NASA Team Claims ‘Impossible’ Space Engine Works
Scientists just published a paper saying that the controversial EmDrive produces thrust, even though that defies known laws of physics.
more…
from link
In this paper, the team describes how they tested the EmDrive in a near vacuum, similar to what it would encounter in space. Scientists placed the engine on a device called a torsion pendulum, fired it up, and determined how much thrust it generated based on how much it moved. Turns out, the EmDrive is capable of producing 1.2 millinewtons per kilowatt of energy, according to the authors’ estimates.
…light sails and other related technologies—which are propelled by the push of photons—only generate a fraction of that thrust, between 3.33 and 6.67 micronewtons per kilowatt.
Tau.Neutrino said:
NASA Team Claims ‘Impossible’ Space Engine WorksScientists just published a paper saying that the controversial EmDrive produces thrust, even though that defies known laws of physics.
more…
Maybe they should replace “known” with “accepted” then.
Or perhaps replace “defies” with “appears to defy”.
Or better still, both.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
NASA Team Claims ‘Impossible’ Space Engine WorksScientists just published a paper saying that the controversial EmDrive produces thrust, even though that defies known laws of physics.
more…
Maybe they should replace “known” with “accepted” then.
Or perhaps replace “defies” with “appears to defy”.
Or better still, both.
this article is a year old. a lot can happen in a year. but not much seems to have.
ChrispenEvan said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
NASA Team Claims ‘Impossible’ Space Engine WorksScientists just published a paper saying that the controversial EmDrive produces thrust, even though that defies known laws of physics.
more…
Maybe they should replace “known” with “accepted” then.
Or perhaps replace “defies” with “appears to defy”.
Or better still, both.
this article is a year old. a lot can happen in a year. but not much seems to have.
China has built one
China Claims To Have Built A Version Of NASA’s ‘Impossible Engine’ That Uses NO Fuel
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/china-built-em-engine-nasa-mars-in-ten-weeks_uk_59b8efb9e4b0edff971798cf
ChrispenEvan said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
NASA Team Claims ‘Impossible’ Space Engine WorksScientists just published a paper saying that the controversial EmDrive produces thrust, even though that defies known laws of physics.
more…
Maybe they should replace “known” with “accepted” then.
Or perhaps replace “defies” with “appears to defy”.
Or better still, both.
this article is a year old. a lot can happen in a year. but not much seems to have.
Oh, I don’t know. Going from 1.2 mN per kW to using no fuel at all seems like quite an advance to me.
Tau.Neutrino said:
ChrispenEvan said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Maybe they should replace “known” with “accepted” then.
Or perhaps replace “defies” with “appears to defy”.
Or better still, both.
this article is a year old. a lot can happen in a year. but not much seems to have.
China has built one
China Claims To Have Built A Version Of NASA’s ‘Impossible Engine’ That Uses NO Fuel
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/china-built-em-engine-nasa-mars-in-ten-weeks_uk_59b8efb9e4b0edff971798cf
Still uses a battery to get electricity to make the microwaves.
So how do these things work?
Do the microwaves bounce off the inner chamber to create thrust?
Do the waves that cross each other while still bouncing around the chamber create thrust?
Something else?
Tau.Neutrino said:
ChrispenEvan said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Maybe they should replace “known” with “accepted” then.
Or perhaps replace “defies” with “appears to defy”.
Or better still, both.
this article is a year old. a lot can happen in a year. but not much seems to have.
China has built one
China Claims To Have Built
two contradictory statements.
Say you had an antenna in the deep vacuum of space.
Say hypothetically it wasn’t attached to anything but you could transmitter 1000 watts on it.
Would the antenna move?
ChrispenEvan said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
ChrispenEvan said:this article is a year old. a lot can happen in a year. but not much seems to have.
China has built one
China Claims To Have Built
two contradictory statements.
more article here
Tau.Neutrino said:
So how do these things work?
“In short, the supporting physics model used to derive a force based on operating conditions in the test article can be categorized as a nonlocal hidden-variable theory, or pilot-wave theory for short.
“Pilot-wave theories are a family of realist interpretations of quantum mechanics that conjecture that the statistical nature of the formalism of quantum mechanics is due to an ignorance of an underlying more fundamental real dynamics, and that microscopic particles follow real trajectories over time just like larger classical bodies do….
“Although the idea of a pilot wave or realist interpretation of quantum mechanics is not the dominant view of physics today (which favors the Copenhagen interpretation), it has seen a strong resurgence of interest over the last decade based on some experimental work pioneered by Couder and Fort
“In the approach used in the quantum vacuum plasma thruster (also known as a Q thruster) supporting physics models, the zero point field (ZPF) plays the role of the guiding wave in a similar manner to the vacuum-based pilot-wave theories. To be specific, the vacuum fluctuations (virtual fermions and virtual photons) serves as the dynamic medium that guides a real particle on its way….
“If the vacuum is indeed mutable and degradable as was explored, then it might be possible to do/extract work on/from the vacuum, and thereby be possible to push off of the quantum vacuum and preserve the laws of conservation of energy and conservation of momentum. It is proposed that the tapered RF test article pushes off of quantum vacuum fluctuations, and the thruster generates a volumetric body force and moves in one direction while a wake is established in the quantum vacuum that moves in the other direction.”
Read More: https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.B36120
Tau.Neutrino said:
ChrispenEvan said:
Tau.Neutrino said:China has built one
China Claims To Have Built
two contradictory statements.
more article here
Chinese Scientists with the Academy of Space Technology have claimed to have successfully tested Their own domestically developed electromagnetic drive,
esselte said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
So how do these things work?
It’s likely they don’t work. …
My money, not a lot mind you, is on this result.
ChrispenEvan said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
ChrispenEvan said:two contradictory statements.
more article here
Chinese Scientists with the Academy of Space Technology have claimed to have successfully tested Their own domestically developed electromagnetic drive,
Chinese scientists constantly claim the efficacy of traditional Chinese medicines that are known very well not to have a medicinal effect. It pays to be very cynical whenever China makes announcements about it’s scientific discoveries.
I can’t find the information now, but when the OP subject was first reported there was also a lot of talk about the “flakiness” of the guy in charge of the Eagleworks laboratory… it wasn’t that he was a bad scientist as such, but that he had a history of making public announcements regarding his research that could not be justified by the research itself.
ChrispenEvan said:
+1
esselte said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
So how do these things work?
It’s likely they don’t work. …My money, not a lot mind you, is on this result.
In any case, it’s a lot of energy in for not much force out. An electric motor would be good (for terrestrial applications). Or an ioniser of some sort (for space).
FMD, it’s a goldfish bowl.
This story is a year old and we discussed it thoroughly at the time.
Briefly:
1/ NASA doesn’t support the claims.
2/ None of the thrust measurements so far have been outside of experimental error.
dv said:
FMD, it’s a goldfish bowl.This story is a year old and we discussed it thoroughly at the time.
Briefly:
1/ NASA doesn’t support the claims.
2/ None of the thrust measurements so far have been outside of experimental error.
2/ None of the thrust measurements so far have been outside of experimental error.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science
I think the claims that it violates physics is wrong.
There is energy coming in and energy going out.
No violation is happening.
Fuel is different to solar energy so don’t compare it to fuel.
Tau.Neutrino said:
I think the claims that it violates physics is wrong.There is energy coming in and energy going out.
No violation is happening.
Fuel is different to solar energy so don’t compare it to fuel.
Show working…
It’s conservation of momentum that appears to be violated, not conservation of energy.
The Rev Dodgson said:
It’s conservation of momentum that appears to be violated, not conservation of energy.
The Rev Dodgson said:
It’s conservation of momentum that appears to be violated, not conservation of energy.
ah,
ok.
Some more reading, including lots of links.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RF_resonant_cavity_thruster
http://emdrive.com/