NASA's peer-reviewed EM Drive paper has been published; Copenhagen interpretation on suicide watch - Polidicks

[quote] ... The new peer-reviewed paper is titled "Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio-Frequency Cavity in Vacuum", and has been published online as an open access 'article in advance' in the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)’s Journal of Propulsion and Power. It'll appear in the December print edition. It's very similar to the paper that was leaked online earlier this month and, most notably, shows that the drive does indeed produce 1.2 millinewtons per kilowatt of thrust in a vacuum: "Thrust data from forward, reverse, and null suggested that the system was consistently performing at 1.2 ± 0.1 mN/kW, which was very close to the average impulsive performance measured in air. A number of error sources were considered and discussed." ... [/quote] Source: [url]http://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-official-nasa-s-peer-reviewed-em-drive-paper-has-finally-been-published[/url] It's just peer review, but still potentially exciting.

It would be so nice of the universe, if it decided that this piece of revolutionary physics is true.

Can someone remind me what this is supposed to be? I just remember last time it was posted, it was dismissed as pseudoscience.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51395279]Can someone remind me what this is supposed to be? I just remember last time it was posted, it was dismissed as pseudoscience.[/QUOTE] The EM drive? Or the pilot wave theory that's hypothesized to drive it?

On the surface it is a drive that produces thrust purely out of energy, not requiring to expell any mass (or momentrum) into the opposite direction. This would mean that you don't need to carry around any fuel any more and it turns out that that would make space travel much easier. There is just the slight issue that this goes right against fundamental theoretical physics as it defies conservation of momentum. There are theories for how it seems to not violate that principle, but this is where the "no one knows anything" area begins.

Honestly having confirmation of a phenomenon that breaks known physical laws would be the perfect way to close out this year Here's hoping that it actually works, then, I guess

[QUOTE=piddlezmcfuz;51395325]Honestly having confirmation of a phenomenon that breaks known physical laws would be the perfect way to close out this year Here's hoping that it actually works, then, I guess[/QUOTE] We finally found a bug

Plenty of peer-reviewed papers were published about superluminal neutrinos too. I think the solution to this will probably be more than "loose cable" but significantly less interesting than "momentum conservation is wrong." But the fact that they're still using the term "quantum vacuum plasma thruster" is a pretty clear demonstration that they have no idea what they're doing. [editline]19th November 2016[/editline] Also, Copenhagen goes on suicide watch any time someone thinks about the foundations of QM for more than 30 seconds. It's a dumb interpretation.

[QUOTE=freakadella;51395291]On the surface it is a drive that produces thrust purely out of energy, not requiring to expell any mass (or momentrum) into the opposite direction. This would mean that you don't need to carry around any fuel any more and it turns out that that would make space travel much easier. There is just the slight issue that this goes right against fundamental theoretical physics as it defies conservation of momentum. There are theories for how it seems to not violate that principle, but this is where the "no one knows anything" area begins.[/QUOTE] Thanks for the explanation. Though I'm still torn between the hope that this might be groundbreaking for space travel, and knowing that physics is usually "no fun allowed" and will quash this soon.

[quote]tl;dr: It's no wonder why they couldn't get this published in a physics journal. Their experimental and data analysis method are at best at the level of an advanced undergraduate, and they have absolutely zero knowledge of any advanced concepts in physics, which they demonstrate in their discussion section at the end. [/quote] [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/5dh4c8/ew_paper_abstract_up_on_aiaaorg_now_we_can_talk/da4s0zc/[/url] Savage.

I remember some guy constructed smaller version of this on youtube and he said it kinda worked. Personally i think it will work but i don't know about NASA they seem to take forever with this. they should just take small version of this to international space station and see if it can fly.

[QUOTE=Zick-1957;51395356]I remember some guy constructed smaller version of this on youtube and he said it kinda worked. Personally i think it will work but i don't know about NASA they seem to take forever with this. they should just take small version of this to international space station and see if it can fly.[/QUOTE] They aren't going to waste their already limited budget on bullshit. It's expensive to haul things up to the iss.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;51395341]"quantum vacuum plasma thruster"[/QUOTE] Each of those 4 words are bad-ass though, and collectively make it sound even more-so.

[QUOTE=Bradyns;51395532]Each of those 4 words are bad-ass though, and collectively make it sound even more-so.[/QUOTE] why stop at 4 make it triple-phase ion-shielded external reinforced quantum vacuum plasma thruster mk XVIIII 2K16 remastered edition

[QUOTE=paul simon;51395331]We finally found a bug[/QUOTE] quick nobody report it to the overlords running the matrix

[QUOTE=freakadella;51395291]On the surface it is a drive that produces thrust purely out of energy, not requiring to expell any mass (or momentrum) into the opposite direction. This would mean that you don't need to carry around any fuel any more and it turns out that that would make space travel much easier. There is just the slight issue that this goes right against fundamental theoretical physics as it defies conservation of momentum. There are theories for how it seems to not violate that principle, but this is where the "no one knows anything" area begins.[/QUOTE] So it's the rocket equivalent of an electric car. If it truly does work, that is.

[QUOTE=ironman17;51395657]So it's the rocket equivalent of an electric car. If it truly does work, that is.[/QUOTE] Except electric cars don't break the fundamental laws of physics.

I dunno man, Tesla's widgets and gizmos are starting to look like miracles with every passing week. And yes, before you go anywhere with that, yes it is a goof, a jest, a mark of tomfoolery.

[QUOTE=ironman17;51395657]So it's the rocket equivalent of an electric car.[/QUOTE] Not quite, electric engines still require an on-board fuel source only it's not the fuel that has weight - it's what carries and stores it. This is a no fuel entirely, like taking the pedals and chain off a bike but it still goes at whatever speed you want it to.

[QUOTE=ubersoldier;51395836]Not quite, electric engines still require an on-board fuel source only it's not the fuel that has weight - it's what carries and stores it. This is a no fuel entirely, like taking the pedals and chain off a bike but it still goes at whatever speed you want it to.[/QUOTE] No no no no no no no :v: The EM drive requires electricity just like an electric car, it just (supposedly) doesn't push itself forward by propelling anything, which is the odd part. An electric car has wheels that push it forward when in contact with the ground. This is a form of propulsion.

[QUOTE=ironman17;51395657]So it's the rocket equivalent of an electric car. If it truly does work, that is.[/QUOTE] Its like the bottle rocket equivalent of a space rocket though... the forces described are so hard to check because they are almost negligible... like don't get me wrong this could be useful to keep satellites in their exact position or to keep them on top of a Lagrange point indefinitely but don't expect anything more if it really pans out at all.

I guess the final test for this thing is to try it out in space.

[QUOTE=Deathtrooper2;51396187]I guess the final test for this thing is to try it out in space.[/QUOTE] Why? It's been tested in vacuum. [editline]19th November 2016[/editline] If it's releasing propellant in an unexpected way (which I think is probably what's happening) then testing it in space won't tell us anything more about it.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;51396924]Why? It's been tested in vacuum. [editline]19th November 2016[/editline] If it's releasing propellant in an unexpected way (which I think is probably what's happening) then testing it in space won't tell us anything more about it.[/QUOTE] like what? Metal degraDing or somethIng

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;51396924]Why? It's been tested in vacuum. [editline]19th November 2016[/editline] If it's releasing propellant in an unexpected way (which I think is probably what's happening) then testing it in space won't tell us anything more about it.[/QUOTE] That is something worth looking at, considering the voltages (and the fact its in vacuum) the device could just be sputtering metal off of the cavity making it an over-glorified ion thruster.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51396966]like what? Metal degraDing or somethIng[/QUOTE] They're filling the cavity with microwaves. The photoelectric effect happens when photons hit a material and the energy knocks electrons from the surface. I'm no expert on that sort of thing but it could be something to do with the shape of the cavity causes it to happen asymmetrically. [QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;51397291]That is something worth looking at, considering the voltages (and the fact its in vacuum) the device could just be sputtering metal off of the cavity making it an over-glorified ion thruster.[/QUOTE] Basically that ^

[QUOTE=paul simon;51395331]We finally found a bug[/QUOTE] I wonder how long it will take until the developers get around to patching it.

[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51397389]I wonder how long it will take until the developers get around to patching it.[/QUOTE] ??? [video=vimeo;8993442]http://vimeo.com/8993442[/video]