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.
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.
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!" 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.
Page 21 of http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20130011213.pdf
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 04/29/2015 11:08 pmAbsolutely 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!" 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.
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'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.
Quote from: WBY1984 on 04/30/2015 01:38 pmI'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.
NASA cannot be held responsible for the silliness of aspects of the Internet.
Quote from: Star One on 04/30/2015 01:43 pmNASA 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.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 04/30/2015 12:40 pmPage 21 of http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20130011213.pdfThanks 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.
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.
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.