What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

NASA tests controversial EM drive in a vacuum - Warp drive? (1 Viewer)

mcintyre1

Footballguy
I remembered reading about this last year when NASA first tested it after Chinese scientists had put out research papers indicating they had successfully recreated the effect. Everyone said "wait and see" until NASA was able to test it again in a hard vacuum (and thus eliminating the most common rational hypothesis to explain the detected thrust). Now they have and people are starting to get excited again.

I like how they casually slip into the last few paragraphs of the article that a modified version of the device (not tested in a vacuum) exhibited an unexpected bending of light passing through the device, indicating that the detected thrust effect might be the result of bending spacetime (ie. warp drive).

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/

The scientific community met these NASA tests with skepticism and a number of physicists proposed that the measured thrust force in the US, UK, and China tests was more likely due to (external to the EM Drive cavity) natural thermal convection currents arising from microwave heating (internal to the EM Drive cavity).


However, Paul March, an engineer at NASA Eagleworks, recently reported in NASASpaceFlight.com’s forum (on a thread now over 500,000 views) that NASA has successfully tested their EM Drive in a hard vacuum – the first time any organization has reported such a successful test.

To this end, NASA Eagleworks has now nullified the prevailing hypothesis that thrust measurements were due to thermal convection.
...
The applications of such a propulsion drive are multi-fold, ranging from low Earth orbit (LEO) operations, to transit missions to the Moon, Mars, and the outer solar system, to multi-generation spaceships for interstellar travel.
...
Moving out from LEO, Mr. March, from NASA EagleWorks, noted that a spacecraft equipped with EM drive technology could surpass the performance expectations of the WarpStar-I concept vehicle.

If such a similar vehicle were equipped with an EM Drive, it could enable travel from the surface of Earth to the surface of the moon within four hours.
...
a mission to Mars would result in a 70-day transit from Earth to the red planet, a 90-day stay at Mars, and then another 70-day return transit to Earth.
...
This same elimination of inter-planetary conjunction-enabled launch windows would be applied to crewed missions to the outer planets as well.

For such a mission, such as a crewed flight to the outer planets – specifically, a Titan/Enceladus mission at Saturn – an EM Drive would allow for a 9-month transit period from Earth to Saturn, a 6-month in-situ mission at Titan, another 6-month in-situ mission at Enceladus, and a 9-month return trip to Earth. This would result in a total mission duration of just 32 months.
...
Mr. Joosten and Dr. White stated that “a one-way, non-decelerating trip to Alpha Centauri under a constant one milli-g acceleration” from an EM drive would result in an arrival speed of 9.4 percent the speed of light and result in a total transit time from Earth to Alpha Centauri of just 92 years.

However, if the intentions of such a mission were to perform in-situ observations and experiments in the Alpha Centauri system, then deceleration would be needed.

This added component would result in a 130-year transit time from Earth to Alpha Centauri – which is still a significant improvement over the multi-thousand year timetable such a mission would take using current chemical propulsion technology.
...

[And the warp drive hint:]

For the last three years, Dr. White’s team has been conducting experiments to find out whether it is possible to measure, with an interferometer, a distortion of spacetime produced by time-varying electromagnetic fields.

The ultimate goal is to find out whether it is possible for a spacecraft traveling at conventional speeds to achieve effective superluminal speed by contracting space in front of it and expanding space behind it. The experimental results so far had been inconclusive.

During the first two weeks of April of this year, NASA Eagleworks may have finally obtained conclusive results.

One possible explanation for the optical path length change is that it is due to refraction of the air. The NASA team examined this possibility and concluded that it is not likely that the measured change is due to transient air heating because the experiment’s visibility threshold is forty times larger than the calculated effect from air considering atmospheric heating.

Encouraged by these results, NASA Eagleworks plans to next conduct these interferometer tests in a vacuum.
If this stuff pans out, there are enormous ramifications.

 
Cool. why is this controversial? because we didn't believe the Chinese or is there something else?

 
A good friend of mine is in science and knows his ####... here's his initial take. Worth every penny you paid for it...

no. there is no way this device, which essentially claims to be an induction motor operating on vacuum particles, could generate the thrust to get into orbit from the surface of the Earth, for starters. if it operated like a higher thrust or higher efficiency ion engine like the one on the Dawn mission, then it could cut travel times to Mars, but I don't see how it would build up enough thrust to shave travel time to the moon down from 3 days to 4 hours.

the bottom line though is the physics sounds crazee, you can't push against the vacuum, even on the quantum level where the uncertainty principle suggests that by acting on vacuum particles you would rob them of their momentum, i.e. the mass you need to push against
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A bit more from CNET.

The science behind the EM drive is, well, complicated to say the least, but the basic idea is to convert electrical energy into thrust without propellant (the fuel in rockets), which should be impossible because it violates the law of conservation of momentum. That law states that momentum can only be changed by one of the forces described by Newton's laws of motion -- that's where propellant normally comes in with traditional rockets.

If you want to dive into the "hows" and "whys" of all this, they're discussed at length -- by amateur enthusiasts as well as Ph.Ds and one of the NASA engineers actually working on the EM drive -- on this NASASpaceFlight.com forum.

Scientists from the US, UK and China have demonstrated the EM drive over the past 15 years or so, but it's been controversial, since as mentioned above, the EM drive would seem to violate classical physics.
 
A good friend of mine is in science and knows his ####... here's his initial take. Worth every penny you paid for it...

no. there is no way this device, which essentially claims to be an induction motor operating on vacuum particles, could generate the thrust to get into orbit from the surface of the Earth, for starters. if it operated like a higher thrust or higher efficiency ion engine like the one on the Dawn mission, then it could cut travel times to Mars, but I don't see how it would build up enough thrust to shave travel time to the moon down from 3 days to 4 hours.

the bottom line though is the physics sounds crazee, you can't push against the vacuum, even on the quantum level where the uncertainty principle suggests that by acting on vacuum particles you would rob them of their momentum, i.e. the mass you need to push against
This is where your friend and the researchers involved with this disagree. Dr. White has postulated for several years now that you CAN push against the quantum vacuum, and has been designing tests to try to prove that. I've read that he has used his theories about interaction with the quantum vacuum to successfully show that they correctly predict the atomic orbitals of several elements through calculation. They've previously had some very small "non-negative" results from their device designed to measure spacetime disruptions, but the big news is that they took that device and shot it through this ill-explained propulsion system and got their best results yet. All very early and unconfirmed, but basically if this works out, a lot of the naysayers behind theoretical warp drive ("You'd need the energy of a whole sun" -- "You can't create negative mass to counter it either") could be proved wrong.

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'

-Isaac Asimov
 
Cool. why is this controversial? because we didn't believe the Chinese or is there something else?
The drive by all accounts of classical physics just shouldn't work (despite the claims of the original inventor, who I've seen many "real" scientists label as a bit of a quack and, frankly, bad at math). Its like someone saying they've created a perpetual motion machine or created free energy. Also, there is a bit of "we just don't believe the Chinese" when it comes to scientific discoveries. They have a higher track record of academic fraud than other major research countries.

 
A good friend of mine is in science and knows his ####... here's his initial take. Worth every penny you paid for it...

no. there is no way this device, which essentially claims to be an induction motor operating on vacuum particles, could generate the thrust to get into orbit from the surface of the Earth, for starters. if it operated like a higher thrust or higher efficiency ion engine like the one on the Dawn mission, then it could cut travel times to Mars, but I don't see how it would build up enough thrust to shave travel time to the moon down from 3 days to 4 hours.

the bottom line though is the physics sounds crazee, you can't push against the vacuum, even on the quantum level where the uncertainty principle suggests that by acting on vacuum particles you would rob them of their momentum, i.e. the mass you need to push against
If he can't spell crazy, how can I respect anything he said?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I really want to understand this, but I'm not smart. Can someone explain this in layman's terms?
I mostly only pretend to be smart, but I can try based on what I've read.

Space flight right now sucks because it all boils down to micromanaging rocket fuel. Rocket fuel is heavy, and thus very expensive to put into space to then use. This "Em Drive" claims to be able to create motion without expending fuel to do so, only a direct conversion of energy (say from small nuclear reactor for large scale applications). That makes no sense, because based on our understanding of physics, you have to "push" against something to move and create thrust. Rockets do that by exploding fuel behind them and shaping the energetic reaction into focused thrust. This team speculates that the thrust might actually be the result of "pushing" against something called the "quantum vacuum" (think "dead/empty space" for short), which, based on current understanding, shouldn't be possible. If they're right, and it is possible, it means we don't understand physics quite as well as we thought, and a lot of the previously "practically impossible" but technically feasible theories about things like faster than light travel might now be possible.

Another funny piece of this is that, if true, this is something we've technically been capable of since we started harnessing microwaves in the 1950's (cue UFO conspiracy theories).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
:blackdot:

eta there are a few videos on youtube if you want to learn more -- search under em drive.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I really want to understand this, but I'm not smart. Can someone explain this in layman's terms?
I mostly only pretend to be smart, but I can try based on what I've read.

Space flight right now sucks because it all boils down to micromanaging rocket fuel. Rocket fuel is heavy, and thus very expensive to put into space to then use. This "Em Drive" claims to be able to create motion without expending fuel to do so, only a direct conversion of energy (say from small nuclear reactor for large scale applications). That makes no sense, because based on our understanding of physics, you have to "push" against something to move and create thrust. Rockets do that by exploding fuel behind them and shaping the energetic reaction into focused thrust. This team speculates that the thrust might actually be the result of "pushing" against something called the "quantum vacuum" (think "dead/empty space" for short), which, based on current understanding, shouldn't be possible. If they're right, and it is possible, it means we don't understand physics quite as well as we thought, and a lot of the previously "practically impossible" but technically feasible theories about things like faster than light travel might now be possible.

Another funny piece of this is that, if true, this is something we've technically been capable of since we started harnessing microwaves in the 1950's (cue UFO conspiracy theories).
Thank you! This sounds like some real Star Trek-type ####!

In all honesty, though, this is fascinating.

 
So why do politicians (from both political parties) keep trying to cut NASA's budget?
Great question. The team has expressed frustration that experiments have been slowed due to lack of funding. Apparently testing the equipment in a vacuum damages some of the more delicate pieces and they have to be rebuilt/replaced afterwards, which they often lack funding to replace.

I should note as a warning, while these are all very smart and respected people in their fields, they are operating on the fringes of known science without extensive support and under great scutiny. Heck, I think the resonance cavity they designed for the last test was hand made in one of the scientist's dining rooms. As always, its possible they're measuring something wrong and this is all nothing, but each experiment gets us closer to answering that (and every experiment so far hasn't managed to discount what's happening).

 
if they get this going brohans i hope they drop it in to a 75 charger right off the bat but do not get it all gussied up just take her out looking stock and blow the doors off some vettes and foriegn piles sleeper style take that to the bank bromigos

 
if they get this going brohans i hope they drop it in to a 75 charger right off the bat but do not get it all gussied up just take her out looking stock and blow the doors off some vettes and foriegn piles sleeper style take that to the bank bromigos
Dodge Bropar!

 
if they get this going brohans i hope they drop it in to a 75 charger right off the bat but do not get it all gussied up just take her out looking stock and blow the doors off some vettes and foriegn piles sleeper style take that to the bank bromigos
It has to go into a DeLorean. :brofistbump:

 
Very cool. Given the little we truly "know" about quantum actions I think calling anything impossible seems a little silly.

 
Cool. why is this controversial? because we didn't believe the Chinese or is there something else?
The drive by all accounts of classical physics just shouldn't work (despite the claims of the original inventor, who I've seen many "real" scientists label as a bit of a quack and, frankly, bad at math). Its like someone saying they've created a perpetual motion machine or created free energy. Also, there is a bit of "we just don't believe the Chinese" when it comes to scientific discoveries. They have a higher track record of academic fraud than other major research countries.
Thanks for clarifying that.

In regards to the funding why wouldn't this be funded by the military? It would change the time needed to fire a missile from point A to point B from minutes to seconds. I'm guessing it's because it doesn't work inside the Earths atmosphere?

 
KCitons said:
Cool. why is this controversial? because we didn't believe the Chinese or is there something else?
The drive by all accounts of classical physics just shouldn't work (despite the claims of the original inventor, who I've seen many "real" scientists label as a bit of a quack and, frankly, bad at math). Its like someone saying they've created a perpetual motion machine or created free energy. Also, there is a bit of "we just don't believe the Chinese" when it comes to scientific discoveries. They have a higher track record of academic fraud than other major research countries.
Thanks for clarifying that.

In regards to the funding why wouldn't this be funded by the military? It would change the time needed to fire a missile from point A to point B from minutes to seconds. I'm guessing it's because it doesn't work inside the Earths atmosphere?
My understanding is that, if true (big if), it should work inside of the earth's atmosphere as well. I think the lack of funding for NASA's project and others more reflects that everyone is very skeptical about these things.

 
KCitons said:
Cool. why is this controversial? because we didn't believe the Chinese or is there something else?
The drive by all accounts of classical physics just shouldn't work (despite the claims of the original inventor, who I've seen many "real" scientists label as a bit of a quack and, frankly, bad at math). Its like someone saying they've created a perpetual motion machine or created free energy. Also, there is a bit of "we just don't believe the Chinese" when it comes to scientific discoveries. They have a higher track record of academic fraud than other major research countries.
Thanks for clarifying that.

In regards to the funding why wouldn't this be funded by the military? It would change the time needed to fire a missile from point A to point B from minutes to seconds. I'm guessing it's because it doesn't work inside the Earths atmosphere?
My understanding is that, if true (big if), it should work inside of the earth's atmosphere as well. I think the lack of funding for NASA's project and others more reflects that everyone is very skeptical about these things.
which brings us back to the military. they're crazy enough to try anything.

 
Findings presented this week, still to be disproven.

The moon in 4 hours, Mars in 17 days, Pluto in 18 months and a probe could reach Alpha Centauri in 100 years.
love that the EM drive looks like it should be distilling gin in a long moustachioed dude's basement in Greenpoint Brooklyn. also love that they felt they needed to include a picture of the Enterprise.

Mars in 17 days would be pretty amazing. California in 40 seconds would be better.

 
Findings presented this week, still to be disproven.

The moon in 4 hours, Mars in 17 days, Pluto in 18 months and a probe could reach Alpha Centauri in 100 years.
love that the EM drive looks like it should be distilling gin in a long moustachioed dude's basement in Greenpoint Brooklyn. also love that they felt they needed to include a picture of the Enterprise.

Mars in 17 days would be pretty amazing. California in 40 seconds would be better.
Note that this engine isn't the same as the "warp drive". Both are really cool, though.

 
If no one has any idea how it works, why did the dude who invented it even invent it in the first place? Was he trying for something else and this was an accident?

 
Sand said:
El Floppo said:
Walking Boot said:
Findings presented this week, still to be disproven.

The moon in 4 hours, Mars in 17 days, Pluto in 18 months and a probe could reach Alpha Centauri in 100 years.
love that the EM drive looks like it should be distilling gin in a long moustachioed dude's basement in Greenpoint Brooklyn. also love that they felt they needed to include a picture of the Enterprise.

Mars in 17 days would be pretty amazing. California in 40 seconds would be better.
Note that this engine isn't the same as the "warp drive". Both are really cool, though.
That's right, this is modeled after the "impulse" drive. Thanks for clearing up which fake propulsion system it's being compared to for us.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
if they get this going brohans i hope they drop it in to a 75 charger right off the bat but do not get it all gussied up just take her out looking stock and blow the doors off some vettes and foriegn piles sleeper style take that to the bank bromigos
It has to go into a DeLorean. :brofistbump:
just in case you are still standing there with you hand up looking for a fist bump it is not coming on a dalorean brohan i mean just come on bromigo

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top