13

# New Propulsion, the "EM Drive"

maxdancona

2
Sat 16 Apr, 2016 10:41 am
@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:

Can you, by your own experiments, prove ANYTHING as absolute?
Nope - You were taught it - thus it is true.

Mark, your posts in this thread prove that there is at least one thing that is absolute.
mark noble

-1
Sat 16 Apr, 2016 10:48 am
@maxdancona,
Max - You have no idea what an electron-based unifield field even means - You're just jumping on the bandwagon because I pissed you off once.
It's ok, you're still classified in my research as you.
Brandon9000

2
Sat 16 Apr, 2016 10:50 am
@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:
Brandon - Catch up.

In other words, you cannot justify your assertion.

I repeat, how does it prove Einstein a fraud?
maxdancona

2
Sat 16 Apr, 2016 10:51 am
@mark noble,
One of us has a Physics degree. The other one is just making stuff up based on random crap on the Internet.

Which one are you?
maxdancona

2
Sat 16 Apr, 2016 10:57 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

I don't know if anyone who doesn't already understand the science cares about the science, but I will explain it anyway.

This EM Drive has nothing to do with the conservation of energy. This drive, even with its alleged miracle, still uses energy. It is claiming to solve a bigger problem.

The much bigger problem in space travel is conservation of momentum. The problem is related to Newton's second law-- "For every action there is a equal and opposite reaction" (which is a form of conservation of momentum) and the basic problem is that for a space vehicle to accelerate in one direction... it must cause matter to accelerate in the other direction.

Vehicles on Earth have a limitless supply of matter to accelerate... cars push back on the road. Airplanes push back on the air. Boats push back on the water. Spacecraft have nothing to push back on... so in a space ship, you need to carry something that you can fling into space any time you want to either speed up, slow down or change direction (even in the slightest). Of course this stuff you are flinging is a limited resource which makes long space flights under control very difficult.

This EM Drive claims to solve this problem by allowing you to accelerate (speed up, slow down or change direction) without having to fling anything out of the spacecraft.

This would be a very significant advance if it were true. Not only would it break a basic law of physics (the conservation of momentum) but it would also fix one of the current limiting factors to practical space flight.

Is anyone interested in talking about the conservation of momentum. That is the interesting part of this story. If they actually found a way to break this basic principle of Physics, it would be a very big deal. Through all the advancements of modern Physics in relativity and quantum mechanics, this principle has remained.

The rest of the mindless squabbling on this thread is meaningless.
mark noble

-1
Sat 16 Apr, 2016 11:15 am
@maxdancona,
Yeah.
start with the 1887 michelson - Morley experiment.
Do get back to me.
0 Replies

mark noble

0
Sat 16 Apr, 2016 11:18 am
@Brandon9000,
'I repeat'?
Brandon9000

2
Sat 16 Apr, 2016 02:03 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:
'I repeat'?

So, you cannot answer. As I thought. Done with you.
0 Replies

TomTomBinks

1
Sat 16 Apr, 2016 04:14 pm
@maxdancona,
Straight off the top of my head, maybe the Law of Conservation of Momentum is not broken by this device. Maybe momentum is conserved in a way we can't yet detect/understand. I realize this sounds ridiculous.
BillRM

1
Sat 16 Apr, 2016 04:45 pm
@TomTomBinks,
One test that was done for all reactionless drives beginning as far as I know with the 1950s dean drive was to suspended the engine in a box from a chain and see if there was a measurable and constant deflection from the vertical when the drive was turn on.

So far no so call reactionless drive had passed that simple test.

My bet is that the EM drive would not do so either.
farmerman

1
Sun 17 Apr, 2016 05:14 am
@BillRM,
Most ALL of the criticism on the "nanochip" has nothing to do with any cientific possibilities.
1Moores Law haw mqde it posibl for a nanoized spaceship
2the 100 GIGAWATT laser poses no energy transfer problems to the sail as designed
3 We routinely accelerate molecules to sub light speeds in seconds.
The real problems as posted in several physics blogs
1. money for the laser array(approx, 1 km square)(estimated at 2 TRILLION penyenzies)
2. Trust - that such an array wont become a weapon for satellite destruction
3. location of the laser array (politics and atmospherics dissipating the energy)
4Mr Milner has a spotty record(Hes already funded the "Breakthrough LISTEN" project for wide scan detection of EM spectral signals from possible alien sources

BillRM

1
Sun 17 Apr, 2016 05:36 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
the 100 GIGAWATT laser poses no energy transfer problems to the sail as designed

An interesting claimed indeed as a ten thousand of one part of the incoming energy going into heat would vaporized the sails and the probe in microseconds.

Quote:
We routinely accelerate molecules to sub light speeds in seconds.

Atoms and even molecules are not the same as complex structures and even more complex circuits.
farmerman

1
Sun 17 Apr, 2016 09:04 am
@BillRM,
the material, sandwich, its shape, and the staggered firing of the lasers have alreadey been considered (accoring to Drs. Loeb an Hawking). The "kick start" results from a gaseous "bubble" that builds up and fires in the "sail" . Its like a pulse jet where the enrgy an the momentum are separate

"Nothing new gets done if we refuse to try it"

Remember this is a proposed conceptual study . So you are saying that you feel the 100 Million will be pissed away by stuff we already know?

0 Replies

farmerman

2
Sun 17 Apr, 2016 09:05 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
Atoms and even molecules are not the same as complex structures and even more complex circuits.
SO what are you saying, scaling up cannot be tackled successfully?

Youre not a concept engineer are you?
farmerman

1
Sun 17 Apr, 2016 09:06 am
@farmerman,
PS, if Moores law continues on for a few more iterations, we shall have entire complex circuits at the molecular level. Then would your position change?
BillRM

1
Sun 17 Apr, 2016 10:26 am
@farmerman,
There is no barrier to such probes being build due to nature laws that I know of however the engineering challenges to produced such probes seems to be completely out of reach of current and near term technology.

1
Sun 17 Apr, 2016 11:26 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
see if there was a measurable and constant deflection from the vertical when the drive was turn on.

So far no so call reactionless drive had passed that simple test.

My bet is that the EM drive would not do so either.
From my reading of the EM drive articles, the problem with verification was the incredibly low level of the force it generated.

I'm guessing it may work, does not violate any laws, and will not be useful.
I can't see that they have checked for particle or photon radiation that may account for the small force generated.
BillRM

1
Sun 17 Apr, 2016 12:03 pm
Quote:
, the problem with verification was the incredibly low level of the force it generated.

The same thing that the dean drive people try to sell once upon a time.
0 Replies

farmerman

1
Sun 17 Apr, 2016 12:08 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
the engineering challenges to produced such probes seems to be completely out of reach of current and near term technology.
Engineers are pretty much conservative and they usually overdesign. (probably their licenses are being considered)
As far as the "nanoochip space ship"< all the engineers and scientists would disagree with you at this point.
However, theres going to be conceptual designs and small scale testing. (Mostly for the sail to be the source of the momentum. S I understqnd, the sail dsing is meant to deploy, absorb an convert (via a "bubble reaction), then be destroyed. All within a few seconds
BillRM

1
Sun 17 Apr, 2016 12:14 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
As far as the "nanoochip space ship"< all the engineers and scientists would disagree with you at this point.

All the engineers and the scientists who are looking for ten years plus of government checks at least.

### Related Topics

The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek