EmDrive May Generate Warp-Like Field, NASA Engineers Discover

Dach

New member
Apr 28, 2015
27
0
0
Cowabungaa said:
P-89 Scorpion said:
Not the EmDrive again this is just NASA trolling the internet again. It's not nor has it ever been a real thing get over it.
Do elaborate.
The Cannae and EmDrive have both been pushed online when if you read the scientific literature out on them, it is clear that there is something wrong. I haven't dug into the new findings but even just following the source, it is evident that the readings could have come from heating of air in the chamber. The results are anomalous which would be relevant if that actually could be attributed to the EmDrive actually doing something.

The previous research has always had questionable results too. Outside of Cannae LLC, the producer of the supposed engine, only two other experiments have been performed with the Cannae Drive/EmDrive. I could not find a link to any article written by the Chinese team, but it was reported that they observed 720 mN of thrust. The NASA team observed 30-50 mN but, more importantly, "Thrust was observed on both test articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce thrust." This definitely calls into question the efficacy of that experiment. Additional testing should definitely be done, but it is way too early to speculate about these devices. (link to the NASA abstract: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20140006052)
 

mtarzaim02

New member
Jan 23, 2014
86
0
0
Dach said:
...
"Thrust was observed on both test articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce thrust." ...
Vulcans don't want us to get warp capability, so they obviously meddle into our experiments to confuse us with incoherent results.

Either that or Cthulhu.
 

Pyrian

Hat Man
Legacy
Apr 21, 2020
1,399
8
13
San Diego, CA
Country
US
Gender
Male
Dach said:
"Thrust was observed on both test articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce thrust."
One doesn't usually see a placebo effect in physics. XD
 

Dach

New member
Apr 28, 2015
27
0
0
Pyrian said:
Dach said:
"Thrust was observed on both test articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce thrust."
One doesn't usually see a placebo effect in physics. XD
Comparing cases build to cause an effect with ones that are not is a good way of removing systematic error from an experiment. Placebo is a bit different, but you could view it as a systematic error in determining medicinal efficacy.
 

Cowabungaa

New member
Feb 10, 2008
10,806
0
0
Dach said:
The Cannae and EmDrive have both been pushed online when if you read the scientific literature out on them, it is clear that there is something wrong. I haven't dug into the new findings but even just following the source, it is evident that the readings could have come from heating of air in the chamber. The results are anomalous which would be relevant if that actually could be attributed to the EmDrive actually doing something.
The link is sadly dead, but is it then simply not a case of doing the experiment in a vacuum chamber to rule that out?
 

Dach

New member
Apr 28, 2015
27
0
0
Cowabungaa said:
Dach said:
The Cannae and EmDrive have both been pushed online when if you read the scientific literature out on them, it is clear that there is something wrong. I haven't dug into the new findings but even just following the source, it is evident that the readings could have come from heating of air in the chamber. The results are anomalous which would be relevant if that actually could be attributed to the EmDrive actually doing something.
The link is sadly dead, but is it then simply not a case of doing the experiment in a vacuum chamber to rule that out?
Which link? I'm not seeing any dead link.

The test is about warp interferometry and this paper (http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1407/1407.7772.pdf) claims that transient air heating causes problems with testing warp interferometry. However NASA Eagleworks claims that this doesn't appear to be an issue because external infrared cams were used to monitor the apparatus, it was constructed to maintain constant temperatures, and the setup was warmed up to a constant running temp prior to testing.
 

Shinkicker444

New member
Dec 6, 2011
349
0
0
Dalek Caan said:
I'm really disappointed that we don't call it a Shaw-Fujikawa Translight Engine. Still if your the guy to invent warp drives you can name it whatever you want. Hopefully this turns out to be true anyway.
Kearny-Fuchida drive imo.
 

Pinky's Brain

New member
Mar 2, 2011
290
0
0
Just do it in vacuum ... the electrolytic capacitors couldn't operate in vacuum, what a bloody joke.

You can just pot them or replace them with tantalums. If potting decreases their cooling capacity too much then glue them to a heatsink before potting them ... they'll create a very nice explosion when they fail, but who cares, just replace them after the experiment. This is not rocket science, it was just a lame excuse from some people desperate to preserve their department for another year.
 

Czann

New member
Jan 22, 2014
317
0
0
I don't think this is something impossible. It would be the apex of arrogance for a barely civilized bunch of apes to say we know everything about how the universe works.

There's must be still an awful lot of things we simply can't even dream about to find out about the universe.

This may be one of them.
 

Vendor-Lazarus

Censored by Mods. PM for Taboos
Mar 1, 2009
1,201
0
0
Sounds more like a Warp Transfer Field Drive.. ..Needs more testing.

Seriously though, I still yearn for space travel.
There is a reason I'm on the Escapist and like reading/watching Sci-Fi and playing 4X games (amongst others).

<youtube=8pH8fPXhm0U>
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
P-89 Scorpion said:
Not the EmDrive again this is just NASA trolling the internet again. It's not nor has it ever been a real thing get over it.
Right, NASA, those lovable scoundrels. Always promising but never providing us with any inventions. Some day, maybe they'll make good on their other inventions....

You know, like that time these whacky ne'er do goods promised us: [http://www.design-laorosa.com/2012/11/26-nasa-inventions-that-we-take-for.html]
CAT Scanners
The Computer Microchip
Cordless Power Tools (the modern form, Black and Decker had the first model, Nasa perfected it)
Portable cordless vacuums
Ear Thermometers
Freeze-dried food
Insulation
Invisible braces
Enriched baby food
The Joystick
LEDs (red, in NASA's case)
Memory Foam (I slept real comfortably last night on what sure felt like memory foam)
Scratch resistant lenses.
Shoe insoles
Artificial limbs
Adjustable sensitivity Smoke Detectors
Solar Energy
Powdered lubricants
The Water Filter
Space Blankets
The Soaper Soaker
Flame-Resistant textiles
Thermometer Pill
Workout machines
Long Distance telecommunications
Highway Safety grooving

With over 6,000 patents and 1,800 resulting in spin-off inventions/patents, I sure wish these guys would get around to actually delivering on promises.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies

In honor of Poe's Law I will now declare the above to be sarcasm. NASA doesn't troll. They do make mistakes and that's why we need more data. But they are cutting edge where innovations are concerned.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Czann said:
I don't think this is something impossible. It would be the apex of arrogance for a barely civilized bunch of apes to say we know everything about how the universe works.

There's must be still an awful lot of things we simply can't even dream about to find out about the universe.

This may be one of them.
The math works out. No one should be calling this impossible. We should merely be calling for a vacuum test to verify the results.


Dach said:
Cowabungaa said:
P-89 Scorpion said:
Not the EmDrive again this is just NASA trolling the internet again. It's not nor has it ever been a real thing get over it.
Do elaborate.
The Cannae and EmDrive have both been pushed online when if you read the scientific literature out on them, it is clear that there is something wrong. I haven't dug into the new findings but even just following the source, it is evident that the readings could have come from heating of air in the chamber. The results are anomalous which would be relevant if that actually could be attributed to the EmDrive actually doing something.

The previous research has always had questionable results too. Outside of Cannae LLC, the producer of the supposed engine, only two other experiments have been performed with the Cannae Drive/EmDrive. I could not find a link to any article written by the Chinese team, but it was reported that they observed 720 mN of thrust. The NASA team observed 30-50 mN but, more importantly, "Thrust was observed on both test articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce thrust." This definitely calls into question the efficacy of that experiment. Additional testing should definitely be done, but it is way too early to speculate about these devices. (link to the NASA abstract: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20140006052)
Please note first that this was for the Cannae drive test, not the EmDrive. Also note that there were three articles. The two that produced thrust were not controls. One had radial slots in accordance with Fetta's theory (the guy that made the cannae model) and the other didn't have the slots. Both had a resonance chamber. The control producing thrust would have raised far more eyebrows as it did not have a resonance chamber (but it did correctly fail to produce thrust). Both producing thrust just meant the difference between both articles weren't as relevant as they thought and that Fetta's theory needed tweaking to say the least.

Regardless, the creator of the EmDrive criticized Fetta's design as such: "[The Cannae Drive] operates along similar lines to EmDrive, except that its thrust is derived from a reduced reflection coefficient at one end plate," which he says "degrades the Q resonance factor of the device and hence the level of thrust that can be obtained"

Pyrian said:
Dach said:
"Thrust was observed on both test articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce thrust."
One doesn't usually see a placebo effect in physics. XD
As stated above, it's important to note that neither of the thrust capable articles were a control article. It's just that one of the articles wasn't supposed to work according to one person's theory on how the thrust was being generated and this experiment showed it to be false. That it was working some other way which these new findings may explain.
 

P-89 Scorpion

New member
Sep 25, 2014
466
0
0
Lightknight said:
P-89 Scorpion said:
Not the EmDrive again this is just NASA trolling the internet again. It's not nor has it ever been a real thing get over it.
Right, NASA, those lovable scoundrels. Always promising but never providing us with any inventions. Some day, maybe they'll make good on their other inventions....

You know, like that time these whacky ne'er do goods promised us: [http://www.design-laorosa.com/2012/11/26-nasa-inventions-that-we-take-for.html]


With over 6,000 patents and 1,800 resulting in spin-off inventions/patents, I sure wish these guys would get around to actually delivering on promises.

The EmDrive is not a NASA invention.

NASA as an organisation has said nothing directly about the EmDrive.

You are right NASA as an organisation doesn't troll but the individual engineers in there spare time yeah they do.

This article if from an internet forum were some NASA scientists point out over and over again that until repeatable proven results can be done this device is fake. This has been going on for 15 years where through thousands of tests a mere handful have produced unusual results which Roger J. Shawyer then proceeds to say prove it works.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
P-89 Scorpion said:
Lightknight said:
P-89 Scorpion said:
Not the EmDrive again this is just NASA trolling the internet again. It's not nor has it ever been a real thing get over it.
Right, NASA, those lovable scoundrels. Always promising but never providing us with any inventions. Some day, maybe they'll make good on their other inventions....

You know, like that time these whacky ne'er do goods promised us: [http://www.design-laorosa.com/2012/11/26-nasa-inventions-that-we-take-for.html]


With over 6,000 patents and 1,800 resulting in spin-off inventions/patents, I sure wish these guys would get around to actually delivering on promises.

The EmDrive is not a NASA invention.
Didn't say they did. Just pointing out a long history of innovation and cutting edge development.

NASA as an organisation has said nothing directly about the EmDrive.
That's not technically true. They have tested and verified that it does produce thrust, albeit small, in their results from several years ago. But they haven't spoken about this new finding publicly yet.

You are right NASA as an organisation doesn't troll but the individual engineers in there spare time yeah they do.

This article if from an internet forum were some NASA scientists point out over and over again that until repeatable proven results can be done this device is fake. This has been going on for 15 years where through thousands of tests a mere handful have produced unusual results which Roger J. Shawyer then proceeds to say prove it works.
It hasn't been thousands of tests, feel free to cite your claim.

From what I'm seeing there have been several tests from large organizations that have been able to replicate the results to various degrees.

Let me be very clear about this, all of them have seen thrust where no thrust is supposed to be possible. Even in the small amounts they present we're still talking about something that changes our idea about thrust as far as this technology is concerned and our traditional focus on needing propellants.

Now that we have established that it does work. The question is how it works and if it will work in a vacuum and in microgravity.

If those succeed, then we've got ourselves a possibility.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
enginieri said:
Nasa engine produced 30 to 50 micronewtons, so if we attach together 5000 of those engines and put them in space far away from earth we can send a small cockroach to the moon in less than a year !! (that would give the vulcans enough time to detect the warp signature oh yeah)
A couple things here. In a vacuum producing 30 to 50 micronewtons of thrust doesn't mean you travel at a constant speed of whatever that amounts to. Instead, the thrust builds speed slowly but steadily. So it keeps adding to its overall velocity over time, that's important and is different in a frictionless environment than hitting the gas in a car and stopping only to see its speed dwindle to nothing due to variables like friction. Now, I'm not about to sit down and calculate out how much time it would actually take and create a scale to see how much of a difference it'd be by size/weight of the object. But did you account for the increasing velocity of this model?

The second point is that I don't think we'd want to use this to travel to the moon unless we start seeing much better results after refining the technology. Because the value of this is derived from constant thrust without needing to refuel (aside from solar power), this is moreso a technology to travel greater distances and merely to shorten other travels. Something to the moon would likely still be far more efficient with the use of fuel unless the equivalent number of these is lighter/cheaper than the equivalent fuel would be.

Either way, I think we'd still see vehicles equipped with this being launched via propellant based rockets. I would be shocked if this somehow translated into actual transportation in our atmosphere. Even with China's numbers of over 700 micronewtons.
 

Olas

Hello!
Dec 24, 2011
3,226
0
0
ravenshrike said:
Let me know when we get the intra-system version of an Alcubierre Warp Sphere Drive working and I'll be interested. Unfortunately unless we can generate a double bubble it'll never be useful for FTL.
We don't need to get full fledged interstellar travel working, we just need to break the light barrier so that the Vulcans are willing to make first contact and share the rest of their knowledge with us.
 

blackrave

New member
Mar 7, 2012
2,020
0
0
Future?
It isn't flying cars, jetpacks, silly haircuts, nutritional pills or similar nonsense.
Practical space travel. That's the future.

ColeusRattus said:
Wait... this is a gaming site... resoncance chamber...

Does nobody else see a connection here?

Of course, using that in a large scale will cause a resonance cascade!
Don't be silly.
Everyone knows you need to stick cheese into anti-mass spectrometer to get one of those.
Nobody is stupid enough to actually do something like this.
 

Jark212

Certified Deviant
Jul 17, 2008
4,455
0
0
The future is now! But even if it turns out to be a dead end it's still advancement.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
The big question here is of course if it works if we'll ever find out. My major concern here is that if this does work the powers than be, being a bunch of reactionary luddites, will say it didn't so they don't have to deal with the realities of the sudden, radical, change this could bring to earth. Either that or they will find other ways to suppress it and ensure nothing is done with the technology.

To be honest I have little confidence in the idea of "peer review" as it seems to be designed to stonewall things more than anything, and it's good that they are messing with stuff that hasn't been approved by academic politics. That said I do think we need to see more private experiments here, not those entirely done by governmental institutions.

We could hope it works and there will be a space race between the US and China which everyone benefits from, but in reality I find it more likely the powers capable of doing something with this will simply agree that nobody will do anything with the technology to avoid the competition and the inevitable changes to the status quo it would bring. After all, the idea of a world unity with a single world government and culture terrifies people, yet that's going to be necessary for any kind of serious, safe, space travel, we need to be able to bring the resources of humanity to bear and avoid national competitions that will probably create wars (the last thing we need to do is start nuking each other over say Asteroid mining rights, or god forbid what happens if we do find aliens and there is no one who can speak for humanity, empires dealing with competing tribes never goes well).