Author Topic: FEATURE ARTICLE: Evaluating NASA's Futuristic EM Drive  (Read 198661 times)

Offline Trevor Aiden Kirkwold

  • Member
  • Posts: 6
  • Springdale, Arkansas
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: FEATURE ARTICLE: Evaluating NASA's Futuristic EM Drive
« Reply #480 on: 02/09/2016 05:14 PM »
Thank you for welcoming me into the community, I'm terrible at using social media. I see what you're getting at, and you're right on that. For satellites, the Internet of Things would be ideal for control, but with an experimental ship, or other experimental technology, it would be better off with a person controlling it, rather than an automated system.

Offline Trevor Aiden Kirkwold

  • Member
  • Posts: 6
  • Springdale, Arkansas
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: FEATURE ARTICLE: Evaluating NASA's Futuristic EM Drive
« Reply #481 on: 02/09/2016 05:20 PM »
On the topic of solar glitter, they are, simply put, Glitter-sized Photovoltaic cells that are magnetized. As far as I know, they can be applicable to almost anything, and a pickle jar of these could produce more energy than a normal Industrial solar panel.

Offline Trevor Aiden Kirkwold

  • Member
  • Posts: 6
  • Springdale, Arkansas
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: FEATURE ARTICLE: Evaluating NASA's Futuristic EM Drive
« Reply #482 on: 02/09/2016 05:21 PM »
Sorry, magnified, not magnetized.

Offline Trevor Aiden Kirkwold

  • Member
  • Posts: 6
  • Springdale, Arkansas
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: FEATURE ARTICLE: Evaluating NASA's Futuristic EM Drive
« Reply #483 on: 02/09/2016 05:25 PM »
By the way, I just joined this site today, so I'm brand-new here. Is there a forum somewhere here about possible tests to see if two hydrogen bombs launched directly at each other in deep space might create a star?

Offline philw1776

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 864
  • Seacoast NH
  • Liked: 480
  • Likes Given: 245
Re: FEATURE ARTICLE: Evaluating NASA's Futuristic EM Drive
« Reply #484 on: 02/12/2016 04:23 PM »
By the way, I just joined this site today, so I'm brand-new here. Is there a forum somewhere here about possible tests to see if two hydrogen bombs launched directly at each other in deep space might create a star?

No, but anyway nothing like that would happen.  The core of stars has many orders of magnitude of "hydrogen bomb" explosions going off in fractions of a second.
Stars need mass, HUGE amounts, and an H-bomb actually loses mass, the mass it converts to energy. E=MC^2
When the huge amount of mass in a galactic dust & gas cloud compresses because of gravitation, the center creates increasing pressure and temperature that fuses atoms, just like in a H-Bomb.  This fusion continues to "burn" and light up the outer layers of the star which we see.  No fusion at or near the surface, it's all buried in the much much higher pressures and temperatures at the core.
« Last Edit: 02/12/2016 04:24 PM by philw1776 »
“When it looks more like an alien dreadnought, that’s when you know you’ve won.”

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: FEATURE ARTICLE: Evaluating NASA's Futuristic EM Drive
« Reply #485 on: 02/24/2016 02:38 AM »
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-warp-drive-are-two-different-things-nasas-still-working-emdrive-1501268

I'm linking to this because it ... has me extremely unnerved.

Yeah, me too, Mull!

"EmDrive is based on the theory of special relativity that it is possible to convert electrical energy into thrust without the need to expel any form of repellent."

Good to know these things... even if one is late to the party!
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Tags: