NASA's Impossible Propulsion EmDrive Is Heading to Space (popularmechanics.com) 248
An anonymous reader writes:The EmDrive, a hypothetical miracle propulsion system for outer space, has been sparking heated arguments for years. Now, Guido Fetta plans to settle the argument about reactionless space drives for once and for all by sending one into space to prove that it really generates thrust without exhaust. Even if mainstream scientists say this is impossible. Fetta is CEO of Cannae Inc, and inventor of the Cannae Drive. His creation is related to the EmDrive first demonstrated by British engineer Roger Shawyer in 2003. Both are closed systems filled with microwaves with no exhaust, yet which the inventors claim do produce thrust. There is no accepted theory of how this might work. Shawyer claims that relativistic effects produce different radiation pressures at the two ends of the drive, leading to a net force. Fetta pursues a similar idea involving Lorentz (electromagnetic) forces. NASA researchers have suggested that the drive is actually pushing against "quantum vacuum virtual plasma" of particles that shift in and out of existence. Most physicists believe these far-out systems cannot work and that their potential benefits, such as getting to Mars in ten weeks, are illusory. After all, the law of conservation of momentum says that a rocket cannot accelerate forward without some form of exhaust ejected backwards. Yet the drumbeat goes on. Just last month, Jose Rodal claimed on the NASA Spaceflight forum that a NASA paper, "Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio Frequency Cavity in Vacuum" has finally been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, but this cannot be confirmed yet.
Countdown to endless arguments in 3.. 2.. 1.. (Score:3)
Even if he sends this to space, the argument that it is leaking evaporated bits from the interior of the cavity will persist.
I expect others to follow.
Until he sends the damned thing on a tour of the solar system with no other forms of propulsion, where any such arguments would require the evaporation of significant portions of the cavity internals, and where both speedup and slowdowns happen, this will never be settled.
Re:Countdown to endless arguments in 3.. 2.. 1.. (Score:5, Informative)
Does it count as an argument if I point out that the titular claim is full of hot air?
The guy behind the idea has (at least according to himself) formed a company with the stated goal of getting this thing into space. There's no scheduled launch in place yet, nor any specific plan. No mention of funding either, although a different guy is apparently launching a Kickstarter to get his own version into space. Don't worry, if it never goes I'm sure he'll spend the money wisely.
Right now it's all hand-waving, which means the concept is at pretty much the same place it's always been.
Re: (Score:2)
I will go out on a limb and say he attributes it to a combination of confirmation bias and experimental error.
That is why I suggest the test I do-- the only way for the test engine to complete the mission, is if it actually wirks, and works as described. (The engine lacks sufficient mass to do it any other way, but can get *free energy from the sun to power reaction less drive, if it indeed does do so.)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not sure what a "reproduction" is, or who verified what, but:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: Countdown to endless arguments in 3.. 2.. 1.. (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference is N Rays depended on the tried and true scientific principle of "oooooohhh..... I think I see it!"
The Emdrive is either producing thrust, or fooling each type of different method people have used to measure the expected effect. Everybody measures thrust. Either everybody is making the same mistake (which I admit is quite possible), or there is something actually occurring we just don't understand yet.
Re: (Score:2)
That comparison is only relevant if you think the sensors used have confirmation bias - and _that_ would be pseduo-science!
Inifinite Improbablity Drive (Score:3)
It seems to me this is indeed the infinite improbability drive. If it actually propels something doe we care why?
Re:Inifinite Improbablity Drive (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes.
We care a lot. If something doesn't follow the laws of physics as we know them, that means that either we don't understand the something or there is something we don't understand about the laws of physics.
If we don't understand what is happening to something and we figure it out, that's useful engineering knowledge.
That's actually the less awesome potential. If we don't understand something about the laws of physics and we can figure that out instead... well that changes the world. It makes possible what we think impossible.
If an alien landed a spaceship in the middle of Times Square, it wouldn't necessarily change our understanding of physics. This could.
Re: (Score:3)
This is exactly right. And even if it is found to be bunk, that's still useful information because we will have learned a new way to test such claims. So whether it is what it claims, or it isn't what it claims, it still has a measure of scientific value if you can properly test it.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to me this is indeed the infinite improbability drive. If it actually propels something do we care why?
You'll care why after it turns you into a teacup...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
a bowl of petunias and a very surprised looking whale....
i wonder if it will be friends with me? ...
- Douglass Adams RIP
Re: (Score:3)
a bowl of petunias and a very surprised looking whale....
i wonder if it will be friends with me? ...
- Douglass Adams RIP
Oh, no. Not again.
Not if the experiment's properly designed (Score:5, Insightful)
First off, if the engineers designing this thing are remotely competent there won't be any out-gassing.
Uncontrolled out-gassing is, and has since the beginning of the space age, been a really obvious problem. So it'll be designed from the get-go to avoid uncontrolled out-gassing.
It also doesn't have to be brought back to Earth to be weighed. Acceleration, if any occurs, can be measured pretty precisely. The degree of acceleration is a product of the mass and velocity of out-gassing.
If there is any observed acceleration you just have to wait until the amount of reaction mass necessary to account for that acceleration exceeds some reasonable amount and we're done - it works. No tour of the solar system necessary.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It either works or it doesn't. Honestly: it is irrelevant if humans understand it. Shoot one up there. It's VERY cheap (compared to bank bailouts and wars). Run it. See if it works. This is not rocket science. Okay, so it's rocket science. But it should be fairly obvious. Shoot it up there, and watch it.
Re: Countdown to endless arguments in 3.. 2.. 1.. (Score:2)
I say it's rocket surgery.
Re: (Score:2)
For people with some actual understanding of Science, with has long hence been settled. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof. At this time these people struggle to provide even regular proof.
But here is a thought: Sent it to space, power it with the Rossi E-Cat, and sent the whole thing on a course into the sun!
Re: (Score:2)
If there's a leak and it loses everything to the vacuum of space then upon coming back to earth it will have to re-fill, negating the weight change.
Re: (Score:2)
upon coming back to earth it will have to re-fill
Weight it in space (measure it's mass, to be precise).
Re: (Score:2)
Then they will question the methodology and accuracy of the static mass testing before and after.
Forcing the demonstration device on a nice little cruise removes that. Doing both nails the lid on.
Re:Countdown to endless arguments in 3.. 2.. 1.. (Score:5, Insightful)
What upsets me more is the fact that there's an argument at all.
What's wrong with sending it up to prove or disprove it?
I am so sick of the attitude of : It's my solution or no solution. Who cares if they are proven wrong and the thing works? Too many Effing ego's in the room.
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares? If the thing works, it will be *incredible*. It won't work, however.
There's nothing wrong with wanting to prove it except that it's a waste of money. There are more crackpot theories out there than there is money to test. but if people want to blow their cash on it, then fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Ever since, I have distrusted myself and avoided all predictions.
- Wilbur Wright, in a speech to the Aero Club of France, November 5, 1908
Re: (Score:2)
Except that flying didn't actually violate the known laws of physics at the time and in fact that statement indicated that he expected it was possible but a lot harder. The EM drive violates conservation of momentum which is one of the most well tested physical laws.
That violation is about as serious add conservation of energy. In fact I'm pretty sure you can derive one from the other. Furthermore, the EM drive is a perpetual motion machine. Imagine this:
Energy in gives a constant force.
That gives a constan
Re: (Score:3)
Furthermore, the EM drive is a perpetual motion machine. Imagine this:
That is nonsense, the energy comes from solar cells or what ever.
Eventually your energy gain is faster then the energy in.
No it is not. The acceleration is constant, hence the energy gain is constant.
The only way that can work is if the thrust is so small that the lines never cross below c, which is how the photon drive works.
That is utter nonsense, a single photon mit have low thrust a drive has as much thrust as many photons you let ge
Re: (Score:3)
An ion! AN ION! AN ION!
...nope, doesn't work.
Re: (Score:2)
How are you going to weigh the satellite after it burns up in the atmosphere? With the space shuttle retired, there's nothing that can possibly retrieve a satellite and bring it back to Earth.
Re: (Score:2)
To weigh something in microgravity, wouldn't you have to subject it to a precisely calibrated thrust while observing its acceleration?
Just have to say it.. (Score:2)
Before any else. Flux capacitor. Now.. on to conversation with some utility...
Ye Cannae change the laws of physics, Captain! (Score:5, Funny)
... or can ye?
Re:Ye Cannae change the laws of physics, Captain! (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope, you can't. However, what's to day we *know* all of them yet? If he's right and this works, then it means we have to examine why it does and possibly adjust our understanding to date. If it doesn't, carry on as usual.
Re:Ye Cannae change the laws of physics, Captain! (Score:4, Insightful)
yes, we can. The "laws of physics" are man made and have been changed before. They are models of reality with varying degrees of usefulness.
Law of Physics fundamental, but could change (Score:2)
The "laws of physics" are man made and have been changed before.
Actually I would claim that most physicists view the "laws of physics" as the fundamental properties and behaviour of the universe and the energy and matter it contains. Our understanding of these laws (the human laws of physics if you like) is imperfect and has certainly changed in the past but, so far as we are aware, the laws of physics themselves are constant.
However that does not rule out the possibility that at some point in the future we might be able to change them. Since they are a property of
Re: (Score:2)
It's like reading a Cardassian argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Apart from all the theories, falsification tests, publication, reproduction etc in physics there are some actual things called laws. Newton's laws, Ideal gas etc.
They are usually _wrong_ outside of scope, but are still taught because they're so fucking useful.
They are unlikely to change, even if physics further refines its understanding as 'the laws' are already known to not be universal. More engineer's tools than anything.
I thought quantum electrodynamics was maxwell's equations plus quantum physic
Most likely explanation (Score:3)
Re:Most likely explanation (Score:5, Interesting)
That is why i said it needs to go on a little cruise.
Say. A lap up to and back from lunar orbit. A distance that is still both close enough to closely monitor the test article, and far enough that if it were using evaporated cavity materials as reaction mass, the entire test article would need to be consumed.
It is otherwise impossible to rule out what you suggest: it may well be happening, but that kind of issue would be insufficient to satisfy the reaction mass requirements of the proposed test. A successful completion wouldnt rule out vapor release, it wiuld just show it does not dominate the generated thrust. Until a result that can only happen if reactionless drive is produced, and in a big way like that, the argument that there is reaction mass, and that it dominates the recorded thrust will never die.
Re: (Score:2)
If it can extend the orbit of the satellite from weeks to months as is the stated plan, then it would become commercially valuable whether or not it's truly reactionless. I very much doubt it will do so, but if he's not trying to make somebody else pay for it then great.
Re: (Score:2)
And what you say is wrong. The thrust generated is far too small for that. If you, say , power this thing with a radio-thermal generator, this generator would already generate more thrust from its thermal radiation.
Re:Most likely explanation (Score:4, Insightful)
The issues are:
1) reported thrust is very small. So small that sources of experimental error will plague even immaculate setups on earth.
2) as prior poster mentioned, evaporating cavity materials forming and being vented currently can explain, at least hypothetically, the majority of the thrust, and experimental error bars can take the rest.
3) a test in space is likely to be a short mission with release and capture over a few meters of flight, if that. This is not sufficient to rule out outgassing.
4) the reaction mass requirements to send the device in a gravity assisted return mission are well known. (Thanks Apollo program!)
5) The difference in solar insolation at low earth orbit, and at lunar orbit are academic. A test device using solar power would not experience a significant change in power generation over that distance.
6) assuming the test device cannot generate more power than the solar array it is fitted with, and is composed of less mass than would be required to get to the moon and back at that level of energy production, then it can only succeed in that mission if the reaction less drive claims are true.
by putting it through a trial that it cannot be successful at without the claimed feature, we can then safely say it has that feature should it succeed.
Without hard elimination of other variables, which a small test will likely never satisfy satisfactorily, the drives claims cannot be rigorously tested.
Moon flyby will nail it big if it worked.
Re:Most likely explanation (Score:4, Informative)
3) a test in space is likely to be a short mission with release and capture over a few meters of flight, if that. This is not sufficient to rule out outgassing.
I have discovered a little-known practice called "reading the article" that can help clarify what is proposed:
Fetta intends the satellite to stay on station for at least six months, rather than the six weeks that would be typical for a satellite this size at a altitude of 150 miles. The longer it stays in orbit, the more the satellite will show that it must be producing thrust without propellant.
Re: (Score:2)
First, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is a pretty extraordinary claim.
Second, what's the big deal about asking someone who claims to have invented a revolutionary new form of propulsion to... use it to propel something? Is that asking too much?
Third, if the evidence that this drive works is so conclusive, why isn't Elon Musk camping their doorsteps trying to hand them a billion dollars to buy it up?
Re: (Score:2)
Especially since the costly part is getting it into space to begin with.
If they are willing to put it out in space, for just a few dollars more you can get an unimpeachably demonstrable YES or NO about the claim. Why not do so?
Re:Most likely explanation (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is the people crossing the line by insisting it's fake and so further testing must not be funded. Talk about self fulfilling.
A close second is those declaring the latest test flawed when they haven't even read the paper yet.
Skepticism is appropriate but that goes beyond.
Re: (Score:2)
Putting huge amounts of money into something that most probably will fail spectacularly is a job for excentric dreamers like venture capitalists or the US military.
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you so certain it will fail spectacularly? It hasn't so far. Worst case, we learn valuable lessons about how to avoid another whole class of experimental error. Shouldn't you at least read the upcoming paper before deciding? After all, that money is already spent.
As for the military, it spends more every single day to blow up a single tent in the desert.
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you so certain it will fail spectacularly? It hasn't so far ...
ALL of the experiments that have not been totally refuted have completely and utterly failed to demonstrate a consistent and a repeatable signal that is higher than the noise threshold. Being unable to track down all sources of noise is not the same thing as getting a reliable signal that can be replicated in other experiments. When we look at all of the experimental evidence taken together it is completely consistent with zero signal and only noise.
If you are measuring this as performance art, then s
Re: (Score:2)
Just because all of the experiments thus far have either failed or been refuted
Citation please. ALL? And by refutation, you mean something beyond, "Nahhhh, can't be" but rather "You made a math error and here it is"?
Re: (Score:2)
Putting huge amounts of money into something that most probably will fail spectacularly is a job for excentric dreamers like venture capitalists or the US military.
Its fucking science.
On one side we have those defending the old beliefs. Backed by the conservation of momentum.
On the other side we have numerous independent scientists observing what seems to be a violation of the conservation of momentum.
One of these sides is making an error. It is probably the old guard which is incorrectly conflating the conservation of momentum with the much stronger but wholly unsubstantiated idea of universal conservation of momentum.
Its in their bones. The old guard bel
Re: (Score:2)
Skepticism is appropriate but that goes beyond.
I stopped reading the APS newsletter because it began wrapping religious "scientism" in the cloak of skepticism. There's no value there.
Personally, I never had a problem using a light bulb before I understood quantum mechanics. There's something wrong with "scientists" who believe they have to have a perfect theory to use a technology. Obviously engineers are different than theorists, but the useful ones in both fields are pragmatists.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely agreed. From the theoretical side, the EmDrive should be among the hotytest topics out there. Compared to LHC or a neutrino detector, the tests can be done for pocket change, involve perfection of measurement techniques and offer a huge mystery as a prize. It should be nearly irresistible.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a little fundamental difference here (making your argument fundamentally flawed): Wright could observe birds and hence knew what he was trying to do was possible in principle. No such thing exists for this contraption here.
Re: (Score:2)
And for anybody with some actual understanding of Science, this is already by far enough to lose interest. The thrust observed is very close to the error margins that are obvious and a good scientists does one thing in that case: Look for additional sources of errors. They do not claim what these frauds here claim.
Re: (Score:2)
I find this excerpt from the NASA report [nasa.gov] to be the most telling. (Emphasis mine.)
So, they tested the real drive, and a dummy fake drive, and measured thrust for both
Re: (Score:3)
*SIGH* No that's not what they say nor what they meant. The null device in this case were identical to the other _except_ it didn't contain internal elements that the Cannea drive theory claimed was essential for functions. In other words what the test showed was that those internal elements weren't necessary for the function of the unit, nothing more - nothing less.
This "dummy drive measured thrust" idea is common among anti-Em drive people. Or in other words they doesn't even bother to read the report bef
Re: (Score:2)
So whoever or whatever Cannea is or are doesn't know how this divice works- if indeed it does work.
If one of the promoters is keen to pay - from their own pockets, or from their investors pockets -
All right, hold on, now. (Score:2)
Can we all just take a moment to acknowledge how awesome Guido Fetta's name is?
Re: (Score:2)
I think it sounds a little cheesy myself.
Re: (Score:2)
suddenly I'm hungry
Re: (Score:2)
While Italy does make some fine cheeses, I don't think I would like sticking a cheesy Italian like Guido Getty in my mouth. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Fetta samsung! Fetta!
Why do you change perfectly good words as soon as I press the spacebar!?
For fucks sake!
A law is only a law until it's proven wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
The laws of physics have changed so much in the last few thousand years, why do we suddenly think we are at the pinnacle of dictating the laws that govern the universe just because we haven't found anything contrary in the last few hundred years? Our laws of physics are based around our extremely limited observation of a tiny portion of the universe; surely when more is observed then some of the laws are going to change.
Science relies on an open mind and proof of a theory by repeatable experimentation so all the naysayers who instantly dismiss anything with even the remotest possibility of redefining one of these laws of physics cannot be truly called scientists and are no better than those that would dismiss the notion of there being no god just as easily.
Re: (Score:2)
Laws of physics aren't usually found to be wrong, they are just improved when new cases that haven't been previously considered are discovered. For instance Einstein didn't show that Newton was wrong, he just found that Newton's laws didn't work well for extremely high speeds. You'll note that Newton's math still works just as well as Einstein's does for almost all terrestrial applications.
Well... (Score:2)
They're not usually found to be wrong, but...the luminiferous aether [wikipedia.org] would like a quick word with you.
Re: (Score:2)
Even the aether wasn't entirely wrong. The wave-in-a-medium model of light explained a lot of things very well. Interference. Refraction, including variable refraction according to frequency, seemingly constant speed. The aether part was wrong, but it was only one component of the model, and the model in general was pretty good.
Re: (Score:3)
Not just for extremely high speeds, unless you consider orbital velocities -- on the order of 0.0001c -- to be "extremely high". Facepalm ... the difference between a Newtean and Relativistc calculation for orbitals speeds will end up in the size of a diameter of an atom ... go back to school.
To take the most famous example, the precession of Mercury's orbit is quite a bit larger than that.
Not anymore (Score:2)
Science relies on an open mind
That definition doesn't fit any of the modern scientists I have read about, across a number of fields.
I thought the new way was to have a preconceived notion and bake your data to make it fit, or else just write so thickly the reader will think up is down by the end.
You can bet a lot of new interesting discoveries are being swept under the rug by people scoffing just as they did for the EM drive because they didn't believe something was possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Scientists spend lots of time trying to find ways in which our current understanding of physics is wrong. This is generally done by doing measurements that are in some way fundamentally new: new conditions, higher accuracy experiments, measuring new things. LHC looks at interactions at very high energy. Low temperature experiments look for unexpected effects at extremely low energies. Astrophysical measurements look at effects in very strong gravity, or very large distances.
Electromagnetism has been meas
Re: (Score:2)
Exhaust based systems are so... (Score:2)
Exhaust based systems are so 1960's anyway...
Two groups already debunked the myth (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Papers?
Re:Two groups already debunked the myth (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The paper suggests they are unable to achieve sufficient thermal isolation. Their hypothesis of interaction with external magnetic damping is conjecture they state they cannot substantiate. They specifically note, "Our test campaign can not confirm or refute in any way the claims of the EMDrive but intends to independently assess possible side-effects in the measurements methods used so far."
and
"The nature of the signals observed is still unclear. Additional tests need to be carried out to study the magneti
Re: (Score:3)
Dresden has moved on since then, y'know.
Re: (Score:2)
> powering from the outside with the magnetic field of earth
nah quite certain it's just the presence of the electric field from the magnetron source screwing up all their readings. Once you start messing around with >100W magnetron sources the presence of electric fields will show a voltage reading on just about any voltmeter or any sort of voltage measurement device. You need to spend considerable effort to shield all these potential false signal sources.
If you want a simple example, by pass the i
Re: (Score:2)
"a lot of additional letters after a person's name means almost nothing to me now." I resemble that remark! Mo' betta you no talk stink, eh?
Unruh radiation (Score:2, Interesting)
This paper has a possible explanation that was ignored by the article. If the EMDrive works, then the same explanation likely also applies to some of the galactic rotational observations that are used to justify the need for dark matter.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.0344... [arxiv.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Would that be Lt. Uhuruh of the star ship enterprise?
Re: (Score:2)
Language prejudice (Score:5, Insightful)
Good thing it's not a rocket then.
Going forward... (Score:2)
After all, the law of conservation of momentum says that a rocket cannot accelerate forward without some form of exhaust ejected backwards.
Perhaps it's more of a guideline.
Re: (Score:2)
Or perhaps there are people who dare to break the law.
Finally (Score:2)
Finally. This is the real test. I suggest they put a radio beacon on it that any ham can receive. Either the signal triangulates further and further away and fades, or it doesn't. Of course some people will never believe, and others will always try even if the thing remains mired in LEO, spirals in and burns up; but this needs to be done.
It's not NASA's (Score:5, Informative)
NASA's Impossible Propulsion EmDrive Is Heading to Space
It's not NASA's.
Light the fuse... (Score:2)
NASA's Impossible Propulsion EmDrive ...
The output of which would be the Impossible Propulsion Force. Tom Cruise is ready and waiting.
Actually Powered by the Ejecta... (Score:2)
... of the trillions of endless assertions on the internet which neither create any nor meet any equal and opposite force, since they have no causal effect on reality. To resolve this discrepancy of pent-up psychodimensional energy, the universe has willed into existence such a drive tapping into a transdimensional energy portal releasing the pent-up energy of those assertions, thereby preventing a massive buildup which would eventually cause such a huge catastrophic explosion so as to render reality as we
Double slit experiment? (Score:3)
Not all observable, repeatable phenomena can be explained yet. The random formation of DNA seemingly defies statistical probability, yet, it happened. Just sayin' here...
Enough...just stop (Score:2)
NY Times and Robert Goddard (Score:2)
I suspect this will turn out not to work. That said, it did remind me of the New York Times article in 1920 saying that Robert Goddard was foolish to think that rockets could work in space (see e.g. http://www.popsci.com/military... [popsci.com] for their 1969 retraction).
Re: (Score:2)
Eagleworks is in the usa.
It was also given limited testing in Europe.
The arguments against the drive depend on which of the three suggested explanations you like to prefer. Aside of course from the lame dogmatic ones that is.
Re: (Score:2)
You hand in your nerd card right now. Star Trek's impulse drives are magnetoplasmadynamic thrusters powered by deuterium fusion reactors. Basically, they do eject mass.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but on Star Trek they can arbitrarily convert energy into mass so to refuel you just tell the replicator to make a few tonnes of deuterium and then transport it into the tanks. If we had that technology then a drive that uses no reaction mass wouldn't be as important.
Re: (Score:3)
Any energy released comes from the chemical reactions which are the bonds between electrons being broken and created.
The reaction products have a mass that is ever so slightly lower than the mass was before the reaction.
A lot of online explanations get this wrong. Like this one: from the BBC [bbc.co.uk], explaining conservation of mass in chemical reactions. It would probably unnecessarily confuse the students who focus on all the mass that a fire "loses" as CO2 and water vapour and such, which is not lost at all.
The mass loss is extremely small of course. For an energy release of 1J, you lose 11 femtogram (1J/c^2). Good luck measuri
Re: (Score:2)
GGP's post contains nothing but the ST reference and paranoia about chinese research.
Re: (Score:2)
Photons dont leave except via blackbody radiation. Pointing the magnetron that drives it out into space would be more efficient if it worked the way you suggest.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that that ("blackbody radiation!) means what you seem to think it means. Blackbody radiation is composed of photons. (At least until you get into the tens of millions of Kelvin, when you might have spontaneous conversion of some of the photons into electron-positron pairs.)
Nice piece of buzzword biscuit you've got there. Flour, bread, and an oven for 25 minutes? Anything more substantial to it?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I've been following emdrive for a while now. Prof McCulloch's book and emdrive paper provide the best description I have yet seen of an emdrive. As mentioned above there are no 'laws' of physics, just a collection of theories which seem to describe observed facts well. The theories change or are expanded to suit fresh observations. The best theories can be used to make predictions and provide explanations in disparate other problematic observations and this is the case with Prof McCulloch's work.
If NASA are
Re: (Score:2)
The power in solar radiation is moderate, but due to the extremely high velocity of photons, the associated force is very small. 9.08 micro newton per square meter (wikipedia), (about 2 micro-pounds-force per square meter)
Re: (Score:2)
But inertia is not a force.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that what Darth Vader meant by the dark side of the force?