Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive???

[the_recruit]

Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive (Wired UK)

From what I've read the experiment disproved one of the theories for how it's generating thrust (asymmetry of Lorentz force). The remaining theory seems to be it's somehow pushing off of the virtual particles that are bubbling in and out of existence in a vacuum.

The whole thing is very questionable at this point. More testing is in order.

 

[grip]

Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive (Wired UK)

From what I've read the experiment disproved one of the theories for how it's generating thrust (asymmetry of Lorentz force). The remaining theory seems to be it's somehow pushing off of the virtual particles that are bubbling in and out of existence in a vacuum.

The whole thing is very questionable at this point. More testing is in order.

The science on these new thrust systems is a little beyond me but is this similar to space wave propulsion?

NASA - The Potential for Ambient Plasma Wave Propulsion

 

[the_recruit]

The science on these new thrust systems is a little beyond me but is this similar to space wave propulsion?

NASA - The Potential for Ambient Plasma Wave Propulsion

Yes, it's similar in that it doesn't require propellant. It sounds essentially like a solar sail. You're hitching a ride on the momentum of particles (or waves) like photons that are emanating from a source (like the sun). So, in a way, you're pushing off of the source (the sun).

The craft in the OP is a bit different since it seems to pushing off of ....well.... nothing.

 

[joG]

Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive (Wired UK)

From what I've read the experiment disproved one of the theories for how it's generating thrust (asymmetry of Lorentz force). The remaining theory seems to be it's somehow pushing off of the virtual particles that are bubbling in and out of existence in a vacuum.

The whole thing is very questionable at this point. More testing is in order.

I have always loved the concept of space as a vastness of boiling, bubbling dots of continuous creation and simultaneous annihilation into eternity.

 

[grip]

Yes, it's similar in that it doesn't require propellant. It sounds essentially like a solar sail. You're hitching a ride on the momentum of particles (or waves) like photons that are emanating from a source (like the sun). So, in a way, you're pushing off of the source (the sun).

The craft in the OP is a bit different since it seems to pushing off of ....well.... nothing.

Realistically, interstellar propulsion had to go in this direction, because of the impossible amount of fuel needed for long distance traveling.

For some reason, I believe that photons or antimatter are also going to be a source of energy.

I recently just heard of a theory that space expansion is being caused by invisible pockets of antimatter, repelling matter in turn creating the gravitational force. So in effect 'matter' is being forced together by the energy of 'antimatter' and its stretching effect on the quantum fabric of space. Got to admit, I'm not sure if I even got that right?

 

[grip]

I have always loved the concept of space as a vastness of boiling, bubbling dots of continuous creation and simultaneous annihilation into eternity.

I think of the whole universe as coming from one source of pure, singular energy that keeps transforming into different forms.

And one of the most interesting things about matter is how it has to pass thru this invisible field of energy (Higgs) that permeates all of space to gain mass. I guess that theory has almost been proved?

 

[joG]

I think of the whole universe as coming from one source of pure, singular energy that keeps transforming into different forms.

And one of the most interesting things about matter is how it has to pass thru this invisible field of energy (Higgs) that permeates all of space to gain mass. I guess that theory has almost been proved?

I don't know. But maybe it would be better to say that it hasn't been disproved.

 

[Gathomas88]

Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive (Wired UK)

From what I've read the experiment disproved one of the theories for how it's generating thrust (asymmetry of Lorentz force). The remaining theory seems to be it's somehow pushing off of the virtual particles that are bubbling in and out of existence in a vacuum.

The whole thing is very questionable at this point. More testing is in order.

Sooo... Basically, they're saying that a "reactionless" drive might be feasible?

Sweet. :mrgreen:

 

[Sherman123]

I was very excited but now I'm very skeptical. When I get the chance I'll post some interesting opinions I'd read that cast an unfortunately negative light on the claims. Suffice it to say the argument that it violates a fundamental law of conservation of momentum is apparently very valid for a reason. =(

 

[PoS]

I'll start to believe once NASA actually creates a working model and doesnt spend billions upon billions to do it.

 

[code1211]

NASA doesn't seem to be in the space exploration business much anymore.

They have two primary missions at this point:

Forecasting the long term climate of the planet using technology of the 19th century and

Muslim outreach.

Their forecasting of the climate is abysmal and, as for Muslim outreach, RU Kidding me?

This once proud and swaggering outfit has been reduced to this miserable and bankrupt shadow of a memory. Using NASA to enhance credibility is like using government to stimulate the economy.

 

[Jack Hays]

Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive (Wired UK)

From what I've read the experiment disproved one of the theories for how it's generating thrust (asymmetry of Lorentz force). The remaining theory seems to be it's somehow pushing off of the virtual particles that are bubbling in and out of existence in a vacuum.

The whole thing is very questionable at this point. More testing is in order.

Everyone wants to find the enabler for deep space travel, but no one wants to be sucked in by the next cold fusion. I'll be following this with interest. I wonder whether there is already classified research on this topic?eace

Science: NASA Tests 'Impossible' Space Drive - David Hambling, Wired UK

 

[grip]

I was very excited but now I'm very skeptical. When I get the chance I'll post some interesting opinions I'd read that cast an unfortunately negative light on the claims. Suffice it to say the argument that it violates a fundamental law of conservation of momentum is apparently very valid for a reason. =(

The science behind the Emdrive may be poorly understood but it's been replicated by 3 different sources. The reason it may not violate the conservation of momentum principle, because the thrust would be caused by radiation pressure imbalance due to group velocities of electromagnetic waves within the framework of special relativity. These resonant cavities may operate by creating a virtual plasma toroid that would realize net thrust using magnetohydrodynamics upon quantum vacuum fluctuations.

The principle of operation is based on the well-known phenomenon of radiation pressure. This relies on Newton’s Second Law where force is defined as the rate of change of momentum. Thus an electromagnetic (EM) wave, traveling at the speed of light has a certain momentum which it will transfer to a reflector, resulting in a tiny force. If the same EM wave is traveling at a fraction of the speed of light, the rate of change of momentum, and hence force, is reduced by that fraction. The propagation velocity of an EM wave, and the resulting force it exerts, can be varied depending on the geometry of a waveguide within which it travels.

Thus if the EM wave traveling in a tapered waveguide is bounced between two reflectors, with a large velocity difference at the reflector surfaces, the force difference will give a resultant thrust to the waveguide linking the two reflectors. If the reflectors are separated by a multiple of half the effective wavelength of the EM wave, this thrust will be multiplied by the Q of the resulting resonant cavity, as illustrated. The inevitable objection raised, is that the apparently closed system produced by this arrangement cannot result in an output force, but will merely produce strain within the waveguide walls. However, this ignores Einstein’s Special Law of Relativity in which separate frames of reference have to be applied at velocities approaching the speed of light. Thus the system of EM wave and waveguide can be regarded as an open system, with the EM wave and the waveguide having separate frames of reference.

http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdf

It's not 'reactionless' but rather 'propellantless'. The only thing needed is an electromagnetic source of energy. It almost sounds like an anti-gravity drive.

Here's an interview with Roger Shawyer explaining the Emdrive.

 

[Goshin]

Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive (Wired UK)

From what I've read the experiment disproved one of the theories for how it's generating thrust (asymmetry of Lorentz force). The remaining theory seems to be it's somehow pushing off of the virtual particles that are bubbling in and out of existence in a vacuum.

The whole thing is very questionable at this point. More testing is in order.

You beat me to it, but here's some more links and info:


Emdrive - Home

Introduction

China has also tested it and found that it works.




IF this pans out (and it is a big "if" right now), this could be HUGE. A "reactionless" drive could give us access to the whole solar system, and potentially to the stars.

 

[Goshin]

I was very excited but now I'm very skeptical. When I get the chance I'll post some interesting opinions I'd read that cast an unfortunately negative light on the claims. Suffice it to say the argument that it violates a fundamental law of conservation of momentum is apparently very valid for a reason. =(

Here's the thing: if it violates conservation of momentum, but it works, then perhaps CoM simply has exceptions we have not previously understood.


Science must change and adapt when new truth is discovered. "That is impossible because the Law of X says Y" is too much like unthinking dogmatism, IMO... when you're looking at the effect happening in front of your eyes.


What is, is.

 

[the_recruit]

The science behind the Emdrive may be poorly understood but it's been replicated by 3 different sources. The reason it may not violate the conservation of momentum principle, because the thrust would be caused by radiation pressure imbalance due to group velocities of electromagnetic waves within the framework of special relativity. These resonant cavities may operate by creating a virtual plasma toroid that would realize net thrust using magnetohydrodynamics upon quantum vacuum fluctuations.



It's not 'reactionless' but rather 'propellantless'. The only thing needed is an electromagnetic source of energy. It almost sounds like an anti-gravity drive.

Here's an interview with Roger Shawyer explaining the Emdrive.

Oh dear. His whole website reeks of crackpot. He claims it conserves momentum....but his explanation for how is very simply wrong. Some of what he says about SR is bogus as well.

I'm leaning toward experimental error with this whole thing, it smacks of the FTL neutrinos from a while back. It has never actually been tested in vacuum yet. Which is funny because the NASA paper goes into great detail explaining how their vacuum chamber works. And then they say, "yeahhhh... but we weren't able to run this experiment in a vacuum." (because the RF equipment they used wasn't vacuum-compatible) :doh

 

[Goshin]

Oh dear. His whole website reeks of crackpot. He claims it conserves momentum....but his explanation for how is very simply wrong. Some of what he says about SR is bogus as well.

I'm leaning toward experimental error with this whole thing, it smacks of the FTL neutrinos from a while back. It has never actually been tested in vacuum yet. Which is funny because the NASA paper goes into great detail explaining how their vacuum chamber works. And then they say, "yeahhhh... but we weren't able to run this experiment in a vacuum." (because the RF equipment they used wasn't vacuum-compatible) :doh

If it is experimental error, then several different tests by different researchers has resulted in the same "error".

 

[Jack Hays]

If it is experimental error, then several different tests by different researchers has resulted in the same "error".

I have no idea how this will turn out. But for some comic relief I recall that during the cold fusion controversy, ignited by claims from two Texas A&M professors as I remember, a physicist said he would like to see their results replicated by experimenters "from a university without a good football team." I like football, but that was funny.eace

 

[the_recruit]

If it is experimental error, then several different tests by different researchers has resulted in the same "error".

Uh-huh. :shrug:

I've read a number of potential explanations. The most plausible one has to do with the fact that it's never been tested in a vacuum. Because of its shape, it will develop a temperature differential between the two ends. Which means different evaporation rates between the two ends, which could be enough to account for the incredibly tiny thrusts being measured. The NASA paper mentioned that their device was so sensitive it was being affected by ocean waves in the Gulf of Mexico. Lots of room for unwanted disturbances if you're not careful.

Bottom line is that more experimentation needs to be done before we really understand what's happening.

 

[Goshin]

...

Bottom line is that more experimentation needs to be done before we really understand what's happening.

Absolutely. I have no problem with that; in fact that is my own recommendation. There should be LOTS of experimenting done right away.


I just don't want to see something this interesting thrown out without consideration because the way it functions cannot YET be fully explained.

Let's reserve judgment until it is proven or disproven.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I'll start to believe once NASA actually creates a working model and doesnt spend billions upon billions to do it.

They think they did. They tested it last week. It generated a few grams of force, which is a starting PoC.

I hope it pans out, but we will see.

 

[Sherman123]

This is a pretty convincing takedown. I'm very skeptical sadly.

Don't Get Too Excited About NASA's New Miracle Engine

 

[Goshin]

This is a pretty convincing takedown. I'm very skeptical sadly.

Don't Get Too Excited About NASA's New Miracle Engine

Keep testing until we know for sure.


Don't dump the idea just because somebody says "impossible."

 

[Slartibartfast]

Keep testing until we know for sure.


Don't dump the idea just because somebody says "impossible."

It would be cool as hell if we broke a scientific law like conservation of momentum. It would be a great time to apply for grant money! Think of the products we could then come up with, heh. Unlikely though.

Its more likely if it works, its operates on some undiscovered or poorly discovered aspect of physics

 

[Lord of Planar]

There may be something to the idea, it might be mistakes in observational results.

The 935 mhz... It's a wavelength of 3.21 cm, or 1.26"