Author Topic: FEATURE ARTICLE: Evaluating NASA's Futuristic EM Drive  (Read 192685 times)

Offline Norm38

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 968
  • Liked: 368
  • Likes Given: 492
Re: FEATURE ARTICLE: Evaluating NASA's Futuristic EM Drive
« Reply #80 on: 04/30/2015 12:53 PM »
Yes, the speed reduces efficiency, there are only two ways for this to work :
- The drive remembers it's original reference frame to know it's speed
- There is an absolute reference frame for the universe the drive can accelerate/decelerate against (this contradicts relativity)

If someone has an explanation on this point I'd be happy to read it.

I've seen acceleration and velocity used interchangeably.  Which is it?
Acceleration is absolute, a body is either at rest or accelerating and it takes a force to accelerate.  It at least makes some sense that force would fall off with acceleration (thrust is no longer asymmetrical?).

But for velocity?  Velocity with respect to what?  What is the frame of reference for these lab experiments conducted on the surface of a spinning rock hurtling around the sun that is also moving?

If the EM drive really is pushing against some quantum foam "ether", then an EM drive car should be able to go faster driving West than East, because going West it would be slowing down relative to absolute space-time and therefore gain acceleration.

Has anyone thought to do the experiment at two different points in Earth's orbit, when our absolute velocity vector is pointing in two different directions?

Offline sghill

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1297
  • United States
  • Liked: 1427
  • Likes Given: 1974
Re: FEATURE ARTICLE: Evaluating NASA's Futuristic EM Drive
« Reply #81 on: 04/30/2015 01:02 PM »
CNet has a loving little article (albeit a bit hyped IMHO) regarding the NSF article and associated thread this morning.  They even reached out to Paul March (poor guy, I hope we didn't ruin his day) for a quote.

http://www.cnet.com/news/nasa-tests-physics-defying-method-of-space-travel-em-drive/
Bring the thunder Elon!

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2409
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 374
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: FEATURE ARTICLE: Evaluating NASA's Futuristic EM Drive
« Reply #82 on: 04/30/2015 01:04 PM »

So this company SPR Ltd. has been working 15 years on this and the feasability of the concept is still not proven?

Well at least NASA is on it now, but I'm not optimistic.

Working for fifteen years on VERY limited funds, and having to use unpaid interns for much of the work.  (No knock against interns, just pointing out the shoestring nature of this project).

     That they've accomplished as much as they have to this point is remarkable.
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1645
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 121
Re: FEATURE ARTICLE: Evaluating NASA's Futuristic EM Drive
« Reply #83 on: 04/30/2015 01:06 PM »
I think velocity simply refers to the delta. The (theoretical) ability of the EM thruster to hover at high efficiency could be considered analogous to running a kerosene burner to fill a hot air balloon, as opposed to using the heat energy to drive a jet engine.

Oh and somebody get Paul March, Dr. Rodal and the rest a Bell's. It may yet be nothing but it would be a damn impressive nothing.
« Last Edit: 04/30/2015 01:08 PM by Lampyridae »
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Offline Jester

  • NSF Night Flyer
  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6754
  • Some Space Agency
  • Liked: 2732
  • Likes Given: 80
Re: FEATURE ARTICLE: Evaluating NASA's Futuristic EM Drive
« Reply #84 on: 04/30/2015 01:07 PM »
Great work and article, found this:

Dr. Harold "Sonny" White performs an experiment using the White-Juday Warp Field Interferometer in the Eagleworks Laboratory
« Last Edit: 04/30/2015 01:07 PM by Jester »

Offline Celebrimbor

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 413
  • Bystander
  • Brinsworth Space Centre, UK
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: FEATURE ARTICLE: Evaluating NASA's Futuristic EM Drive
« Reply #85 on: 04/30/2015 01:09 PM »
Absolutely fascinating to see the reaction on twitter (which is the "tough crowd" on the internet). About five percent "yeah right - doubt it", 20 percent "sceptical, but interesting", 25 percent "cool!", 25 percent "very interesting" and 25 percent "OMG!" ;D

Just passed 30,000 reads. About 10 percent follow through into the EM Drive threads, which is standard for an article (bar the launch/event articles, as more go through for live coverage on the forum). Main EM thread now at 512,000 views, but it's organically rising in tandem with the article boost.

One more for the "Yeah right - doubt it" camp.

It's too easy to fall into the trap of thinking "But just imagine...".  No surprise that the stats stack up that way.

I'm sceptical, but have no way of arguing one way or the other.  Keep the ISS in orbit and I'll start allowing myself some excitement.  Until then, I'll keep following those space saga's that are more likely to achieve real results.

Why don't I believe without even looking at the data?  Well, you've just got to come and hit me in the face with it - sorry.

Offline tea monster

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 281
  • Across the Universe
  • Liked: 105
  • Likes Given: 44
Re: FEATURE ARTICLE: Evaluating NASA's Futuristic EM Drive
« Reply #86 on: 04/30/2015 01:11 PM »
Page 21 of http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20130011213.pdf

Thanks for the answer Chris. My applogies, I should have been more specific, I meant the one that's labled 'Warpstar 1' and looks (probably more accurately) like the main cabin of the Fireball XL5. Sorry for the confusion.
« Last Edit: 04/30/2015 01:12 PM by tea monster »

Online Chris Bergin

Absolutely fascinating to see the reaction on twitter (which is the "tough crowd" on the internet). About five percent "yeah right - doubt it", 20 percent "sceptical, but interesting", 25 percent "cool!", 25 percent "very interesting" and 25 percent "OMG!" ;D

Just passed 30,000 reads. About 10 percent follow through into the EM Drive threads, which is standard for an article (bar the launch/event articles, as more go through for live coverage on the forum). Main EM thread now at 512,000 views, but it's organically rising in tandem with the article boost.

One more for the "Yeah right - doubt it" camp.

It's too easy to fall into the trap of thinking "But just imagine...".  No surprise that the stats stack up that way.

I'm sceptical, but have no way of arguing one way or the other.  Keep the ISS in orbit and I'll start allowing myself some excitement.  Until then, I'll keep following those space saga's that are more likely to achieve real results.

Why don't I believe without even looking at the data?  Well, you've just got to come and hit me in the face with it - sorry.

To be honest, I expected a LOT more of that sort of comment, especially on an unforgiving (mean that in the best possible way) hardcore space site like ours.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8017
  • UK
  • Liked: 1281
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: FEATURE ARTICLE: Evaluating NASA's Futuristic EM Drive
« Reply #88 on: 04/30/2015 01:18 PM »
CNet has a loving little article (albeit a bit hyped IMHO) regarding the NSF article and associated thread this morning.  They even reached out to Paul March (poor guy, I hope we didn't ruin his day) for a quote.

http://www.cnet.com/news/nasa-tests-physics-defying-method-of-space-travel-em-drive/

I read that earlier & it's by far the best article I've seen of the ones generated by this site's coverage of the matter.

As a general comment the only way sceptics on mass are going to be persuaded is data, more data & yet more data. It wouldn't be the first time in science that an idea has taken the long route to general acceptance.:D
« Last Edit: 04/30/2015 01:26 PM by Star One »

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1645
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 121
Re: FEATURE ARTICLE: Evaluating NASA's Futuristic EM Drive
« Reply #89 on: 04/30/2015 01:29 PM »
20 years ago, astronomers thought there were two options with regard to expansion.

1. Expansion will slow and reverse into the Big Crunch.
2. Expansion will slow but just keep on going.

I don't think anyone seriously expected what we know accept as the truth. That's science for you - 99.9% of the time it's business as usual with a few corrections and the rest it decides to kick over the tea cart.

But, I got excited with the Mach Effect before and that didn't really prove anything conclusive. So let's just wait and see. More bucks, maybe we'll get our Buck Rogers and his antigravity ship.
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Offline WBY1984

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 174
  • Liked: 114
  • Likes Given: 100
Re: FEATURE ARTICLE: Evaluating NASA's Futuristic EM Drive
« Reply #90 on: 04/30/2015 01:38 PM »
I've been looking around the various 'news' stories being thrown around in the wake of the NSF article, some of it very silly and sensationaliist.
The Eagleworks team seem to be decent people, I hope that they don't get reprimanded by 'the higher ups' over letting this stuff out into the popular consciousness. NASA has a vested interest in appearing non-kooky after all, and the way this is being reported by the tabloid end of the media spectrum is contrary to that.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8017
  • UK
  • Liked: 1281
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: FEATURE ARTICLE: Evaluating NASA's Futuristic EM Drive
« Reply #91 on: 04/30/2015 01:43 PM »

I've been looking around the various 'news' stories being thrown around in the wake of the NSF article, some of it very silly and sensationaliist.
The Eagleworks team seem to be decent people, I hope that they don't get reprimanded by 'the higher ups' over letting this stuff out into the popular consciousness. NASA has a vested interest in appearing non-kooky after all, and the way this is being reported by the tabloid end of the media spectrum is contrary to that.

NASA cannot be held responsible for the silliness of aspects of the Internet.

Online Chris Bergin

I've been looking around the various 'news' stories being thrown around in the wake of the NSF article, some of it very silly and sensationaliist.
The Eagleworks team seem to be decent people, I hope that they don't get reprimanded by 'the higher ups' over letting this stuff out into the popular consciousness. NASA has a vested interest in appearing non-kooky after all, and the way this is being reported by the tabloid end of the media spectrum is contrary to that.

To be fair it was well before this article. This isn't the first article on EM Drive. The difference is this "mainstream" sites are now linking to this latest article, so while they may still be using their tabloid angle, they are at least sending people who click through to us a more sane article to read.

The result is more sanity than Star Trek overall.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8017
  • UK
  • Liked: 1281
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: FEATURE ARTICLE: Evaluating NASA's Futuristic EM Drive
« Reply #93 on: 04/30/2015 01:51 PM »

I've been looking around the various 'news' stories being thrown around in the wake of the NSF article, some of it very silly and sensationaliist.
The Eagleworks team seem to be decent people, I hope that they don't get reprimanded by 'the higher ups' over letting this stuff out into the popular consciousness. NASA has a vested interest in appearing non-kooky after all, and the way this is being reported by the tabloid end of the media spectrum is contrary to that.

To be fair it was well before this article. This isn't the first article on EM Drive. The difference is this "mainstream" sites are now linking to this latest article, so while they may still be using their tabloid angle, they are at least sending people who click through to us a more sane article to read.

The result is more sanity than Star Trek overall.

It has also caused more pictures of the late Leonard Nimoy as Mr Spock to appear online around some articles. I'm sure Mr Nimoy would have approved.:)

Offline WBY1984

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 174
  • Liked: 114
  • Likes Given: 100
Re: FEATURE ARTICLE: Evaluating NASA's Futuristic EM Drive
« Reply #94 on: 04/30/2015 01:51 PM »

NASA cannot be held responsible for the silliness of aspects of the Internet.

I'm not talking about being held responsible, I'm talking about image. I'm talking about them not appreciating being exposed to something that if proven to not work out, they'll look like they're indulging in fringe science, regardless of it being legitimate research or not.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8017
  • UK
  • Liked: 1281
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: FEATURE ARTICLE: Evaluating NASA's Futuristic EM Drive
« Reply #95 on: 04/30/2015 01:53 PM »

NASA cannot be held responsible for the silliness of aspects of the Internet.

I'm not talking about being held responsible, I'm talking about image. I'm talking about them not appreciating being exposed to something that if proven to not work out, they'll look like they're indulging in fringe science, regardless of it being legitimate research or not.

But isn't it NASA's job to be on the bleeding edge of science in these areas and sometimes that works out and sometimes it doesn't when it comes to their reputation.
« Last Edit: 04/30/2015 02:32 PM by Star One »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5261
Re: FEATURE ARTICLE: Evaluating NASA's Futuristic EM Drive
« Reply #96 on: 04/30/2015 02:02 PM »
Page 21 of http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20130011213.pdf

Thanks for the answer Chris. My applogies, I should have been more specific, I meant the one that's labled 'Warpstar 1' and looks (probably more accurately) like the main cabin of the Fireball XL5. Sorry for the confusion.
The picture of "Warpstar 1"



was posted by Paul March (an engineer at NASA Eagleworks) in the EM Drive thread

see: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1331771#msg1331771

In his own words:

Quote
I have no doubt now that this quantum vacuum derived propulsion system will be able to meet and ultimately surpass my conjectured WarpStar-I concept vehicle performance that I wrote about in my STAIF-2007 paper based on Woodward's Mach Lorentz Thrusters (MLT) of the day.  A vehicle that could go from the surface of the Earth to the surface of the Moon with a crew of two and six passengers with luggage in under four hours and then return to the surface of the Earth in another 4 hours with the same payload using just one load of H2/O2 fuel cell derived electrical power assuming 500-to-1,000 N/kWe efficiency MLTs or Q-Thrusters.  And yes, I know that's a mighty big leap from the 1.0uN/Watt we currently have demonstrated at the Eagleworks Lab, but if Dr. White's QVF/MHD conjecture is anywhere close to reality, it will be doable, at least in the long term.

Best, Paul M.

Note that Paul's statement

" I know that's a mighty big leap from the 1.0uN/Watt we currently have demonstrated at the Eagleworks Lab"

refers to the measured force in a vacuum per input electric power at NASA Eagleworks.  The highest measured force per input power was 1 Newton/kiloWatt for the experiments by Prof. Yang in China with a non-superconducting truncated cone EM Drive and by Cannae LLC in the USA for their superconducting EM Drive shaped like a pillbox.
« Last Edit: 04/30/2015 02:12 PM by Rodal »

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2104
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 988
  • Likes Given: 761
Re: FEATURE ARTICLE: Evaluating NASA's Futuristic EM Drive
« Reply #97 on: 04/30/2015 02:05 PM »
Absolutely fascinating to see the reaction on twitter (which is the "tough crowd" on the internet). About five percent "yeah right - doubt it", 20 percent "sceptical, but interesting", 25 percent "cool!", 25 percent "very interesting" and 25 percent "OMG!" ;D

Just passed 30,000 reads. About 10 percent follow through into the EM Drive threads, which is standard for an article (bar the launch/event articles, as more go through for live coverage on the forum). Main EM thread now at 512,000 views, but it's organically rising in tandem with the article boost.

One more for the "Yeah right - doubt it" camp.

It's too easy to fall into the trap of thinking "But just imagine...".  No surprise that the stats stack up that way.

I'm sceptical, but have no way of arguing one way or the other.  Keep the ISS in orbit and I'll start allowing myself some excitement.  Until then, I'll keep following those space saga's that are more likely to achieve real results.

Why don't I believe without even looking at the data?  Well, you've just got to come and hit me in the face with it - sorry.

That's a good attitude. The results from these experiments are contrary to current accepted theory, so all possible experimental error needs to be eliminated. If the experiments eventually show a result that cannot be ignored, then it's time for the theorists to get to work. That's science.

In the meantime, if engineers can build devices that product usable thrust and are more efficient that current thrusters, we don't have to wait for theory to use them.

Great article guys!

Online Chris Bergin


It has also caused more pictures of the late Leonard Nimoy as Mr Spock to appear online around some articles. I'm sure Mr Nimoy would have approved.:)

"Fascinating" ;D


NASA cannot be held responsible for the silliness of aspects of the Internet.

I'm not talking about being held responsible, I'm talking about image. I'm talking about them not appreciating being exposed to something that if proven to not work out, they'll look like they're indulging in fringe science, regardless of it being legitimate research or not.

I can understand that, but at the same time if you e-mail NASA PAO and ask them for a picture of SLS, they'll show you an all-white vehicle and complain to you when you use your own artists to show it's actually got an orange core like the Shuttle ET - which is 100 percent the case (and we know they will soon change their official images to reflect).

Very loose answer, but NASA's "image" isn't even consistent internally, so if they "appreciate" this or not is not really my over-riding concern.

Online Semmel

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1082
  • Germany
  • Liked: 768
  • Likes Given: 2221
Re: FEATURE ARTICLE: Evaluating NASA's Futuristic EM Drive
« Reply #99 on: 04/30/2015 02:21 PM »
I go with "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The claim here defies known laws of physics. Therefore, the evidence must be very conclusive. So far, the evidence is enough to support further investigation, but not enough to believe the claim is true. As exciting as this is, there are tons of examples where extraordinary claims were crumbled to dust. Most recently: faster than light neutrinos, primordial gravitational waves, etc.

There are some extraordinary claims that came true though, bending of light through gravity, microwave background, etc. But these examples are VERY rare. Far rare than extraordinary claims that could not have been supported. So I will remain skeptical until there is really conclusive evidence. But I absolutely support the idea to generate this evidence, or at least try to.

Tags: