NASA Emdrive experiments have force measurements while the device is in a hard vacuum - Polidicks

[QUOTE]The Eagleworks team obtained EMDrive experimental force measurements in the torsional pendulum in a hard vacuum (~5.0x10^-6 Torr). Paul March included their last null-thrust test that ran the RF amp at 10.0Adc while its RF power was being dissipated in a 100W, 50 ohm dummy load positioned in place of the test article on the torque pendulum (TP), a picture of the new heat shields for our torque pendulum's upper and lower torsion springs, (more belts and suspenders to mitigate thermal drifts in the TP baseline), the reversed test setup drawing and the best reversed thrust plot obtained just before or during when our second and last 120W max RF amplifier was dying from internal corona discharges around its RF output circulator.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/02/more-emdrive-experiment-information.html"]Source[/URL]

Holy fuck what is going on in that description

I have a hard time understanding what any of this means. What is this device even? Some sort of electric propulsion drive?

It is too sciency. Quick, we need JohnyMo1 in here!

Skipping all of the techno lingo and going to closing of the article, EMDrive is a spacecraft propulsion system and information posted in the article points to the possibility of greatly reduced transit times to destinations. On a side note, for gods sake please offer some sort of explanation in the OP for the layman.

This is the one wrapped in controversy isn't it? Where no reaction mass leaves the back(null-thrust)? And that apparently violates conservation of momentum? They got thrust in their last test, but were criticized because people say it wasn't done in a vacuum. Also Eagleworks is really cool. They're the part of NASA that studies the "fringe technology". They also don't get a lot of funding :v:

[QUOTE=Rubs10;47147385]This is the one wrapped in controversy isn't it? Where no reaction mass leaves the back?[/QUOTE] yes

So, basically NASA experiments on the EMdrive are revealing it actually works? If so, wtf

Wait for Johnnymo please

Okay, since everybody's asking for layman's explanations, I'll do my best. EMdrive is a reactionless engine being tested by NASA. The previous tests (several months ago) were considered highly untrustworthy, due to a few things: 1) The test was done in a vacuum chamber, but NOT while in a vacuum. 2) The "thrust" measured was tiny - 100 micronewtons. This isn't unheard of for ion thrusters, but it's hard to tell whether the thrust was from the supposed quantum effects, or from simple convection, particularly when: 3) The tests worked even when the theory behind the engine (which was extremely iffy to begin with) said it shouldn't. There may be a real effect, but the tests seem to indicate that it isn't what the creator thinks it is, which means it might not actually work in space. This article is saying that they're performing tests now at a higher power, and in a vacuum. Curiously, they seem to still be getting as much thrust, despite the theory claiming that it scales with power. So there's still plenty of room for doubt, particularly when the "theory" behind it reads like technobabble even to actual scientists.

Here's eagleworks conference from last year regarding the subject if anyone's interested, the bit about the engine starts at 29:51 [video=youtube;Wokn7crjBbA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wokn7crjBbA&feature=youtu.be&t=29m51s[/video]

[QUOTE=martijnp3000;47147265]I have a hard time understanding what any of this means. What is this device even? Some sort of electric propulsion drive?[/QUOTE] in short, it pushes against the not-empty part of a vacuum, NASA still has to rule out tons of other forces, but finally testing it in a hard vacuum was the next step forwards in eliminating outside forces, though with something so underpowered so many outside forces can affect it

[QUOTE=Overwatch 7;47147327]Skipping all of the techno lingo and going to closing of the article, EMDrive is a spacecraft propulsion system and information posted in the article points to the possibility of greatly reduced transit times to destinations. On a side note, for gods sake please offer some sort of explanation in the OP for the layman.[/QUOTE] so an SLS comparative?

[QUOTE=Code3Response;47147765]so an SLS comparative?[/QUOTE] if by SLS you mean the space-launch-system, and by that no it has nothing to do with the SLS, however if it does work, you could theoretically go anywhere in the galaxy assuming you have a big enough ship and a big enough power source

It's curious. I'm bordering on "fairly massive consistent experimental mistake", but if not this would be a very intriguing development for things in general. If it is actually something that's happening, then I would tend towards the NASA hypothesis for what's going on, what with the vaccum fluctuations and what not. I've previously read a paper - only in a student capacity, mind you - where some folks at MIT managed to elongate the lifespan of particles popping up in the quantumn vaccum long enough to measure them. As far as I remember, they accelerated two magnetic fields along a transmisison cable/wire up to a fraction of c by attaching them to a Superconducting Quantumn Interference Device so that they would both fluctuate back and forth, as well as some other tricks. This acted as a sort of "mirror", so that a dynamic Casimr effect showed up for the particles in that vaccum. Now perhaps that experiment has been invalidated, I don't know, but surely if there are EM waves floating about at high speeds inside that copper cylinder it may be enough to produce some kind of temporary effect? (Though they almost certainly wouldn't be able to get up to the right speed). That way the waves would actually be able to bounce of the temporary particles and produce a thrust in one particular direction. It would stand to reason, I suppose, that more of them would appear at the smaller end where the waves could appear in a greater concentration. Then again, perhaps I'm an idiot who's fundamentally misunderstood everything I've read. It could, of course, all be bollocks.

I still wonder what they did to get that huge result in the Chinese "test" :downs:

[QUOTE=Angua;47147741]Here's eagleworks conference from last year regarding the subject if anyone's interested, the bit about the engine starts at 29:51 [video=youtube;Wokn7crjBbA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wokn7crjBbA&feature=youtu.be&t=29m51s[/video][/QUOTE] If you're after a laymans explanation this guy gives a pretty good one with the submarine analogy, which explains how it doesn't violate the law of conservation of momentum. [editline]15th February 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Tamschi;47147901]I still wonder what they did to get that huge result in the Chinese "test" :downs:[/QUOTE] Dumped in a lot more power, it tells you in the dudes video.

[QUOTE=Tamschi;47147901]I still wonder what they did to get that huge result in the Chinese "test" :downs:[/QUOTE] Probably the same thing they did to "boost" their GDP

[QUOTE=Rapscallion92;47147980] Dumped in a lot more power, it tells you in the dudes video.[/QUOTE] dumping in more power =/= more thrust just like dumping more fuel into a rocket doesn't make it go faster. theres very little theoretical basis for this sort of engine, so who knows how it opperates, but thats sort of the problem too, we don't have a theoretical understanding of this, which means we can't really determine its limits

[QUOTE=Sableye;47148039]dumping in more power =/= more thrust just like dumping more fuel into a rocket doesn't make it go faster. theres very little theoretical basis for this sort of engine, so who knows how it opperates, but thats sort of the problem too, we don't have a theoretical understanding of this, which means we can't really determine its limits[/QUOTE] Just like we can't be sure that dumping in more power in a larger scale experiment won't generate more thrust. Like I said, watch the Eagleworks video posted above, the engineer Sonny takes you through everything they know so far, was a fun watch.

[QUOTE=Rapscallion92;47148052]Just like we can't be sure that dumping in more power in a larger scale experiment won't generate more thrust. Like I said, watch the Eagleworks video posted above, the engineer Sonny takes you through everything they know so far, was a fun watch.[/QUOTE] Ya but there's incredibly few instances where things work out linearly like that, and take everything Chinese universities say with a grain of salt, they want to boost prestige even if its at the cost of actual science Also I'm going out on a limb to say that its not linear otherwise we should have seen this before if chucking more power at it makes its effect bigger, we have been messing around with vacuums and electricity for a century and nobody has seen this yet, makes it either incredibly small or not possible

[QUOTE=Tamschi;47147901]I still wonder what they did to get that huge result in the Chinese "test" :downs:[/QUOTE] I like how you automatically assume it's faked because it's China.

[QUOTE=Sableye;47148088]Ya but there's incredibly few instances where things work out linearly like that, and take everything Chinese universities say with a grain of salt, they want to boost prestige even if its at the cost of actual science[/QUOTE] Yeah that's why I'm more interested in the Cannae drive, Eagleworks and JPL's upcoming work on this thing. [editline]15th February 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=archangel125;47148089]I like how you automatically assume it's faked because it's China.[/QUOTE] Despite the fact that China has overtaken the US in some fields of scientific study.

[QUOTE=Rapscallion92;47148097]Yeah that's why I'm more interested in the Cannae drive, Eagleworks and JPL's upcoming work on this thing. [editline]15th February 2015[/editline] Despite the fact that China has overtaken the US in some fields of scientific study.[/QUOTE] They do a bunch on quantum entanglement but its more headline grabs than actual breakthroughs

[QUOTE=Jcorp;47147889]It's curious. I'm bordering on "fairly massive consistent experimental mistake"[/QUOTE] I trust NASA more than random people on the internet when it comes to these things

[QUOTE=FetusFondler;47148530]I trust NASA more than random people on the internet when it comes to these things[/QUOTE] The paper is not yet peer-reviewed. It isn't even really finished - the experiments are ongoing, this was just a status update. I'm not really hopeful this will pan out, both because the mechanism is so ill-defined, and because the demonstrated performance is no better than the ion engines we already have.

[QUOTE=FetusFondler;47148530]I trust NASA more than random people on the internet when it comes to these things[/QUOTE] I don't think you should assume that Eagleworks or Sonny White represents the entirety of NASA. Their work is on the very fringe of physics.

[QUOTE=FetusFondler;47148530]I trust NASA more than random people on the internet when it comes to these things[/QUOTE] NASA funds tons of research groups. Some lab receiving NASA funding for propulsion experiments =/= "NASA says..."

[QUOTE=martijnp3000;47147265]I have a hard time understanding what any of this means. What is this device even? Some sort of electric propulsion drive?[/QUOTE] I'm no physicist or rocket scientist, but from what I can gather based on what little knowledge I have of spaceflight* it seems to me that they may very well be on the edge of figuring out a new method of spacecraft propulsion that could see manned missions to Saturn's moons not only possible, but plausible [i]on a single launch[/i]. If I'm right someone give this team more money than god. We need their work and we need it yesterday!

[QUOTE=FetusFondler;47148530]I trust NASA more than random people on the internet when it comes to these things[/QUOTE] NASA just independantly tests the stuff, the rigs are still made by the guys, not to really discredit them, but they're only a step or so above the e-cat cold fusion device in that nobody really understands what it does, nor do they really make clear how its built. ya nasa is still interested in this, just like the airforce was interested in cold fusion, and the increased scrutiny has lead to one being almost completely disproven where as this has yet to be completely discredited