Physics-Defying Space Drive Confirmed by NASA, May Revolutionize Spaceflight

Rhykker

Level 16 Scallywag
Feb 28, 2010
814
0
0
Physics-Defying Space Drive Confirmed by NASA, May Revolutionize Spaceflight



NASA has conducted experiments on a revolutionary space drive that seems to defy the laws of conservation of momentum and confirmed that it works.

Developed by scientist Roger Shawyer, EmDrive is a spacecraft propulsion system that allegedly creates thrust without a propellant by using electricity to direct microwaves inside a specially-designed container. If proven to be possible, such an engine would revolutionize the way we design spacecraft by eliminating the need for the huge fuel supplies that currently consist of half the launch mass of most satellites.

But here's the problem: the EmDrive seems to violate the law of conservation of momentum. A rocket accelerates forward when the fuel inside of it is shot out backwards. Momentum, a measure of mass and velocity, is exchanged between the rocket and the fuel. But where does the EmDrive's momentum come from? There are three possibilities: either the EmDrive doesn't do what its creator claims, it somehow doesn't break the law of conservation of momentum, or our fundamental understanding of classical physics is completely wrong.

Shawyer came under a lot of criticism in 2006 for his seemingly wild claims about the results of his demonstration systems. So an independent, peer-reviewed Chinese team built its own EmDrive and confirmed that it worked in papers published in 2008, 2010, and 2012. But that wasn't enough to convince skeptics, so the cavalry was brought in: NASA.

US scientist Guido Fetta built his own version of the EmDrive, called the Cannae Drive, and convinced NASA to put it to the test. On July 30, 2014, the results of the test were presented at the 50th Joint Propulsion Conference.

NASA confirmed that the drive works. [http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20140006052]

Five NASA researchers spent six days meticulously preparing the equipment and two days conducting experiments in an attempt to debunk the drive - it has happened in the past that apparent violations of the laws of physics were simply a result of interference between instruments and equipment.

But NASA confirmed that the drive generates thrust - a tiny amount, and much less than the Chinese team reported, but it nonetheless works. How? The NASA team doesn't offer an explanation in its paper.

As for why the Cannae Drive generates less thrust than the EmDrive, Shawyer believes it is a result of the design of the container in which the microwaves are directed.

Of course, the results of this experiment will come under intense scrutiny. We will have to wait a while longer before we learn whether this truly is a revolutionary drive, or simply a huge gaffe. I have my fingers crossed.

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

Permalink
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
this almost make me have faith it isnt a fake. but just like with that faster than light photon that turned out to be calculation error we will get this debunked. thats what humans are good at anyway.

And in the off chance that we dont actually get it debunked, this could be awesome engine.
 

sleeky01

New member
Jan 27, 2011
342
0
0
If this indeed factual, it still apparently does not produce anymore thrust than current ion drives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster

However in reading the linked article, I get the same "Cold Fusion" vibe from it. It was all the craze in 1989-1990 but was later shown to be inaccurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
 

Jadak

New member
Nov 4, 2008
2,136
0
0
sleeky01 said:
If this indeed factual, it still apparently does not produce anymore thrust than current ion drives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster
Ion Thrusters still require a propellant ( Perhaps not a ton, but none is better than some), the point of this thing is that it apparently does not.
 

sleeky01

New member
Jan 27, 2011
342
0
0
Jadak said:
sleeky01 said:
If this indeed factual, it still apparently does not produce anymore thrust than current ion drives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster
Ion Thrusters still require a propellant ( Perhaps not a ton, but none is better than some), the point of this thing is that it apparently does not.
And the point *I* was making that a system already exists and is proven to exist with the same thrust abillity.

Edit: Captcha-White Rabbit

Hmm...even captcha has its Alice-in-Wonderland suspicions. :)
 

Super Cyborg

New member
Jul 25, 2014
474
0
0
Physics was always my worst subject, which is why I went with the Biology side of things. Have to compliment the article, as despite not knowing much, I was able to understand everything, unlike the God Particle one from a number of weeks back which I barely understood. I know it can be hard for some things, but whenever these articles are brought up, could you please try to keep it as simple as possible so people like me can understand. It would be highly appreciated so those of us who aren't as knowledgeable in certain subjects can understand the possible implications.

As for the actual content, it sounds pretty interesting. If it is indeed true, it could expand the possibilities of space travel, by how much I can't say, since I'm not an expert in it. Anything to get the space race back up sounds good to me though.
 

DrOswald

New member
Apr 22, 2011
1,443
0
0
sleeky01 said:
If this indeed factual, it still apparently does not produce anymore thrust than current ion drives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster

However in reading the linked article, I get the same "Cold Fusion" vibe from it. It was all the craze in 1989-1990 but was later shown to be inaccurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
The big difference here is that 3 independent groups have reported similar findings. The Cold Fusion thing was caused by a bungle of misunderstandings within one group and was quickly debunked by other independent groups. They were so excited about the possibilities that they over reported their findings. Most importantly, the results are not readily reproducible. But with 3 independent groups each performing the experiment to their own satisfaction and all reporting similar findings the chances of this being experimental error or just plain incompetence are much, much lower. At this point it is probably something worth being interested in, cautiously (and mildly) optimistic about, and it should certainly be well investigated.

By the way, the really interesting this isn't the amount of thrust. It is the fact that if this is real it points to a clear hole in our understanding of the laws of the physical universe. This is the stuff that the great breakthroughs are made of. An experiment like this is what gave us atomic theory and quantum mechanics. Something that happens, we can reproduce it, but we are at a complete loss to explain it. If this turns out to be true this is the good stuff.
 

Jadak

New member
Nov 4, 2008
2,136
0
0
sleeky01 said:
Jadak said:
sleeky01 said:
If this indeed factual, it still apparently does not produce anymore thrust than current ion drives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster
Ion Thrusters still require a propellant ( Perhaps not a ton, but none is better than some), the point of this thing is that it apparently does not.
And the point *I* was making that a system already exists and is proven to exist with the same thrust abillity.
Okay then? In that case you may as well also point out that standard rockets have even better thrust ability?! That would be just as relevant.
 

JarinArenos

New member
Jan 31, 2012
556
0
0
Jadak said:
sleeky01 said:
Jadak said:
sleeky01 said:
If this indeed factual, it still apparently does not produce anymore thrust than current ion drives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster
Ion Thrusters still require a propellant ( Perhaps not a ton, but none is better than some), the point of this thing is that it apparently does not.
And the point *I* was making that a system already exists and is proven to exist with the same thrust abillity.
Okay then? In that case you may as well also point out that standard rockets have even better thrust ability?! That would be just as relevant.
Or that horses are more reliable and easier to care for than those new-fangled horseless carriages.

First-demonstration technology is often on par or worse than technology that is currently available in performance. It's the new principles that matter.
 

Kevin Cross

New member
Jan 10, 2013
9
0
0
This may not require propellant, but that doesn't mean it doesn't require FUEL. You still need to be generating power to generate microwaves.
 

Kieve

New member
Jan 4, 2011
128
0
0
Kevin Cross said:
This may not require propellant, but that doesn't mean it doesn't require FUEL. You still need to be generating power to generate microwaves.
Don't confuse "fuel" with "energy source" - there are a lot of ways to obtain electricity beyond just burning fuel sources (solar power being the most obvious one I can think of offhand). More to the point though, it's renewable. Once you spray propellant into space, it's gone - there is no getting it back. Energy sources can be recharged.
 

Kevin Cross

New member
Jan 10, 2013
9
0
0
Kieve said:
Kevin Cross said:
This may not require propellant, but that doesn't mean it doesn't require FUEL. You still need to be generating power to generate microwaves.
Don't confuse "fuel" with "energy source" - there are a lot of ways to obtain electricity beyond just burning fuel sources (solar power being the most obvious one I can think of offhand). More to the point though, it's renewable. Once you spray propellant into space, it's gone - there is no getting it back. Energy sources can be recharged.
Good points. You could even get power via a microwave or laser link to sources on or around earth.
 

Pinkamena

Stuck in a vortex of sexy horses
Jun 27, 2011
2,371
0
0
It's possible we have a faulty understanding of basic newtonian physics, but the wikipedia article on this subject offers more plausible explanations.
Should the EmDrive produce a real thrust, various conjectures have been made to explain the underlying physics. Shawyer claims the thrust would be caused by radiation pressure imbalance due to group velocities of electromagnetic waves within the framework of special relativity. Dr. Yang predicts a resulting net force using classical electromagnetism.[14] A more complete theory has been proposed in 2013 by Argentine physicist Fernando Minotti from CONICET, who explains the alleged forces on asymmetric electromagnetic resonant cavities by a particular class of scalar-tensor theory of the Brans?Dicke type.[18] Dr. Harold G. "Sonny" White, a NASA mechanical engineer and physicist investigating field propulsion at Johnson Space Center, notes that such resonant cavities may operate by creating a virtual plasma toroid that would realize net thrust using magnetohydrodynamics upon quantum vacuum fluctuations.[19]
Easy peasy banana squeezy
 

RA92

New member
Jan 1, 2011
3,079
0
0
Propulsion without propellent?

http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130619200757/starwars/images/9/9e/Naboo_Royal_Starship.png
 

SecondPrize

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,436
0
0
There is an oft quoted saying that sufficiently advanced technology would appear as magic to those who don't understand it. That three different parties have produced an effect which defies our understand could mean that our understanding could use a little work. Also, Spaceships. Lets get going on the spaceships.
 

Me55enger

New member
Dec 16, 2008
1,095
0
0
Love the cynicism of the scientist: the Cannae Drive, as in "I cannae do it Captain!"
 

Petromir

New member
Apr 10, 2010
593
0
0
Sleekit said:
"A single electron weighs about 9.10938291 ×10−31 kg"

small yes but no "no mass".

according to da internet

electricity is a flow of electrons

so too is an electromagnetic wave

microwaves in particular have been used to transmit power over long distances and nasa has worked before of the possibly using them to beam down power from orbital solar arrays.

i should really know this stuff (studied it a long time ago) but if this thing basically "fires electricity out the back" then the only question is how much it would need to do so to move a spaceship. you can make use of constant acceleration with very little thrust...and you could also theoretically hook it up to a nuclear reactor and go tour...although tbh you could do that with ion drives atm...

is it maybe possible the effect is so weak compared to gravity we just haven't noticed/accounted for it before ? nah surely not...maybe its of a different magnitude in space...no atmosphere/lower gravity/low temperature something

or mabe i should really go to bed cause i'm half asleep ?

why now with the heavy science thing *shakes fist*
The point is that no mass is being ejected, not that none is involved, the em waves are fired into a chamber, nothing is leaving the ship. This is the issue, currently there's a gaping hole in the conservation on momentum equation for this, nothing's leaving the ship to satisfy it that has so far been detected.


There are a number of options (including but not limited to);

1. We simple are missing the particles leaving to satisfy the laws of momentum as we know them.

2. Our understanding of conservation of momentum is flawed.

3. Experimental errors (less likely with each successful repeat) showing thrust where there is none.
 

giles

New member
Feb 1, 2009
222
0
0
The thing about modern physics, and the reason why no physicist would ever claim anything violates momentum conservation, is that momentum is basically DEFINED to be conserved. It is the conserved current due to translational symmetry of the theory. If we get a weird source of momentum somewhere our formulation of the theory was incomplete (i.e. we forgot something).

Now, on to the facts. Note that we can COMPLETELY SCRATCH the original "inventor" and his explanation because he never submitted it to peer review. That's never a good sign.
Moving on to Dr. Yang ( http://www.emdrive.com/NWPU2010translation.pdf ) my eyes already hurt from the lack of LaTeX. If a freshman handed this in I would immediately give it back to him and tell him to make an effort at presenting his findings if he wants to be taken seriously. Now I know that Dr. Yang's team published it ONLY in Chinese and this is a translation, and they submitted it to peer review, but I really can't take this seriously in the way this is presented. Especially if we take into account that Dr. Yang's team is several orders of magnitude off the NASA results. In conclusion the current experimental data on the subject is scetchy at best. Note: wikipedia claims there was an official english peer reviewed paper submitted by Dr. Yang and claims to link to the PDF but it doesn't work for me. If anyone could find the PDF I'd appreciate it.
Now the last of the actual (peer reviewed) sources I could find to explain this is http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.5690v3 . Now it's already a great sign that this is on arXiv. However, even the author admits that this is still highly speculative. It's simply a possible way to explain a very strange effect that we don't even know is there yet. No physics had to be violated.

TL;DR: [b/]STOP MISREPRESENTING SCIENCE IN THE SCIENCE SECTION[/b]