Shop OBEX P1 Docs P2 Docs Learn Events
Anyone following the EMDrive? — Parallax Forums

Anyone following the EMDrive?

xanatosxanatos Posts: 1,120
edited 2014-08-25 10:59 in General Discussion
Just wondering if anyone is following the reports on the EMDrive. A lot of controversy... I like the idea, certainly. But the "reactionless drive" concept requires - not a HUGE leap - but a leap, none-the-less. The designer claims that the relativistic effects allow for separate frames of reference and hence allow for a net thrust rather than just stressing the waveguide walls...

So I have a good 1500W magnetron... thinking about building one of these things to see for myself.

Anybody else into this line of research?

Dave

Comments

  • xanatosxanatos Posts: 1,120
    edited 2014-08-23 12:19
    I guess not :)
  • msrobotsmsrobots Posts: 3,709
    edited 2014-08-23 16:45
    maybe put some link to your EMDrive - whatever it is?

    Enjoy!

    Mike
  • jazzedjazzed Posts: 11,803
    edited 2014-08-23 17:34
    Google?

    Interesting and controversial. Yes. At least it's not some free energy claim.
  • RDL2004RDL2004 Posts: 2,554
    edited 2014-08-23 21:46
    Testing by a team of scientists at NASA's Johnson Space Center of a similar electric propulsion drive did give positive results. A device which produces even just a small amount of thrust, that requires no propellant only electricity, would have many uses in the future of space technology and exploration.

    NASA validates 'impossible' space drive (Wired.co.uk)
  • TorTor Posts: 2,010
    edited 2014-08-24 00:09
    Hmm.. from what I've read elsewhere the NASA test's positive result had a magnitude so low that it was down there with the error margin. Wired's use of the word 'validates' in the headline is their own invention. It's there in NASA's abstract itself.. here. Never mind the claims about '..producing a force that is not attributable to any classical electromagnetic phenomenon..' at the end of that abstract, a bit before that they state that a 'null' drive (one without the internals which are supposed to produce trust) _also_ produces trust. In other words, the opposite of validating the EMDrive concept. That the null drive produces trust tells me that they're just fooling around at the error/noise level.

    I remember reading an article about this drive in New Scientist years ago. The explanation the designer provided for how it should work simply made no sense. It clashes with tested physics. There was a gap in the explanation which contained the classical 'and here something magic happens' step.

    Edit: I Have Googled. Here is a good article from Discover Magazine (well, blog article).
  • prof_brainoprof_braino Posts: 4,313
    edited 2014-08-24 07:19
    Following on xkcd, a reliable source of perspective: http://xkcd.com/1404/
  • xanatosxanatos Posts: 1,120
    edited 2014-08-24 08:57
    prof_braino wrote: »
    Following on xkcd, a reliable source of perspective: http://xkcd.com/1404/

    LOL! I'd twitch a lot too.

    Tor, that Discover blog is very well written and balanced, and pretty much sums up my "most likely" thoughts, but something keeps "twitching" in my thinking about this proposition, and that being the relativistic separate frames of reference. I remember reading a lot about this in a physics text about a decade ago, and it was actually in an article about how completely relativity has stood up to modern testing.

    I'll have to do some more research on that point.

    I do have to admit that my *desire* for something like this to be true does allow me to at least do some reading on the subjects when the headlines come around, and even if it turns out to be complete BS, none-the-less as a result of looking into it I've always learned more about *confirmed* science as a result, so there's always a benefit.

    Unfortunately, I also know quite a few very academically endowed folks who have such closed minds to new possibilities that even if driven cross-country in a working, hovering car that was powered by water and emitted no propellant of any kind, would, upon exiting the vehicle on the opposite coast, still find reason to discount it as real because it didn't fit with the knowledge they hold.

    Somehow I think it's a combination of the two types that allows science to actually progress. *Good* experiments rarely lie. But it takes an open mind to be willing to invest a little time (and money) in making a good experiment to test something that doesn't quite fit with out current knowledge. How does that quote go?

    "The most exciting utterance in science is not 'Eureka!', but, 'Hmmm, that's funny...'"

    So if in six months or so there's any more *good* evidence that this device is doing something it shouldn't... I still have that fat magnetron on my shelf. :)

    Dave
  • Mark_TMark_T Posts: 1,981
    edited 2014-08-25 10:59
    Well the theory paper goes on about adding special relativity to analysis and comes out with a graph showing how
    Q varies with velocity.... But the whole point of special relativity is that you cannot determine velocity from internal
    measurements, and Maxwell's equations actually predict special relativity anyway so it must be bunkem!
Sign In or Register to comment.