Em Drive Thrust Confirmed According To Nasa

[ContraBardus]

From Wired [uK]...

 

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive

 

 

US scientist, Guido Fetta, has built his own propellant-less microwave thruster, and managed to persuade Nasa to test it out. The test results were presented on July 30 at the 50th Joint Propulsion Conference in Cleveland, Ohio. Astonishingly enough, they are positive.

The Nasa team based at the Johnson Space Centre gave its paper the title "Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF [radio frequency] Test Device Measured on a Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum". The five researchers spent six days setting up test equipment followed by two days of experiments with various configurations. These tests included using a "null drive" similar to the live version but modified so it would not work, and using a device which would produce the same load on the apparatus to establish whether the effect might be produced by some effect unrelated to the actual drive. They also turned the drive around the other way to check whether that had any effect.

 

[bornagainathiest]

When examining all such claims, the default position is skepticism, not belief.

.

.

.

No doubt Pantheory will have something to say about this article.

.

.

.

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[mymistake]

Cool!  We need something like that if we want probes to cross a greater distance in a reasonable amount

 

of time.  Time to start exploring the outer planets in greater detail.  Maybe once we improve the drive we

 

can launch a multi-century mission to alpha centari. 

[Thurisaz]

I will just repeat my statement on the earlier EM drive thread we had... I'll love it once it's definitely confirmed that this thing works. Until then, I'll be waiting

[ContraBardus]

When examining all such claims, the default position is skepticism, not belief.

.

.

.

No doubt Pantheory will have something to say about this article.

.

.

.

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

The article is from Wired, so of course it's with a grain of salt. The thread title was taken from the article.

 

It helps that there's an actual paper linked to it and that it's supported by similar results from other sources. The paper itself says that more confirmation through other independent sources is needed, but also confirms that tests yielded positive results for thrust.

 

I wouldn't call it 'a known fact' just yet, but it's well on it's way to being pretty credible.

 

No one is really sure exactly how it works if these results are indeed legit. Results seem to suggest that it may be a practical solution to several propulsion issues in space though. We'll see how it pans out in the end.

[Jeff]

... Maybe once we improve the drive we

can launch a multi-century mission to alpha centari.

I'm watching that show now.

[pantheory]

As I said before, I have spent considerable time studying this technology. As to the article posted, there are a number of such articles from a number of different sources saying generally the same thing based upon a recent German paper. Here is another link: 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/11769030/Impossible-rocket-drive-works-and-could-get-to-Moon-in-four-hours.html

 

In my opinion there is still a lot of hype involved but from what I have read there appears to be overwhelming evidence before that showed that this technology works. This is another confirmation. Now there is a lot of private companies and probably a number of different countries, China being one, that have an ongoing development plan for this technology. As far as I have read the financing to develop this technology is still meager because of the skepticism of mainstream physicists. Supporters believe this technology will be a game changer for multiple types of transportation. If just one country gets a substantial head-start concerning this technology they will control the economics of space technology. I would expect that present technologies could not economically compete.

 

Some possibilities could be such a country would be the driving force in a new space race that eventually would involve huge dollars from all the big players. Mining the asteroid belt first might lay claim to trillions of dollars in precious medals there. Satellite launches would be much cheaper, and space travel would be much cheaper and faster. To start with this technology will likely replace ion drive. Later on I expect this technology will be linked up with fission of fusion reactors once in space since EM drive requires electricity for fuel, and solar cells would only be good for low thrust propulsion.

 

If this device pans out as hoped it will be a total game changer for many types of transportation. For instance, a 747 sized aircraft with passengers could fly from a normal jet take-off right into space. I would expect there would be a stop over at an orbital space station where other EM drive spacecrafts would fly to final destinations within the solar system.

 

Many are very hopeful, but as the saying goes, "there is many a slip between the cup and the lip," meaning that the development of fully functional EM drive spacecraft will meet many obstacles along the way. If all goes well, I expect it will still take some time for development of this technology because nobody that I know of is putting big money into this technology as yet. But whoever gets there first may make huge profits with many other advantages.

[bornagainathiest]

What does..."fission of fusion reactors"... mean, Pantheory?

[pantheory]

What does..."fission of fusion reactors"... mean, Pantheory?

 

Should have been "fission or fusion reactors"

[bornagainathiest]

 

What does..."fission of fusion reactors"... mean, Pantheory?

 

Should have been "fission or fusion reactors"

 

 

Ah.. thanks.  I was puzzled.

.

.

.

Btw, I hope this does pan out. (Couldn't resist the pun.)

.

.

.

I'm not anti-science or anti-progress.

Such a mode of transport would be an amazing leap forward for the human race.  I simply harbor reservations about this.  Those reservations may well vanish when (or if) the EM drive is fully and unreservedly embraced and explained by the mainstream scientific establishment.  Until then, their reluctance to give it their seal of approval prevents me from doing any more than reserving my judgement.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA. 

[ContraBardus]

I get the impression this isn't really something that's for use in atmospheric conditions. I think using it to actually leave the atmosphere is unlikely to be practical.

 

From the sound of it the idea is that the thrust is constant and doesn't require solid or liquid fuel, meaning a rechargeable battery can run it. It doesn't sound like it's particularly powerful as far as the amount of force it creates. From what I've gathered it would require an enormous amount of energy to provide enough thrust to move any object of significant size and weight around within the atmosphere or to work against the Earth's gravity enough to get into or break free from orbit.

 

Out in space though things are a little different, and that is what it seems like it will be most suited for. At least, that's the impression I've been getting from the various articles I've seen about the EmDrive anyway.

[pantheory]

 

 

What does..."fission of fusion reactors"... mean, Pantheory?

 

Should have been "fission or fusion reactors"

 

 

Ah.. thanks.  I was puzzled.

.

.

.

Btw, I hope this does pan out. (Couldn't resist the pun.)

.

.

.

I'm not anti-science or anti-progress.

Such a mode of transport would be an amazing leap forward for the human race.  I simply harbor reservations about this.  Those reservations may well vanish when (or if) the EM drive is fully and unreservedly embraced and explained by the mainstream scientific establishment.  Until then, their reluctance to give it their seal of approval prevents me from doing any more than reserving my judgement.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA. 

 

 

As the saying goes, you can't argue with success. Once an operating prototype is built mainstream science will be forced to come up with theories to explain it. I think Sonny White of NASA so far has the best explanation, better, I think, than the inventor's explanation. Dr. White's explanation is based upon internal microwaves acting upon the Zero Point Field, and the virtual particles therein. It may be close to impossible, I think, to prove how this device works in the foreseeable future.

[pantheory]

I get the impression this isn't really something that's for use in atmospheric conditions. I think using it to actually leave the atmosphere is unlikely to be practical.

 

From the sound of it the idea is that the thrust is constant and doesn't require solid or liquid fuel, meaning a rechargeable battery can run it. It doesn't sound like it's particularly powerful as far as the amount of force it creates. From what I've gathered it would require an enormous amount of energy to provide enough thrust to move any object of significant size and weight around within the atmosphere or to work against the Earth's gravity enough to get into or break free from orbit.

 

Out in space though things are a little different, and that is what it seems like it will be most suited for. At least, that's the impression I've been getting from the various articles I've seen about the EmDrive anyway.

 

From what I have read one of the biggest advantages of EM drive will be a spacecraft that can take-off from the ground and fly directly into space without extra high speeds or heavy acceleration to start with. It could be a conventional aircraft with a big electric generator that would power the EM drive once the maximum altitude is reached by conventional means. The EM drive system could then take over powering the aircraft into space.

[ContraBardus]

 

I get the impression this isn't really something that's for use in atmospheric conditions. I think using it to actually leave the atmosphere is unlikely to be practical.

 

From the sound of it the idea is that the thrust is constant and doesn't require solid or liquid fuel, meaning a rechargeable battery can run it. It doesn't sound like it's particularly powerful as far as the amount of force it creates. From what I've gathered it would require an enormous amount of energy to provide enough thrust to move any object of significant size and weight around within the atmosphere or to work against the Earth's gravity enough to get into or break free from orbit.

 

Out in space though things are a little different, and that is what it seems like it will be most suited for. At least, that's the impression I've been getting from the various articles I've seen about the EmDrive anyway.

 

From what I have read one of the biggest advantages of EM drive will be a spacecraft that can take-off from the ground and fly directly into space without extra high speeds or heavy acceleration to start with. It could be a conventional aircraft with a big electrical generator that would power the EM drive once the maximum altitude is reached by conventional means. The EM drive system could then take over powering the aircraft into space.

 

 

I haven't gotten that idea at all. Most of what I've read has to do with getting them into space with conventional methods, but that less fuel will be needed because the EM drive can move craft or satellites around once in space without the use of fuel to run it. Even Ion engines use a little and it's closer in thrust output to something like that than a rocket that can take something into orbit..

 

If the drive works as advertised it has several advantages, one of which is less weight to push into space because the drive doesn't need a fuel load to work. I don't get the impression that it produces enough thrust to actually go from the ground to orbit, it's just something that might provide enough constant force to make long distance trips and more efficient satellites that weight less and don't use as much space as conventional propulsion methods. It's something that is meant to gradually accelerate and slow down over long distances, not blast from the ground and into the air.

 

I've not seen anyone suggest that it might be used to go from the ground to orbit and beyond at all. At least, no one that wasn't speculating into the realm of sci-fi dreaming rather than practical application from what we know of it so far.

[pantheory]

 

I haven't gotten that idea at all. Most of what I've read has to do with getting them into space with conventional methods, but that less fuel will be needed because the EM drive can move craft or satellites around once in space without the use of fuel to run it. Even Ion engines use a little and it's closer in thrust output to something like that than a rocket that can take something into orbit..

 

If the drive works as advertised it has several advantages, one of which is less weight to push into space because the drive doesn't need a fuel load to work. I don't get the impression that it produces enough thrust to actually go from the ground to orbit, it's just something that might provide enough constant force to make long distance trips and more efficient satellites that weight less and don't use as much space as conventional propulsion methods. It's something that is meant to gradually accelerate and slow down over long distances, not blast from the ground and into the air.

 

I've not seen anyone suggest that it might be used to go from the ground to orbit and beyond at all. At least, no one that wasn't speculating into the realm of sci-fi dreaming rather than practical application from what we know of it so far.

 

 

Here is a link to the second generation EM drive space-plane by the developing company. A heavy lift engine is needed for this design. There are a lot of development hurtles now still in the concept stage, but It may be a matter of primarily funds and manpower concerning how long it might take.

 

http://emdrive.com/hybridlaunch.html

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

What does..."fission of fusion reactors"... mean, Pantheory?

 

Should have been "fission or fusion reactors"

 

 

Ah.. thanks.  I was puzzled.

.

.

.

Btw, I hope this does pan out. (Couldn't resist the pun.)

.

.

.

I'm not anti-science or anti-progress.

Such a mode of transport would be an amazing leap forward for the human race.  I simply harbor reservations about this.  Those reservations may well vanish when (or if) the EM drive is fully and unreservedly embraced and explained by the mainstream scientific establishment.  Until then, their reluctance to give it their seal of approval prevents me from doing any more than reserving my judgement.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA. 

 

 

As the saying goes, you can't argue with success. Once an operating prototype is built mainstream science will be forced to come up with theories to explain it. I think Sonny White of NASA so far has the best explanation, better, I think, than the inventor's explanation. Dr. White's explanation is based upon internal microwaves acting upon the Zero Point Field, and the virtual particles therein. It may be close to impossible, I think, to prove how this device works in the foreseeable future.

 

 

I agree. But only up to a point. 

 

Asking people to pilot jet aircraft or rockets is a calculated risk, based upon what is known about these machines.  

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe that there's next to nothing that remains unknown about how jets and rockets work, right?

Also, there's nothing about jets or rockets that appears to violate the known principles of science, yes?

 

But can we really ask people to pilot vehicles powered by a device whose working principles are... "impossible to discover"...?

 

Will any corporation or government stump up the funds for a project, if the workings of the device in question defies explanation...?

 

Who will sink money into unexplained and inexplicable "magic"...?

 

[ContraBardus]

 

 

I haven't gotten that idea at all. Most of what I've read has to do with getting them into space with conventional methods, but that less fuel will be needed because the EM drive can move craft or satellites around once in space without the use of fuel to run it. Even Ion engines use a little and it's closer in thrust output to something like that than a rocket that can take something into orbit..

 

If the drive works as advertised it has several advantages, one of which is less weight to push into space because the drive doesn't need a fuel load to work. I don't get the impression that it produces enough thrust to actually go from the ground to orbit, it's just something that might provide enough constant force to make long distance trips and more efficient satellites that weight less and don't use as much space as conventional propulsion methods. It's something that is meant to gradually accelerate and slow down over long distances, not blast from the ground and into the air.

 

I've not seen anyone suggest that it might be used to go from the ground to orbit and beyond at all. At least, no one that wasn't speculating into the realm of sci-fi dreaming rather than practical application from what we know of it so far.

 

 

Here is a link to the second generation EM drive space-plane by the developing company. A heavy lift engine is needed for this design. There are a lot of development hurtles now still in the concept stage, but It may be a matter of primarily funds and manpower concerning how long it might take.

 

http://emdrive.com/hybridlaunch.html

 

 

Interesting, but I'm unsure how feasible this actually is. It may just be a throwaway design that speculates a lot that may or may not be true.

 

It seems like it may just be a dream concept that perhaps overestimates what the drive is actually capable of. There's a lot we still don't know about it yet so it's hard to say.

 

We're still not the the point where we can say the drive itself actually works for sure.

 

Would be cool if it could work that way, but I'm skeptical. It seems like the power required for that kind of output might make it less practical than just using conventional fuel propulsion. It's really impossible to say one way or the other until the EmDrive is proven to work and it's capabilities and limitations are known.

[pantheory]

 

 

 

 

What does..."fission of fusion reactors"... mean, Pantheory?

 

Should have been "fission or fusion reactors"

 

 

Ah.. thanks.  I was puzzled.

.

.

.

Btw, I hope this does pan out. (Couldn't resist the pun.)

.

.

.

I'm not anti-science or anti-progress.

Such a mode of transport would be an amazing leap forward for the human race.  I simply harbor reservations about this.  Those reservations may well vanish when (or if) the EM drive is fully and unreservedly embraced and explained by the mainstream scientific establishment.  Until then, their reluctance to give it their seal of approval prevents me from doing any more than reserving my judgement.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA. 

 

 

As the saying goes, you can't argue with success. Once an operating prototype is built mainstream science will be forced to come up with theories to explain it. I think Sonny White of NASA so far has the best explanation, better, I think, than the inventor's explanation. Dr. White's explanation is based upon internal microwaves acting upon the Zero Point Field, and the virtual particles therein. It may be close to impossible, I think, to prove how this device works in the foreseeable future.

 

 

I agree. But only up to a point. 

 

Asking people to pilot jet aircraft or rockets is a calculated risk, based upon what is known about these machines.  

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe that there's next to nothing that remains unknown about how jets and rockets work, right?

Also, there's nothing about jets or rockets that appears to violate the known principles of science, yes?

 

But can we really ask people to pilot vehicles powered by a device whose working principles are... "impossible to discover"...?

 

Will any corporation or government stump up the funds for a project, if the workings of the device in question defies explanation...?

 

Who will sink money into unexplained and inexplicable "magic"...?

 

 

 

Certainly you have explained a major problem.  Few if any agree with the inventor's explanation of how the device works but there are people who believe they understand how it works. The Chinese believe they properly explained the device via electro-magnetic theory. I have my own explanation more in line with Sonny White's explanation of NASA. Since small-scale working proto-types exist, the rewards for a full-scale working proto-type could be huge, so there will always be investors when rewards could be so big.

 

There exists a list of hundreds of volunteers for a one way trip to Mars, so for the same reasons I think it would be no problem to find test pilots for such a space-plane. Naturally I expect there would be a number of auto-piloted flights first before a piloted flight were attempted. I would try to pilot it myself if for some reason I would be accepted.

[pantheory]

 

Interesting, but I'm unsure how feasible this actually is. It may just be a throwaway design that speculates a lot that may or may not be true.

 

It seems like it may just be a dream concept that perhaps overestimates what the drive is actually capable of. There's a lot we still don't know about it yet so it's hard to say.

 

We're still not the the point where we can say the drive itself actually works for sure.

 

Would be cool if it could work that way, but I'm skeptical. It seems like the power required for that kind of output might make it less practical than just using conventional fuel propulsion. It's really impossible to say one way or the other until the EmDrive is proven to work and it's capabilities and limitations are known.

 

 

True. This second generation high-powered heavy-lift device could be no more than speculation based upon the success of the first generation device no bigger than a Tuba and a suitcase combined, but I believe there now is indisputable evidence that the first generation device works and that there is now a good chance that at least a low-thrust accelerating device will be developed from this technology.

[bornagainathiest]

Hello again Pantheory.

 

I'm puzzled!

 

It's like this.

Today I see a good deal of enthusiasm in your posts in this thread.  Nothing wrong with that.  As I said earlier, if this device delivers the goods and is explicable, then I'm all for it.  We (the human race) could be on the cusp of a technological breakthru that'll change our civilization in ways we can't even imagine yet.  But before we lose ourselves among the stars (metaphorically speaking) let me draw your attention to something that perplexes me.  This 'something' is an apparent disconnect that I see when I compare some information that you've linked to today, with some information you wrote several months ago.  In my mind, I can't 'fit' these two items together.  So I'm hoping that you can explain how they do fit. Ok?

 

Item # 1

 

On this page...

 

http://emdrive.com/principle.html

 

...there's a diagram of the engine concept, followed by this block of text.

 

"The inevitable objection raised, is that the apparently closed system produced by this arrangement cannot result in an output force, but will merely strain within the waveguide walls.  However, this ignores Einstein's Special Law of Relativity in which separate frames of reference have to be applied at velocities approaching the speed of light.  Thus the system of EM wave and waveguide can be regarded as an open system, with the EM wave and the waveguide having separate frames of reference." 

 

So Pantheory, it seems to me (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that acceptance of the validity of Shaywer's Relativistic explanation of the EMDrive requires an acceptance of Einstein's theories of Relativity?

.

.

.

Item # 2

 

In the post # 137 of the, 'NASA May Have Accidentally Figured Out How To Make A Warp Drive' thread, back in April, you informed us that you believe that much of modern physics (including Einsteinian Relativity and Quantum Physics) is wrong and that you have developed an alternative theory of your own - the Pantheory.

 

Do you see my problem?

 

I can't seem to 'fit' your personal rejection of Einsteinian physics with your (apparent) acceptance of Shawyers Einsteinian description of the working principles of the EMDrive.

 

Nor can I 'fit' your personal rejection of Quantum physics with your (apparent) acceptance of Harold 'Sonny' White's Quantum Vacuum explanation of the workings of the EMDrive.

 

Can you help me out please?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[pantheory]

Item #1

 

I really don't understand Shawyer's explanations as they relate to his EM Drive. As I said, I have my own understandings concerning how EM Drive might work, right or wrong.

 

Item #2

 

As to Einsteinian physics, I don't necessarily disagree with the related equations of SR and GR but disagree with the explanations of both for reasons unrelated to this thread.

 

So I believe there is no contradiction since I disagree with both the explanations of Shawyer and of Einstein's theories of Relativity (warped space etc.).

 

Quantum Physics, on the other hand, I believe is no better than a bad joke concerning its explanations of the quantum world. Yes its equations and statistics are presently the best we have concerning making predictions of the quantum world because such equations and statistics are phenomenological, based on more than 80 years of observations to formulate such math.

 

Sonny White's explanations of EM Drive have nothing to do with quantum physics theory; they relate to a known entity, the Zero Point Field and its known characteristics. Although my own explanations are different from Dr. White's, his are closer to mine than any other that I have read, not that my explanations are necessarily correct.

[bornagainathiest]

Item #1

 

I really don't understand Shawyer's explanations as they relate to his EM Drive. As I said, I have my own understandings concerning how EM Drive might work, right or wrong.

 

Item #2

 

As to Einsteinian physics, I don't necessarily disagree with the related equations of SR and GR but disagree with the explanations of both for reasons unrelated to this thread.

 

So I believe there is no contradiction since I disagree with both the explanations of Shawyer and of Einstein's theories of Relativity (warped space etc.).

 

Quantum Physics, on the other hand, I believe is no better than a bad joke concerning its explanations of the quantum world. Yes its equations and statistics are presently the best we have concerning making predictions of the quantum world because such equations and statistics are phenomenological, based on more than 80 years of observations to formulate such math.

 

Sonny White's explanations of EM Drive have nothing to do with quantum physics theory; they relate to a known entity, the Zero Point Field and its known characteristics. Although my own explanations are different from Dr. White's, his are closer to mine than any other that I have read, not that my explanations are necessarily correct.

 

Thanks for the clarification, Pantheory.

 

My bad for mistaking White's usage of the word's 'Quantum Vacuum' to mean something related to Quantum Physics.  

 

Articles like this one, which declare that the Zero Point Energy is an intrinsic and unavoidable part of quantum physics, must therefore be false.

 

 http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/follow-up-what-is-the-zer/

 

Thanks for clearing this up for me.

 

BAA.

[RogueScholar]

Hey BAA, the quantum mechanical picture is even more solid than you could imagine. I believe I posted this a while back, but it's worth a redux since we are yet again going in a direction where somebody here does not "believe" in quantum mechanics. I'll once again bring up chemistry as QM in many direct ways explains much of contemporary chemistry.

 

The QM model describes a probabilistic model of an electron. Everything that can be known about an electron in an atomic system is contained within a concept known as a wavefunction. In QM, the basic problem involves taking an operator, something that acts on the wavefunction, then solving for wavefunction after it is acted upon by this operator. In the case of QM the operator is basically kinetic and potential energy acting on the wavefunction. Solving for the wavefunction gives us a set of numbers or so called quantum numbers. These numbers define everything that can be known about the electron. In addition, we can take what are known as eigenvalues. These eigenvalues typically represent the energy that binds the electron to the nucleus. The interesting thing is that these quantum numbers represent states where a fundamental amount of uncertainty exists with certain variables. You can think of the uncertainty coming down to energy versus position. The more we know about one, the less we known about the other. Typically, when we solve the wavefunction, we know the energy very accurately, so position suffers.

 

If QM is to work, I posit that testing it's predictions should give us accurate energy levels of electrons but uncertainty when it comes to position. I point to the fact that QM is exquisitely accurate at measuring energy levels as this is the entire field of spectroscopy. In fact, my profile picture is a spectroscopic image of the energy levels of a Hydrogen atom in visible light, AKA the Balmer series.

 

So, what about the other part of the prediction? The location of the electron must be uncertain or QM isn't a good model. Well, back in 2013, using a technique where a laser causes the electron to leave the atom or what we say ionises the atom. We detect the electron, then allow the electron to "fall" back to the atom. This is done many, many times. The "picture" that is produced should show us a "cloudy" result where the position of the electron around the nucleus is ill defined.

 

A link to the original abstract: http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.213001

 

A link to the picture:

 

http://io9.com/the-first-image-ever-of-a-hydrogen-atoms-orbital-struc-509684901

 

Basically, a fuzzy image around the nucleus. Even more amazing; however, is that there are dark areas around the atom where the electro does not "exist." These areas are known as nodes and are essentially a perfect match to what the quantum number solutions predicted.

 

In fact, this picture should harken you back to undergraduate chemistry when you looked at hypothetical "atomic" orbitals or clouds of electron probability in an atom. This picture is in essence, humans "looking at an atomic orbital in the flesh, so to speak.

 

This is exceptionally powerful evidence that agrees almost perfectly with the quantum theory. I know I find my self in this discussion yet again, but I feel the need to present this powerful evidence in light past and perhaps present claims that the QM model is not correct. Any new model would need to encompass these observations and more, and do so better than the QM model.

 

Forgive typographical errors. iPhone special posting today.

[bornagainathiest]

Well, I certainly can't better that, RS!

 

I therefore exit stage left...

 

...leaving Pantheory to point out that even though your equations and statistics are the best we have (and therefore better than anything he has) they are phenomenological, with the observations giving rise to the math, rather than the other way round.

 

[ContraBardus]