• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

EMDrive

warp drive??

  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 ihatesnow

  • Guest
  • 776 posts
  • 251
  • Location:rochester new york

Posted 30 April 2015 - 04:23 PM


http://www.ibtimes.c...p-drive-1499098


Edited by caliban, 26 May 2015 - 11:33 PM.
title

  • Informative x 1

#2 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 01 May 2015 - 03:23 AM

The tl;dr:  NASA has run a key verification test on a propulsion device that converts electric power to thrust without the use of a propellant.  Newton says it can't work.  The recent NASA test showed that it produced thrust in a hard vacuum, demonstrating that it could be used in space and removing a major critique of earlier tests run at atmospheric pressure.  An existing device built in China produced 72 grams of thrust from a 2.5 kw input.  This is enough to radically alter the satellite industry, but there are claims that a superconducting version could produce orders of magnitude more thrust per watt, like 1 kg/watt. (!!)  That's hard to believe, but should it pan out, then flying cars will have arrived fairly close to the 2015 prediction in BTTF Part 2.  As if all this weren't enough, there are also hints of a "warp bubble" surrounding the device, which might eventually allow the creation of a warp drive.  This looks like a pretty big deal.  It looks like it should cut satellite launch costs by at least a factor of two, and eliminate the need for some costly service missions to the ISS.  If some of the more impressive predictions pan out, then it will dramatically alter the human technological landscape.  Even if they don't pan out, it's still a big deal, based on what's been shown already.

 

A nice general-audience article on the EM Drive:

http://www.nasaspace...istic-em-drive/

 

Megathread on NasaSpaceFlight.com regarding the drive.

http://forum.nasaspa...p?topic=36313.0

 

There's a lot of skepticism of the form "This is impossible because it's not based on physics that I understand." 


  • Good Point x 1
  • Informative x 1

#3 PWAIN

  • Guest
  • 1,288 posts
  • 241
  • Location:Melbourne

Posted 01 May 2015 - 03:45 AM

  Newton says it can't work.

 

I know it is not necessarily your interpretation but just for clarity, Newton also says particles cannot spontaneously appear and dissappear and yet quantum mechanics says different. My point is that as we progress, we find out new variants on what we understand. Not saying this thing really works...or not, but just saying needs lots of investigation given the results to date.
 


  • Well Written x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 01 May 2015 - 03:47 AM

A comment I liked on reddit:

 

 

I remain unclear on why people should be hung up so hard on "this violates physics" to the point of radical skepticism. This was apparent on reddit when the story was first breaking out. The laws of physics as we know them are wrong, and will continue to be wrong, as we learn more about our universe for the foreseeable and unforeseeable future. A million years from now we'll still be dealing with paradigm shifts. Skepticism is absolutely warranted ("I'm skeptical but let me see the evidence"), but this refusal to move forward with understanding because it "violates" what we know now, is infuriating. The universe doesn't give a single shit what you believe is right when you relatively just walked out of the jungle. It is what it is, and we either try to understand or disprove what we see or we slam the [brakes] on our own progress out of sheer ego.

 



#5 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 01 May 2015 - 04:01 AM

 

  Newton says it can't work.

 

I know it is not necessarily your interpretation but just for clarity, Newton also says particles cannot spontaneously appear and dissappear and yet quantum mechanics says different. My point is that as we progress, we find out new variants on what we understand. Not saying this thing really works...or not, but just saying needs lots of investigation given the results to date.

 

No, not my interpretation.  A lot of the "skepticism" sounds like people who don't even want to think about it, just a knee-jerk response.  Skepticism is great, but when there are working devices in three different labs on three different continents, the skepticism should be tempered by the facts on the ground.  IMHO, it should change from outright dismissal to "lets see the data, and lets talk about what experiments should be done to prove/disprove it."

 

Interestingly, transient particles in the quantum vacuum are invoked in the theory of how the device can produce thrust. 



#6 Kalliste

  • Guest
  • 1,147 posts
  • 158

Posted 01 May 2015 - 04:43 AM

Maybe this community should focus on both Anti-aging and Anti-gravity. I want my AG-belt!


  • Enjoying the show x 1

#7 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 26 May 2015 - 10:07 PM

After reviewing the subject and talking with a couple of people, I get the feeling a couple of prominent physicists somewhere along the line said "this is a perpetual motion machine!", and this set into motion some group-think. I got this impression when I spoke with Keith Henson today, he tried explain how it is a "perpetual motion machine", which made no sense to me, but perhaps I missed his point somehow. He did however say that "if it works, it works", and more testing will prove it.

 

The point is that the EMDrive appears to violate the conservation of momentum, as we understand, not that it produces limitless free energy. It seems most of the skeptics completely miss the point that the drive DOES NOT create energy. It uses energy to create motion, just like any other "drive" that has ever been known. After the energy propelling the drive runs out, it stops accelerating. Why do so many people miss this fact when declaring it a "perpetual motion machine".

 

Traditional drive: (stored)Energy->reaction->motion

 

EMDrive: (stored)Energy->motion

 

EMDrive only skips the "reaction" (momentum transfer), no energy is mysteriously created out of thin air. This is hard to visualize, or comprehend with our traditional human senses, but it is no less hard to swallow than quantum mechanics or the imaginary math which underlies it.

 

I admit I might be missing something significant, this is just my basic understanding. I am with Mr. Henson, that tests will prove it, whether or not we understand the underlying physics.


Edited by Mind, 26 May 2015 - 11:04 PM.


#8 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 27 May 2015 - 01:24 AM

It probably doesn't violate conservation of momentum if you take the momentum of the virtual particles into account, or if it does, then conservation of momentum might need a re-think.  The math underlying QM is real, albeit freaky.  I'm just wondering how many tests it will take to change skeptic's minds.  It's not like there haven't been tests. 



#9 mpe

  • Guest, F@H
  • 275 posts
  • 182
  • Location:Australia

Posted 27 May 2015 - 07:20 AM

I'm guessing its just human nature to think that where ever and when ever we are, we are at the pinnacle of all knowledge and wisdom; when in reality were just like little children on their first day of school.

So much to know and so many cherished beliefs to disregard, we've gone from gods to Newton to Einstein all the time believing that's all there is.

 

Its pretty cool really, knowing we've been wrong about most things and still surviving and advancing; getting less wrong over time.

 

Warp drive would be great, going Star Trekking all over the galaxy: but I'd greatly  prefer to be more like the immortal doctor able to travel through all of time and space.

Impossible of course, for now.

 

Mike



#10 treonsverdery

  • Guest
  • 1,312 posts
  • 161
  • Location:where I am at

Posted 18 September 2015 - 10:11 PM

I have read that EMdrive http://resonance.is/...tested-by-nasa/ could possibly function pushing against relativistically modified curvature of vacuum which from what i read would also have casimir effect components

 

it is possible that  modifying the casimir effect at the actual emdrive volume possibly with a ultraspacious aerogel like crystal or amorphousness that would modify the frequency of the casimir effects that spaced matter produces could produce more effect.  (hmmm, i may be too ignorant tocomment on this) 

 

another possibility would be a less matter ramjet where just an eentsy amount of matter could be casimir frequency spacing  optimized arranged then have the EMdrive  do its relativistic thing with that matter 

 

The ignorance amount of this description is very high.  it is possible that the EMdrive would function without the actual metal cone if the field were right, (kind of like magnetohydrodynamics) if it functions better with the actual metal cone then a plurality of shaped micromatter possibly conish (or like nested turbine shape as emdrive field is described as rotating) from a ramjet could provide nested emdrive effects at similar volume.

 


Edited by treonsverdery, 18 September 2015 - 10:20 PM.


#11 Antonio2014

  • Guest
  • 634 posts
  • 52
  • Location:Spain
  • NO

Posted 19 September 2015 - 11:56 PM

It's not knee-jerk reaction. Simply, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and in this case the evidence is very poor. The experiments in the different labs don't agree one with other. And worse, even inside an individual experiment, data don't agree (thrust is not proportional to energy used; sometimes increasing the energy increases the thrust and sometimes increasing the energy decreases the thrust). This clearly makes almost any scientist to think there is some kind of statistical/systematic error here (probably both) and thus they don't take EM drive seriously.

 

Take, for example, dark matter. There never was this kind of reaction with dark matter, although nobody has detected it directly in the last decades. Why? Because there is solid evidence of it, well done measurements that precisely agree with dark matter theory. In the case of EM Drive, measurements seem poorly taken and there is no theory explaining the claimed behaviour.


Edited by Antonio2014, 19 September 2015 - 11:58 PM.


#12 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 20 September 2015 - 04:47 PM

It's not knee-jerk reaction. Simply, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and in this case the evidence is very poor. The experiments in the different labs don't agree one with other. And worse, even inside an individual experiment, data don't agree (thrust is not proportional to energy used; sometimes increasing the energy increases the thrust and sometimes increasing the energy decreases the thrust). This clearly makes almost any scientist to think there is some kind of statistical/systematic error here (probably both) and thus they don't take EM drive seriously.

 

Take, for example, dark matter. There never was this kind of reaction with dark matter, although nobody has detected it directly in the last decades. Why? Because there is solid evidence of it, well done measurements that precisely agree with dark matter theory. In the case of EM Drive, measurements seem poorly taken and there is no theory explaining the claimed behaviour.

 

But not taking it seriously is essentially dismissing it.  There are several ways one could react to something like the Emdrive.  One could: 1) embrace it unquestioningly; 2) Say "this is interesting, we should experiment further with it and see if it pans out and if we can understand it." ; 3) Dismiss it as some sort of nonsense.   I think that responses 1 and 3 are just flip sides of the same non-scientific coin.  

 

When multiple labs are measuring thrust, that suggests that a real phenomenon is occurring.  That they are seeing different levels of thrust per input power sounds more like an engineering problem than an indication that the entire phenomenon is an artifact.  If we dismiss a phenomenon because we don't yet have a solid theoretical understanding, the progress of science is going to be slowed dramatically.  For example, the early observation of high temperature superconductivity in perovskite-like structures was made prior to the development of a theoretical understanding.  The lack of a solid theory didn't stop inorganic chemists from experimenting with them and pushing critical temperatures ever higher.   Actually, I think there are some theoretical proposals to explain the Emdrive phenomenon, although they are probably not fully developed.   Considering the dramatic improvement this technology could make to our space capabilities, not to mention terrestrial aeronautics, it would be foolish not to experiment with these systems at the present time, regardless of the state of theory.
 



#13 Antonio2014

  • Guest
  • 634 posts
  • 52
  • Location:Spain
  • NO

Posted 22 September 2015 - 12:52 PM

I see no problem in dismissing poorly done research. If you want people to take you seriously, do serious work.

 

"When multiple labs are measuring thrust, that suggests that a real phenomenon is occurring."

 

Nope. When multiple labs are measuring thrust and their results are all different, that suggests that the phenomenon is actually an artifact of experimental errors.

 

"For example, the early observation of high temperature superconductivity in perovskite-like structures was made prior to the development of a theoretical understanding."

 

That's different. It had solid experimental evidence. Also, it didn't contradict basic physical theories (like conservation of momentum), but simply we don't understand why it happens. The EM Drive is in contradiction with well established principles, and worse, the theoretical explanation presented at first (involving special relativity) contained errors.

 

 



#14 Antonio2014

  • Guest
  • 634 posts
  • 52
  • Location:Spain
  • NO

Posted 22 September 2015 - 02:20 PM

This guy explains it better than myself: http://www.preposter...ific-reasoning/



#15 DeadMeat

  • Guest
  • 151 posts
  • 160

Posted 23 September 2015 - 02:25 AM

I see no problem in dismissing poorly done research. If you want people to take you seriously, do serious work.

 

"When multiple labs are measuring thrust, that suggests that a real phenomenon is occurring."

 

Nope. When multiple labs are measuring thrust and their results are all different, that suggests that the phenomenon is actually an artifact of experimental errors.

 

"For example, the early observation of high temperature superconductivity in perovskite-like structures was made prior to the development of a theoretical understanding."

 

That's different. It had solid experimental evidence. Also, it didn't contradict basic physical theories (like conservation of momentum), but simply we don't understand why it happens. The EM Drive is in contradiction with well established principles, and worse, the theoretical explanation presented at first (involving special relativity) contained errors.

 

Those labs all used different engines, types of cavities and conditions. It would have been really wierd if none of those things mattered and they all got the same result. According to Shawyer those differences in thrust per input power are due to differences in cavity Q values used. With a higher specific force(mN/kW) at higher cavity Q values. Which is why they are trying to maximize that with superconducting materials and what not for their second generation EM drive.

Also Shawyer doesn't claim it violates conservation of momentum or energy. I don't know how. But they seem to have measured both thrust and reaction forces.

See table 1 and figure 1 of this study.
Full text:
http://www.emdrive.c...lishedpaper.pdf



#16 motorcitykid

  • Guest
  • 276 posts
  • 71
  • Location:New York

Posted 04 November 2015 - 02:51 PM

It worked again!

Here's NASA Engineer Paul March on latest EM Drive test:

http://forum.nasaspa...0938#msg1440938

 



#17 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 04 November 2015 - 06:45 PM

I blogged about it today: http://addins.waow.c...ulative-physics



#18 Clifford Greenblatt

  • Member
  • 355 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Owings Mills, MD

Posted 28 November 2015 - 02:49 AM

Also Shawyer doesn't claim it violates conservation of momentum or energy. I don't know how. But they seem to have measured both thrust and reaction forces.


 

 

From what I recall, momentum conservation would be accounted for by interaction with virtual particles. Reference to virtual particles was used in a successful explanation of radiation from black holes, so it might somehow work in accounting for conservation of EM drive momentum. It may still remain to be proven that the interaction is not ultimately with the earth. If the EM drives proves successful, space ships could travel orders of magnitude faster than they do now.



#19 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 30 November 2015 - 04:30 PM

After reading a bit more, I can see how some people call it a free energy device, being that it only needs to be "energized" in order to begin motion.



#20 Antonio2014

  • Guest
  • 634 posts
  • 52
  • Location:Spain
  • NO

Posted 30 November 2015 - 08:53 PM

No, that's not the reason. http://www.cs.utep.e...013/tr13-53.pdf



#21 Multivitz

  • Guest
  • 550 posts
  • -47
  • Location:UK
  • NO

Posted 20 December 2015 - 10:05 PM

The reason it works is because our current fundermental knowledge blinds people to the fact that gravity iS a type of Magnetic field. So modulation of this natural magnetic phenomena will show thrust, the question is will it work when outside a gravity field.
The modulation of pulse electric is suited to semiconductors and stable molecular crystal geometry.
Poo pooing the idea is the job of idiots who think they know better and seem to give themselfs brownie points everytime they call someone a troll.
Well, trusted NASA are getting some probes ready to retest the Van Allen belts, for safety of radiation in space for manned flight. Lol
It's the corperations who are holding back, and all the brain washed self important materialist living in motivational fear. Just saying....
  • Needs references x 1
  • Ill informed x 1

#22 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 21 December 2015 - 02:53 AM

I remain unclear on why people should be hung up so hard on "this violates physics" to the point of radical skepticism

 

Violating physical law as we know it is fine.  You just need to have powerful evidence for it.  They don't.  There are millions of other crackpot ideas out there too; and a couple of them are probably true by shear luck.  If by some tiny probability this idea ends up actually working the way that it is proposed it won't be because the inventors had some deeper understanding of the world than the rest of us, it will be because there are billions of people out there doing random things and sometimes by shear luck some of them work (trying a lot of random things can sometimes be a good strategy, its just important not to believe in any of them in advance of evidence or you end up proving n rays).

 

Being skeptical and having a strong bullshit detector are indispensable to any scientist.



#23 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 21 December 2015 - 03:56 AM

 

I remain unclear on why people should be hung up so hard on "this violates physics" to the point of radical skepticism

 

Violating physical law as we know it is fine.  You just need to have powerful evidence for it.  They don't.  There are millions of other crackpot ideas out there too; and a couple of them are probably true by shear luck.  If by some tiny probability this idea ends up actually working the way that it is proposed it won't be because the inventors had some deeper understanding of the world than the rest of us, it will be because there are billions of people out there doing random things and sometimes by shear luck some of them work (trying a lot of random things can sometimes be a good strategy, its just important not to believe in any of them in advance of evidence or you end up proving n rays).

 

Being skeptical and having a strong bullshit detector are indispensable to any scientist.

 

Well of course they don't have powerful evidence, as only a few experiments have been done.  The question is how to proceed at this point.  Do we stop all work?  Or do we allow some more experiments to be run in order to develop a better understanding of the system?  Skepticism and bullshit detection are important, but they become pathological when we allow them to shut down an avenue of inquiry because it doesn't agree with our present guess as to how the universe works, or we just don't understand how the thing works but it has a superficial appearance of violating physical laws.


  • Good Point x 1

#24 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 21 December 2015 - 04:41 AM

Do we stop all work?  Or do we allow some more experiments to be run in order to develop a better understanding of the system?

 

No of course we don't do anything.  I certainly wouldn't want to disallow aspiring scientists from trying some experiments they think might have value even if I think they are full of it.  I invite any who have reached a certain threshold of lack of disbelief in this project to test it out for yourselves.  This is a really simple device and they are claiming to be generating around 100 micronewtons of force, that's about 10 mg.  You should be able to read that with a cheap scale easily.

 

Failing in a lot of experiments is a great way to start growing the extreme pessimism and skepticism you need to be a good scientist. This doesn't mean that you shouldn't try things that you are reasonably certain won't work, because I try lots of experiments that I think won't work because the payoff is high if they do, you just need certain thresholds because there are literally infinite random things to try and I'm not immortal and if I was I'd still worry about the heat death of the universe.


Edited by eternaltraveler, 22 December 2015 - 02:51 AM.

  • Agree x 1

#25 Antonio2014

  • Guest
  • 634 posts
  • 52
  • Location:Spain
  • NO

Posted 21 December 2015 - 08:15 AM

Well of course they don't have powerful evidence, as only a few experiments have been done.  The question is how to proceed at this point.  Do we stop all work?  Or do we allow some more experiments to be run in order to develop a better understanding of the system?  Skepticism and bullshit detection are important, but they become pathological when we allow them to shut down an avenue of inquiry because it doesn't agree with our present guess as to how the universe works

 

They aren't pathological at all and we shutdown BS research all the time, because those "avenues" are literally infinite and there is so much promising research outside it. This EMdrive woo has no solid experimental data supporting it, it is in contradiction with millions of experimental data, and the theories presented to explain it have noob mathematical errors (when they tried to use special relativity to explain it) or is only mumbo jumbo that explains nothing (like the "explanation" using "warp bubbles").
 



#26 Multivitz

  • Guest
  • 550 posts
  • -47
  • Location:UK
  • NO

Posted 23 December 2015 - 09:21 PM

Yes, the math from special relativity is based around bending space, it's incomplete and contracictory to be frank. I'm a fan of the Electric Universe explanations. The Burkland current observasions are spot on imo. High voltage harmonics in RF, say 2 fields and a magnetic reactant field to modulate the total harmonics. Should work a treat if the frequencies are tuned with the correct math procedure(values). Making a superficial field with scalar wave math should be possible, The frequencey is about 6.8 herz, I would be very cautious of going lower, saftey in these types of experiments needs research and advice. The frequency has to have very fine adjustment abilities.
  • Ill informed x 1
  • Disagree x 1

#27 Antonio2014

  • Guest
  • 634 posts
  • 52
  • Location:Spain
  • NO

Posted 24 December 2015 - 02:34 PM

Yes, the math from special relativity is based around bending space

 

No, it's not. Stop trolling.



#28 mpe

  • Guest, F@H
  • 275 posts
  • 182
  • Location:Australia

Posted 25 December 2015 - 10:16 AM

Immortality Institute...... Your B/S detectors must have gone off the charts when you first read that name.

 

Merry Christmas

 

Mike


  • Agree x 1




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users