The nasa link is to an abstract only- it says abstract only available. One presumes the rest of the paper will be available after peer review.Glad to see this has been investigated.
em-drives, ion engines, VASIMIR, Alcubrier... seem's we have a bazillion ways to go fast on very little fuel once we are up there... But we still have to deal with the rocket equation to get there in the first place. I'm waiting to see a /real/ game-changer come along... a provable means of getting out of the gravity well that beats rockets.Sadly, we are rather lacking in acceptable options there still.
Quote from: Cherokee43v6 on 08/01/2014 10:38 pmem-drives, ion engines, VASIMIR, Alcubrier... seem's we have a bazillion ways to go fast on very little fuel once we are up there... But we still have to deal with the rocket equation to get there in the first place. I'm waiting to see a /real/ game-changer come along... a provable means of getting out of the gravity well that beats rockets.Sadly, we are rather lacking in acceptable options there still.I think even if the EM thruster actually worked as advertised that it's my understanding you would still need a jet engine for an aircraft or rocket for a spacecraft to get off the ground in the first place.
Quote from: CriX on 08/01/2014 05:05 amI know very little about this, but it doesn't seem to claim free energy. Sonny describes the "q thruster" as being essentially like a water propeller, except pushing against vacuum virtual particles.... which sounds plausible... to these foolish ears. It's definitely disconcerting that even their null device produced "thrust" though. The end result for these propellantless propulsion devices is free energy, though.
I know very little about this, but it doesn't seem to claim free energy. Sonny describes the "q thruster" as being essentially like a water propeller, except pushing against vacuum virtual particles.... which sounds plausible... to these foolish ears. It's definitely disconcerting that even their null device produced "thrust" though.
This is even more exciting than the warp drive research, since if it pans out we could have practical applications almost immediately (i.e., within a couple of years). No more gravity assists would ever be necessary again.
(*) Propellantless propulsion lets you increase velocity proportional to the energy you put in.
Quote from: Optimistic Brian on 08/02/2014 05:53 amThis is even more exciting than the warp drive research, since if it pans out we could have practical applications almost immediately (i.e., within a couple of years). No more gravity assists would ever be necessary again.And free energy.(*) Propellantless propulsion lets you increase velocity proportional to the energy you put in.(*) Classical physics lets you extract energy proportional to the velocity squared.The energy may in fact come from somewhere else. That is fine. What I just do not understand is proponents not admitting to themselves how fundamental a gift this would be.Alternatively, perhaps this effect is somehow tied to a local reference frame, like pushing against water or solar wind. This would make it far less effective but still would be a vast improvement over the rocket equation. I dont know what would define that frame since I haven't seen any claim that this is the case.Not investigating these simple aspects with awesome consequences is like not taking your own claim seriously. Similarly with anyone proposing FTL without investigating how the paradoxes would be resolved. If you cannot describe these cases then you cannot describe what you are claiming to have produced.