EmDrive: NASA Eagleworks' Peer-Reviwed Paper Is On Its Way (ibtimes.co.uk) 532
An anonymous reader quotes a report from International Business Times UK: An independent scientist has confirmed that the paper by scientists at the NASA Eagleworks Laboratories on achieving thrust using highly controversial space propulsion technology EmDrive has passed peer review, and will soon be published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). Dr Jose Rodal posted on the NASA Spaceflight forum -- in a now-deleted comment -- that the new paper will be entitled "Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio Frequency Cavity in Vacuum" and is authored by "Harold White, Paul March, Lawrence, Vera, Sylvester, Brady and Bailey." Rodal also revealed that the paper will be published in the AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power, a prominent journal published by the AIAA, which is one of the world's largest technical societies dedicated to aerospace innovations. Although Eagleworks engineer Paul March has posted several updates on the ongoing research to the NASA Spaceflight forum showing that repeated tests conducted on the EmDrive in a vacuum successfully yielded thrust results that could not be explained by external interference, those in the international scientific community who doubt the feasibility of the technology have long believed real results of thrust by Eagleworks would never see the light of day.
Prepare to be (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But if confirmed, expect a flood stories on how "it will allow us to have true hoverboards in 10 years!".
Re:Prepare to be (Score:5, Funny)
That's all? I'm fully prepared for the Armored Space Nutter division to come out in full force waving their Star Trek box sets and preparing their trip to Andromeda.
Never give up! Never surrender!
Re:Prepare to be (Score:5, Insightful)
Skeptics claim:
"It violates Newton's law"
It is a bunch of tomfoolery
Its a measuring error
Horseshit. Any real scientist knows: Nullis in verba [wikipedia.org], or question everything. We thought the world was flat, we thought the world was at the center, then the sun, now... there is no center. We experiment, we learn, we work out what we think is right is right, or what we thought was right is wrong. The universe is mysterious, and full of wonder. Offer no ridicule until you have proven someone wrong, conclusively! Otherwise, your no better than a religious zealot. Science itself deserve better.
Re:Prepare to be (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Prepare to be (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
You can't just claim to have a machine that violates known laws and expect to be taken seriously, but if you actually *produce* such a machine and it really does violate known laws, I would most certainly hope that everyone pays attention. Regardless of whether or not that's the case here, if someone makes a conclusive and reproducible observation that violates our knowledge of the laws of physics, then our knowledge needs to be reexamined. To act otherwise would be like saying that Michelson and Morley sho
Re: (Score:3)
Nonsense. Name one of the basic natural laws that has been 'broken'.
And no, Newtons' theory of gravity wasn't broken by that of Einstein: http://soi.blogspot.be/2013/05... [blogspot.be]
I'm saying this in front, because it the typical thing people who are not to knowledgeable about the topic come up with. No, it's not been 'broken'. It is *incorporated* into GR as a special case, but within its domain and a given framework, it remains valid.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, here you go, since you couldn't be bothered to check the link:
We will demonstrate that the Einstein Field Equations reduce to Newton's Law of Gravity in the case of a weak field and slow-motion of a particle (v less than the speed of light, c).
As we have already seen, Newton's Gravitation Law can be written as
(1) 2 = 4G, Equation (16) in Newton's Law of Gravity.
In free-fall, a particle satisfies,
(2) d2x/dt2 = F/m= –, Equations (4),(15) in Newton's Law of Gravity.
In tensor notation, this is writt
Re: (Score:3)
But, don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Here is a machine, that exhibits a thrust in a closed system with no fuel or mass leaving the closed system. The engineers wrote a paper on how to build another unit. Other units were built, and the measurements done by independent observations confirm the measurements of the first team.
These observ
Re:Prepare to be (Score:5, Insightful)
That's all? I'm fully prepared for the Armored Space Nutter division to come out in full force waving their Star Trek box sets and preparing their trip to Andromeda.
In the meantime, you're filling in nicely for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
if they believe hard enough, a dream big enough, that everything will happen - because after all: technological progress is inevitable. It will never end!
I"m not a 'space nutter'; I'm not even very interested in space exploration. But I have to say that your description, (which you have sarcastically and pejoratively attributed to the space nutters), is in fact a pretty accurate description of much of the past century. When you look at Science Fiction's history of predicting and/or inspiring the kind of technological progress that seems magical by the standards of even a few decades ago, that 'dream big enough and everything will happen' mindset doesn't seem
Re:Prepare to be (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Prepare to be (Score:5, Insightful)
"Dream big" only works if you also "work hard" and are realistic about what is possible given the KNOWN LAWS of Physics.
Dreaming bit within the known laws stops progress dead in it's tracks. The laws of physics were derived from experimentation, observation and creation. People were getting shocks from electricity over 3000 years before Cavendish electrocuted himself for science and 40 years before current was properly described as a physical property. None of this gets explained by known laws.
While on the topic of electricity Benjamin Franklin published notes on the paradox that was the Leyden jar, something which was built but not explainable by physics. Here we are a few hundred years later and I'm communicating to you by typing on a keyboard sending 1s and 0s to you stored somewhere else on the planet only for text to come up on your screen.
You think too small. Known laws of physics get in the way of bigger thinking such as sending power wirelessly (thought impossible, along with everything else we take for granted now).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A space nutter thinks this is almost certainly a radical new reactionless drive. A space enthusiast thinks such a thing is almost certainly impossible, but that it would be really useful if it did exist.
In fact science fiction has sucked at predicting technological progress. There are some exceptions, but typically the big breakthroughs have been in areas most SF didn't predict. We do have fantastically powerful computers now, but they don't interface with humans anything like depicted in most earlier
science fiction, fantasy, etc (Score:3)
Then you were reading (very likely mislabeled) fantasy. The whole point of science fiction is to embed a story within the context of plausible science. Nothing wrong with fantasy, but it isn't, and never has been, science fiction.
Between the "speculative fiction" rendering down of that specific distinction, and the marketing-driven labeling of fantasy as science fiction, and the tendency of bookstores for decades to lump fantas
Lighten up (Score:5, Interesting)
Space nutters are usually tech people who are uneducated in the hard sciences
Yet you don't seem to be able to discern who they are. You accused me of being a "space nutter" and I do have a background in hard science and engineering and accounting as well. I've built parts that have actually gone into space. I'm actually largely a voice of caution for those who spout overly optimistic timelines or economic absurdities regarding space travel.
You seem obsessed with that term "space nutter" like others are with hipster and you throw it at anyone who shows the least optimism about space travel. Lighten up. Someone who thinks that someday we might actually develop the technology to go to other planets or leave our solar system is just being optimistic. Nothing wrong with that even if they don't understand the technical details. It amounts to nothing more than fanciful musing. As long as they aren't hurting anyway with their day dreaming what do you care?
Yeah, space travel is an incredibly difficult problem and it will take a long time before we can do really useful things. This is not news.
Re:Lighten up (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Lighten up (Score:5, Insightful)
Will the Em Drive pan out? I have no idea. But the whole point of science is that when we see contradictions to what we expect we take a look at it, not just dismiss it out of hand because "These hoaxes come and go and people waste time on them." Stupid ideas like the earth revolving around the sun.
As much as I love the science, I mostly hope the EM drive proves to work so we can all smack you around for being an anti-space nutter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Lighten up (Score:5, Insightful)
The alternative is that the peer-reviewed paper describes a new phenomenon which cannot AT THIS TIME be explained easily by applying the basic laws of physics.
That doesn't mean the basic laws of physics are wrong, it may just mean that there is something going on we cannot easily detect or haven't considered looking for, that if detected would explain the whole thing. Or some of the basic laws of physics have loopholes that are exploited in this instance. Or they need refinement.
As an example, the motion of planets is explained by Newton based on basic laws of physics. However, until Einstein refined the whole explanation a bit with his theory of relativity, we had unexplained deviations between theory and practice - like we have now.
Re: Lighten up (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a bullshit hoax BECAUSE IT VIOLATES BASIC LAWS OF PHYSICS.
Well, it appears to violate the known laws of physics, but that doesn't mean that it's necessarily a hoax.
It may be that there's something going on physics-wise that's yet to be understood, or perhaps we may need to rewrite or add a few laws. I'm not a sucker looking for perpetual motion machines but I'm also not so arrogant to think that we know everything there is to know.
Personally I'm skeptical but I'm also willing to see where the research leads. Yes, it seems to violate the basic laws of physics, but we may be wrong about that or we may just not understand what the fuck is going on yet. It wouldn't be the first time.
For example, I remember when almost everyone flatly declared that blue LEDs were simply impossible, period, and a decade later they were commonplace. Not that long ago plenty of respected scientists scoffed at the whole notion of quantum physics, and now it's taken for granted as a fact.
No, the EM Drive isn't a "fuel free" engine as the press has touted, but it may be a hitherto unknown form of propulsion. We'll see, and I think before long we'll know if it's bogus or not.
"There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will." – Albert Einstein, 1932
"X-rays will prove to be a hoax." – Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society, 1883
Re: Lighten up (Score:5, Insightful)
There are a lot of loopholes in the physical laws. Fifty years ago, if you had told someone that you could take a ceramic insulator and turn it into a near-zero-resistance conductor by cooling it to near absolute zero, they would have assumed you were wrong—the laws of electricity as known at the time just didn't allow for that. And if you told them that you could float magnets on top of such a superconductor, they'd have hauled you off to a sanitarium.
A hundred years ago, if you could have somehow launched GPS satellites, everyone would think that the clocks were broken, because the time would keep drifting due to relativistic effects, and that concept didn't exist yet.
We're constantly learning new exceptions to the established rules, and we have been doing so throughout all of our planet's history, from the moment we discovered that you could bang two rocks together and start a fire. It is thus utterly ridiculous to assume that at this particular point in history, we magically haver reached the pinnacle of human understanding.
Now don't get me wrong here; this supposed "EM drive" is probably bogus. There's probably some particle emission caused by electrical charge propagation through the material or some other similar curiosity. But it isn't impossible that this is something new that we don't know about—just very, very unlikely. And there's also a very slight possibility that we might learn something new about the physics of matter or gravity or who-knows-what-else from studying this, so either way, it is fascinating, and should not just be dismissed as a hoax out of hand until we know why it is happening and whether the answer to that question tells us something new that we didn't know before.
Re: (Score:3)
They are not. They are our current understanding of science. Nothing more, nothing less.
That understanding can and should change. That's the whole F-ing point of science!!!! Admitting that we don't know everything and attempting to further our knowledge.
And "Chasing a hoax?" No sir. Im following an interesting discussion that may or may not pan out. Just like you.
Re: (Score:3)
This is how science works. Why do you care if someone gets distracted by it? There are lots of scientists around, let a few of 'em investigate edge cases. That's where the interesting stuff is. THIS IS HOW SCIENCE WORKS.
You are very passionate about Space Nutters, maybe you should in
Re: (Score:2)
Sure thing, Lord Kelvin.
Re: (Score:2)
That's crazy. Everyone knows that in order to move a planet you need to harness the energy potential difference from between normal space and hyperspace.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Libelous!
I don't wear armor, and we're only a Brigade.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Underwhelmed.
I'll be interested in seeing the results. So far, each release of test results has falsified all the previous work, but with the conclusion "well, even though we didn't replicate previous results, there's still a little bit left that we can't explain."
Re:Prepare to be (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Prepare to be (Score:5, Informative)
Well within experimental noise - and certainly nothing you're going to propel anything anywhere with.
I agree I'm still far from sold on the EM drive. I want to see it working in a vacuum, away from earth's magnetic field, and I want an explanation for the physics behind it. But if there's new physics, then who can say what the eventual application will be? Our first experiments with radioactive materials made things a little warm and glowy (and poisonous) but then fast forward a few decades and we've got mushroom clouds and nuclear reactors.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Prepare to be (Score:5, Insightful)
It's also possible that there are no new physics here, just an example of a misunderstood corner case of existing physics...
Build it, test it, see what happens. Until it's proven (and I mean really proven, not just dismissed) false, it would seem to be worth the research investment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If they verify an observable thrust, then it is a Big Deal because that IS New Physics.
Re: (Score:3)
You can never take Sir Newton out of the equation.
Well that's the question, isn't it?
Re:Prepare to be (Score:5, Informative)
First, "Sir Newton" is incorrect. If you're going to use "Sir", you have to go with "Isaac". "Newton" is correct, as is "Sir Isaac Newton".
Second, Einstein is more correct than Newton. Relativistic physics is pretty much the same as Newtonian for most practical purposes, but diverges under conditions Sir Isaac had no way to consider or test. We've tested relativity to death, and it's always at least as accurate, and in more extreme conditions much more accurate, than Newtonian physics. Meanwhile, we know that relativity is incomplete (we don't know how general relativity works on the quantum scale, for example), and presumably we'll eventually have even more accurate physics. It's conceivable that we'll get the laws of physics just right sometime, but it isn't happening right now.
Re: (Score:3)
We don't want to just have a neat little gimmick, we want to know how it works and what else we can do with the concept. Knowing whether it is pushing on a magnetic field or not is a step towards that.
It's bad to be too sensitive [Re:Prepare to be] (Score:3)
For me, even when there seemed to be some effect, it was simply far, far too small. Well within experimental noise - and certainly nothing you're going to propel anything anywhere with.
Yep. When part of their original paper stated "our test set up was so sensitive we could see noise due to waves in Galveston Bay twenty miles away!", my reaction was "omigod, that's a very bad thing," rather than the "wow, they made a great sensor" reaction I think they were looking for.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Even an infinitesimal propulsion could get a micro-probe up to near light speed if it could be generated for free. Unfortunately, that remains about as likely as the odds of that SETI signal being aliens.
Re: (Score:2)
Even an infinitesimal propulsion could get a micro-probe up to near light speed ...
It could probably get anything up to near light speed given enough time... And keeping a micro-probe from getting destroyed by a particle of dust, while moving at near light speed, is whole other problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If it manages to violate conservation of momentum and that stands up to the inevitable scientific pig pile that follows, I'll be impressed.
One theory of how it works...
http://www.emdrive.com/theoryp... [emdrive.com]
I am not a physicist, and don't *really* understand what they are theorizing, except that they are suggesting that special relativity applies to the engine instead of newtonian mechnics. (which isn't really a surprise).
If you can follow the math and the judge the theory, have at it...
Author List (Score:4, Funny)
Who are "Lawrence, Vera, Sylvester, Brady and Bailey"? Their cats?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In fact they sound like first names. Very unprofessional.
Re: (Score:3)
Right. In our lab, simple professionalism prevents us from bringing on faculty or staff whose surnames could be mistaken for given names. Those pesky Aussie gits Marshall [wikipedia.org] and Warren [wikipedia.org] have never gotten over the rejection.
Peer reviw (Score:5, Funny)
points of interest (Score:2)
Perpetual motion machine of the first type (Score:5, Informative)
How does the energy efficiency of this drive compare to a normal rocket?
If it works as advertised, it violates the law of conservation of energy, so its energy efficiency can be infinite.
(it produces a force with no reaction mass. Since energy is 1/2 mV^2, power is force times velocity, and thus the change in energy (per unit time) is proportional to velocity. So, if it runs at a given power level to produce a given thrust level, you can get more energy out than you put in simply be starting out in motion.)
Could this allow interstellar travel, by humans, within a normal human lifespan? What kind of reletavistic effects happen at high speed? I would assume thrust would drop as you approach C.
Well, if it violates the theory of relativity, anything could happen, I guess. Right now the thrust level quoted is micronewtons, so it would take millions of years to get up to the speed of light. But if the machine works, even at all, all bets on physics are off.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, if it violates the theory of relativity, anything could happen, I guess.
The guy ("scientist"?), Roger Shawyer, who invented it claims that it's actually due to the theory of relativity that it works. Here's a quote from the article:
based on the theory of special relativity, electricity converted into microwaves and fired within a closed cone-shaped cavity causes the microwave particles to exert more force on the flat surface at the large end of the cone (i.e. there is less combined particle momentum at the narrow end due to a reduction in group particle velocity), thereby generating thrust.
I'm not a physicist, so I can't speak to whether his explanation makes sense.
Shawyer's theory is not correct (Score:5, Informative)
Well, if it violates the theory of relativity, anything could happen, I guess.
The guy ("scientist"?), Roger Shawyer, who invented it claims that it's actually due to the theory of relativity that it works.
Yes, but their test results explicitly falsified that theory. They tested this. The device (was claimed to) produce thrust whether or not it had the asymmetry that Shawyer claimed was required by his theory
...I'm not a physicist, so I can't speak to whether his explanation makes sense.
I am a physicist. His explanation makes no sense.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a physicist, so I can't speak to whether his explanation makes sense.
It doesn't. Firstly, Noether's theorem applies to relativity and proves that conservation of momentum happens in relativity. So, it's impossible for this device to work merely using the theory of relativity. There was an error in his maths and I think someone actually found it.
Re: Perpetual motion machine of the first type (Score:2, Interesting)
They found a way to hit the rounding error in the universe simulation and accumulate it over time
Re: Perpetual motion machine of the first type (Score:2, Interesting)
First of all, we already know that most of Newtonian physics is wrong and we've known this for over 100 years. Take gravity for example - Newton's limited understanding of physics has no explanation for it, but general relatively tells us that mass distorts spacetime which results in an attraction between two bodies. Anyway, a more relevant example is the fact that the universe is not only expanding, but it's expanding faster than the speed of light and it's accelerating. A limited understand of special
Re: (Score:2)
If it works as advertised, it violates the law of conservation of energy, so its energy efficiency can be infinite.
(it produces a force with no reaction mass.
OK, I'm not a physicist and it's been a long time since my physics classes, but I don't see why mass is important at all. Mass and energy are interchangeable by E=mc^2. Electric motors produce motion without losing any mass, so I don't really see why it's impossible for there to be some way of producing thrust in a vacuum using only energy. Just bec
Re: (Score:2)
If it works as advertised,...it produces a force with no reaction mass.
OK, I'm not a physicist and it's been a long time since my physics classes, but I don't see why mass is important at all. Mass and energy are interchangeable by E=mc^2. Electric motors produce motion without losing any mass,
Well, to product thrust, they have to push on something.
so I don't really see why it's impossible for there to be some way of producing thrust in a vacuum using only energy. Just because all our prior methods of producing thrust in space depend on Newton's 3rd law doesn't mean that it has to be that way. While there may be no mass escaping from this device, it absolutely is consuming energy. Where does that go? We already know we can produce thrust with lasers, which are pure energy; we've even talked about making micro-miniature space probes and sending them to Alpha Centauri with a big laser, and the whole principle of solar sails rests on thrust provided by pure energy.
If it released energy out one side, that counts as reaction mass. They would get thrust according to Einstein's relation: momentum = E/c
But, as claimed, the device produces thrust by just bounding energy around inside a cavity-- they claim that it is not simply the photon force.
Laser thruster and cooling (Score:2)
I wonder if this thing is more efficient than radiating the same amount of microwaves or laser light out the back of a rocket. That is does it derive thrust resonantly with no loss of photons (other than imperfections) or is it a trade of one photon for one photons worth of impulse (same as a laser thruster).
And I also wonder how they cooled this thing. if it was in a vaccuum and power goes in then it heats up. It would heat up indefinitely if it did not radiate somehow. Perhaps the radiation isn't isot
Re: (Score:3)
The reports are that it's far more efficient than a straight EM drive. Photons make really inefficient reaction mass, since the amount of momentum change you get per unit energy is very, very low. Assuming that the reported thrust is accurate, it means that the drive is reacting against some external matter.
Re:points of interest (Score:4, Interesting)
According to TFA, however, they are working on a far more efficient design.
Re:points of interest (Score:5, Insightful)
The trouble is that the thrust is so low that measuring it reliably is so hard that nobody knows if there is thrust at all or just measurement problems. It's said to be about 1mN/kW, much lower than even an ion drive.
I think there is just noise and no signal and people are seeing a rabbit in the clouds because they're looking for it very hard.
Re: (Score:3)
I think people don't really get the difference in scale between 1mn and 1kw, so why having the two together makes things so hard.
1mn is of course the weight exerted by 0.1g. That's about half a grain of rice. To get that, you require 1kw. Think about the things that take pr process 1kw of power, e.g. an electric bar fire, a very high end PC, a mid-size UPS and so on and so forth.
They're all large, heavy things, which require considerable cooling to dump that much heat.
So the question is how do you transport
Re: (Score:3)
Well, we don't have the technology to accelerate the ions to anywhere near the speed of light in a rocket engine. The Dawn spacecraft for example was 35% Xenon by mass.
Ding ding ding. (Score:3)
I'd love to see this be a real effect, but it just sounds like cold fusion, or polywater, or homeopathy -- a tiny effect, where the more closely you examine it, the harder it becomes to see.
Then again, high-temperature superconductors looked the same way for a bit, and they have worked out quite nicely, with theory trying desperately to regain its footing as it's dragged along behind practice.
And as for fishing small signals out of large backgrounds, yes, that makes things tricky, but my working GPS receive
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Its massively inefficient. Its probably the least efficient use of electricity ever invented actually. It works without a fuel tank though. People are only really excited about its potential for space travel because of that. See, if it works entirely on solid-state electronics, without needing fuel reserves, then in theory you can power this from outer space forever just on solar radiation. Up until now, all other rocket technology was limited in range by the physical weight of its own fuel.
Re: (Score:2)
How does the energy efficiency of this drive compare to a normal rocket?
Utter crap. But what it would give (assuming it works) is freedom from having to carry reaction mass.
But if it works, then it's going to open a whole new world in physics that hasn't been considered up until now - and it's likely to be obsolete within a few years once a theory that explains it comes to light.
(I'm betting on measurement error but hoping for something much more exciting)
Could this allow interstellar travel, by humans, wit
Re: (Score:2)
"Zero, since it doesn't actually provide thrust."
That in itself would violate Newton's Laws of Motion, wouldn't it? Specifically, that would be Newton's Third Law, for every action, there is an equal and opposing reaction. If you're emitting something, even inside of a closed cavity, THERE MUST BE INITIAL THRUST/PUSH OFF OF THE EMITTING MATERIAL, NO MATTER HOW SMALL, EITHER POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE.
Back to school with you.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're emitting something, even inside of a closed cavity, THERE MUST BE INITIAL THRUST/PUSH OFF OF THE EMITTING MATERIAL, NO MATTER HOW SMALL, EITHER POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE
In order to have net thrust, you have to emit something outside the cavity, at which point it becomes a normal rocket, subject to conservation of momentum and the Tsiolkovsky Equation.
This thing is like sticking two magnets on the ends of a box, and expecting the magnet in front to pull the magnet in back forward. (And, yes, I've read the theory paper, which is batshit crazy.)
Re:points of interest (Score:4, Informative)
"It is a good rule not to put overmuch confidence in a theory until it has been confirmed by observation. I hope I shall not shock the experimental physicists too much if I add that it is also a good rule not to put overmuch confidence in the observational results that are put forward until they have been confirmed by theory."
- Sir Arthur Eddington
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, Mr. Smartypants, explain how they have confirmed from multiple reproductions and analyses how it actually does do all those things you say it doesn't.
Measurement error, and/or outright scientific misconduct.
Not yet confirmed (Score:2)
So every single successful reproduction is due to bad science, even from NASA...
There aren't any "successful reproductions." Their work has not confirmed any of the previous results-- they have seen different things-- and other people haven't confirmed their results, at least, not to date.
So far, every new test has failed to reproduce the results of the previous tests.
On its way (Score:5, Funny)
EmDrive: NASA Eagleworks' Peer-Reviwed Paper Is On Its Way
But we're not sure how long it'll take because we're not sure it puts out any thrust.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's as the old saying goes, "To put any trust in it, you gotta get thrust out of it."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, but given the number of folks who set out to disprove and ended up with thrust they can't explain, we're far from ready to say "no".
If you live in a Newtonian world, you're not going to accept that this could ever work. If you admit to the possibility that momentum could be quantized, you can't rule it out yet.
Well... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Likewise. I'm hopefully sceptical :)
At worst there is an interesting effect going on that is worth further study and might provide some new insights into some aspects of physics, or simply improvements to experimental techniques. At best it has the possibility to revolutionise some aspects of space exploration.
I am sceptical that this will live up to the best case, but I really hope that my scepticism turns out to be wrong.
This is what science is all about. There's an odd effect, people are doing experiments, whatever happens we will have learnt something which may one day be useful. This is an extraordinary claim, it requires extraordinary proof, which we will hopefully get.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There's really no reason for any optimism. No advanced propulsion ever has or ever will be invented by accident by a random guy whose own theory for how his magic box works was self-falsified. The process of finding out where the tiny measurement error comes from may be scientifically interesting and may result in more peer reviewed papers, but there's no chance it's going to make the magic trick real.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> No advanced propulsion ever has or ever will be invented by accident by a random guy ....
And there, folks, is a fine example of a completely unscientific statement :)
Seriously? (Score:5, Funny)
EmDrive: NASA Eagleworks' Peer-Reviwed Paper Is On Its Way
Ow ow ow, I think they just broke my irony meter!
Re: (Score:2)
EmDrive: NASA Eagleworks' Peer-Reviwed Paper Is On Its Way
Ow ow ow, I think they just broke my irony meter!
No mod points today, so I just chimed in to say - Hell, yeah! How has nobody else commented on this!?
"NASA Eagleworks" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Notice they always shove "NASA" in there as if it lends it any credibility. The truth is that anyone can rent "NASA" lab facilities. This is just another hoax. Also, it "soon will be published" in AIAA. Uh huh. Sure it will.
Even if it were from NASA, that wouldn't be a massive credibility boost. NASA, like many other great places, has amazing people and meh people.
The question is the science.
Re: (Score:3)
NASA Spaceflight forums (Score:5, Informative)
If you want to do some armchair physics, these forums are really interesting. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.... [nasaspaceflight.com]
People are attempting to recreate the "thrust-less" momentum at home basically. Lots of skepticism, lots of optimism, but real numbers being thrown around.
We're almost past the point of whether or not it works and moving onto why it works.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google Translate: "The fucking Samanta goes away today? Bah, it was late this motherfucker. I'll put the rest of the wafer package in the trash, because I do not put my hand where this delayed puts it. If prorate will fill my mouth pereba."