copyrights to expire, to get that whole story onto the Web (the "rexresearch" links near the start of this page can't be expected to stay valid, but currently they do seem to lead to accurate copies of certain articles). I know of only one other place on the Web, "halexandria.org" that contains a fair amount of analysis of Davis' work (and others); it MAY qualify as a suitable Wikipedia reference, if one can get past the mysticism while hunting down the hard-science "inertial propulsion" links, such as this one: http://www.halexandria.org/dward133.htm <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.9.73.3|216.9.73.3]] ([[User talk:216.9.73.3|talk]]) 08:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::Two other pages at the "halexandria" site that may be useful are dward137.htm and dward138.htm <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.54.28.10|216.54.28.10]] ([[User talk:216.54.28.10|talk]]) 13:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Goolge Knol ==

I have recreated the article that I wrote here (that was promptly removed) on google's new site http://knol.google.com/k#. I am willing to have collaborators that are willing to add the the article without destroying it. If you wish to please contact me http://knol.google.com/k/norman-dean/the-dean-drive/7jcs3n6lqlbh/2#

Thank you

Norman M. Dean

[[User:Nurotoxin|Nurotoxin]] ([[User talk:Nurotoxin|talk]]) 04:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

:Good for you! I was going to suggest something along those lines but didn't know to contact you outside of Wikipedia's public forum. Given the unfounded accusations of the use of proxies made by [[User:Gwernol|Gwernol]] (see: [[Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-06-08_Dean_drive|request]]), it probabably wouldn't have been advisable anyway.

:It is clear to me that Wikipedia has become a preserve for [http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Pseudoskeptic Pseudoskeptics] who can't accept anything not already in the mainstream. (Pseudoskepticism has been called [http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Pseudoskeptic "closemindedness with deception"]). There needs to be some sort of vetting process for aspiring Wikipedia administrators to weed out the worst of the breed. It seems to me that some overly-skeptical individuals go out of their way to [http://amasci.com/supress1.html suppress knowledge] and behave in ways that are unnecessarily antagonistic.

:I've thought for a long time that somebody ought to put up a private Website devoted exclusively to the Dean drive and all its aspects and link it to this discussion page here. At least there you could freely present all the facts and let the readers decide for themselves without the distraction of arguments with forum trolls over the content.

:I visited the [http://knol.google.com/k/norman-dean/the-dean-drive/7jcs3n6lqlbh/2# Knol site] but didn't see any unambiguous way to contact you. I've got some pretty good information I wouldn't even think of trying to post on Wikipedia, even on this discussion page. I would be willing to upload it to a site that really was trying to get at the truth, however.
:01:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC) [User I]


== I don't see a problem ==
== I don't see a problem ==

Revision as of 03:32, 15 July 2010


Comment Regarding Unjustified Tagging

I'm appalled that WP is allowing these biased reversions and unsubstantiated tags to be continually applied to this article. Further, I am challenging the neutrality and factual correctness of this article because the unsubstantiated use of edit reversions and tags without ANY justification on this page prevents an open discussion of the problems the article may have and thereby prevents corrections to factual errors.

Such abuse also prevents improvements to an article and enforces a narrow point of view, threatening it's neutrality. Unrestrained use of tagging and removal of anything objected to without any justification whatsoever destroys the factual accuracy of the article.

Those responsible for reverting edits should explain why they are unilaterally enforcing a single point of view by preventing edits to those parts of the article they claim are faulty.

Those placing the tag claiming that there aren't ANY references cited when there clearly are need to be challenged as to why they are abusing that particular tag.

Those asserting "unverified claims or "original research" should be required to justify their use of that tag by specifying EXACTLTY which parts of the article they are objecting to, whether the objection is to unverified claims or original research and why they believe that to be the case.

All of these parties should be blocked from making further reversions if they can not or will not justify their positions.

[User: I] 02:42:01, 29 May 2008

Testing

It might be nice to add a few words saying that most alleged reactionless drives employing rotating unbalanced weights seem to work when placed on a surface, or hung on a rope, because they can scoot themselves along by "slip and stick friction," employing the fact that the coefficient of stationary friction is greater than the coefficient of sliding friction. When you hang such devices from a ballistic pendulum, where they can't get any traction, they show no net acceleration in any particular direction.

There is newfound interest in reactionless drives based on observations that either Mach's Principle or rotating superconductors may permit shielding of inertial mass, but I think everyone agrees that mechanical reactionless drives are a dead end, and as was observed in the article, if you build the device described in Dean's patent, it doesn't work. Hermitian 22:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, assuming the patent was based on what Dean considered to be a working drive, then it logically follows that at least ONE device, based on the patent, should be something that Dean, at least, would consider to be a working drive. The problem, of course, is, "How much of the working drive did Dean leave out of his patent?" V (talk) 04:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not Everyone Agrees —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.103.199.34 (talk) 05:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While mechanical reactionless drives are certainly out of favor, it is hyperbole to say that "everyone agrees that mechanical reactionless drives are a dead end". The U.S. Patent office continues to receive applications for new patents for mechanical reactionless drives and grants at least some of them. That alone demonstrates that there are at least some who don't agree that mechanical drives are a dead end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.103.199.34 (talk) 05:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely have people not yet given up. Here's a site where it is claimed that a Dean Drive has been succussfully reconstructed and tested. http://www.inertialpropulsion.com/ Very likely the reconstruction differs from the original, but they are calling it a reconstruction because the Dean Drive patent was the starting point for their efforts. And, yes, patents have been filed for this device. V (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced addition

I just moved this from the Dean drive page:

What many people were unaware of was that Dean had, in 1948 discovered and licensed to the United States Government, through the newley formed US Navy Office of Naval Research (ONR), the worlds first Stellar Spatial Inertial Gyroscope. The worlds only mechanical non-precessing planetary gyroscopic system, with all related devices to support and report is movements through unique "pick-offs" to an analog computing system. Under contract with the Navy, Dean briefed Dr. Charles Stark Draper of the MIT Instrumentation Laboratory.

Dean's contract was extremely unique, and made provisions for Dean to recalim his device, if it was ever found to be used in the public sector. Dean could "buy back" his device, plus all improvements made by the military, for the exact sum of $1 dollar. The same ammount for which Dean licensed the device to The Office of naval Researc (ONR). Alas, Due to the "Top Secret" nature of the contract, Draper was ultimately credited with the "discovery" and later anointed "the Father of Inertial Navigation". While Draper never made the claim himself, It vexed Dean that Draper never made it right either. Dean fought the government for return of his device, when he discovered outside government contrators had started using his device in the public domain, without his consent He was repeatedly threatend, as well as warned by the Navy that he would "disappear" should he continue the fight. Several prominent names at the labs, as well as one who would later become Secretaty of Defense, placed their own names on patents that Dean was enjoined form participation in.

Later on, after his introduction of the Dean Space Drive System, many who attempted to do business with him, found him to be very cautious, and some would call paranoid....any wonder?

Objectivity Needed

The tone of criticism regarding this article is beginning to suggest that outright suppression of subjects like this one is a good thing. Perhaps a blank page might be better. While we're at it, why not start burning the books we don't like as well.

This subject is not interesting for its scientific content. It is clearly deficient in that regard. It is, however, an intriguing historical episode and as such has a human interest element. More objective commentary is desirable and while the skeptic has a duty to point out the facts, supression of material merely because one happens to disagree with it is not compatible with the long history of Western culture.

Commentary Regarding "Cautionary Statement to Students"

Students should maintain a healthy skepticism not only in regard to pages like this one, but should also learn to recognize pathological skeptics who are intolerant of new ideas. Those who would deny any possibility that some "far out" ideas might have validity are not supported by the history of scientific and technical advance.

Such skeptics heaped scorn on the idea that the East coast of South America seemed to fit the West coast of Africa implying that they might once have been joined. Only after evidence supporting plate tectonics became overwhelming were the skeptics silenced. The same thing happened with meteor impact extinction events and the vector theory of stomach ulcers.

Supporters of these ideas were not just criticized but had their reputations damaged and their knowledge and credibility impugned in some very ugly incidents before they were vindicated. This is the dirty little secret of science. The one step in the scientific method that nobody talks about is the pathology of excess skepticism and personal criticism that has nothing to do with the science.

Good luck in your research..... and remember - today's wild ideas may well be tomorrow's established facts. [User:I]

Really?

It's hard to imagine intellectual property tyranny more pernicious than that of the RIAA, MPAA and the DMCA. But in the realm of breakthrough inventions, there exists a body of law that in effect legislates theft by the United States government. As for "copyleft" solutions to the prevention of such intellectual property theft, any disclosure of that sort will land the inventor in a federal prison.

The Invention Secrecy Act of 1951 allows the government to impose secrecy orders on patent applications that contain information deemed "sensitive" by any interested federal agency. Invoking the act is sufficient to prevent disclosure or use of the invention and disallow a patent. Such secrecy orders can be imposed even when the invention is concieved and owned by a private individual without government participation.

Dean himself seems to have run afoul of the Invention Secrecy Act. The following discussion appears on the Dean family website:

http://www.deanspacedrive.org/arcturas_project.html

"The office of US Naval Research, in 1948 expressed such great interest in the Stellar Spatial Inertial Gyroscope, Dean's math, as well as his hardware, that when they heard of the impending patent applications, the Navy, casually mentioned, that if they could not buy the invention and system, they would hamper any future development, and "take" the system under “the Act" which gave the Government wider rights when it came to sensitive technology with a military interest."

Such intellectual property tyranny is far worse than any posed by "these Dean fellas". Any inventor unlucky enough to fall into the clutches of the government for violating the act will live out the rest of his or her days in slavery being told what to do at the point of a gun.

[User: I] May 6, 2007

I don't see a problem

I will admit I am not a "true" follower, but I can't see the fundamental difference between scooting a chair with casters across a hard floor by creating an difference in momentum by leaning into the chair and a dean drive. Isn't it the difference in momentum/force created by closing a frame that holds two concentric weights moving in counter circular motion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.115.121.23 (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dean_drive&oldid=373561477"