Scientists Confirm 'Impossible' EM Drive Propulsion
60 replies, posted
Sci Show did a video about EM drives when it was in the news a few months ago saying while promising, we're a long way off from this as a viable alternative propulsion system.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTTl1DNqQ6g[/media]
[QUOTE=PotaDOS;48309091]He already does. Because the emoticon call uses the text "johnnymo1", it appears as a mention on his Ticker.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough.
So far all of these second-hand sources have regurgitated the same thing, are there any direct papers released from these tests? Can we see the differences/improvements made to the testing conditions so that we can try to scrutinize/eliminate any sources of error?
[QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;48309488]So far all of these second-hand sources have regurgitated the same thing, are there any direct papers released from these tests? Can we see the differences/improvements made to the testing conditions so that we can try to scrutinize/eliminate any sources of error?[/QUOTE]
Yeah that's what we're hankering for, since it just seems too good to be true.
There's just so many questions, like how much power are they pumping into this drive?
[QUOTE=PotaDOS;48309091]He already does. Because the emoticon call uses the text "johnnymo1", it appears as a mention on his Ticker.[/QUOTE]
That is quite advanced. So our posts are constantly scanned for keywords?
[editline]28th July 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=ironman17;48309518]Yeah that's what we're hankering for, since it just seems too good to be true.
There's just so many questions, like how much power are they pumping into this drive?[/QUOTE]
I'd imagine it's 500W to 800W. They use magnetron and I think cheapest you can find it is from microwave.
[QUOTE=Fourier;48309607]That is quite advanced. So our posts are constantly scanned for keywords?
I'd imagine it's 500W to 800W. They use magnetron and I think cheapest you can find it is from microwave.[/QUOTE]
Firstly, I guess yes.
Secondly, that's actually pretty interesting that the energy levels they're feeding into the machine can be found in a commercial microwave. But somehow I doubt even the wittiest of home engineers could construct an EMDrive by dismantling a microwave oven and MacGyverizing it with some spinning electromagnets and a toaster.
Still, if the results are legit and the EMDrive truly is a working prototype of the impulse drive, I wonder what force they could achieve with in the kilowatt range?
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;48308352]I say we just say "Fuck it." And toss the thing in everything we can. And if we accidentally tear a tunnel in to hell or something, well, that's just part of the process.[/QUOTE]
Write a book about it..
The art of seeing what sticks to the wall when thrown: Turning space science into spaghetti!
I do hope to put this to bed NASA launches a self contained one to space someday and tests it in microgravity
[QUOTE=Sableye;48311532]I do hope to put this to bed NASA launches a self contained one to space someday and tests it in microgravity[/QUOTE]
Even if they did that, it's no guarantee it's violating conservation of momentum like they claim.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;48311729]Even if they did that, it's no guarantee it's violating conservation of momentum like they claim.[/QUOTE]
Well if it works in zero gravity in a vacuum then we have to think about it, but I'm not holding out, I think its anomolus thrust can be explained by errors in measurements instead of having to rewrite several laws of physics
Or maybe all of this reactionless propulsion nonsense is caused by microwaves leaking out from the cavity forming some sort of photon drive effect, which is real reactionless propulsion but with really shitty efficiency, like several megawatts per newton
[QUOTE=Abaddon-ext4;48311921]Or maybe all of this reactionless propulsion nonsense is caused by microwaves leaking out from the cavity forming some sort of photon drive effect, which is real reactionless propulsion but with really shitty efficiency, like several megawatts per newton[/QUOTE]
How is that reactionless? Electromagnetic waves carry momentum.
There's a reason why /sci/ calls this the mEMe drive.
[QUOTE=Fourier;48309607]That is quite advanced. So our posts are constantly scanned for keywords?[/QUOTE]
[url]http://facepunch.com/fp_ticker.php[/url]
[QUOTE=TheNerdPest14;48308362]So what does this mean? FTL travel or what? I don't know much about advanced science, and I usually don't care but I suppose for the sake of asking I will inquire.[/QUOTE]
It would certainly mean a trip to Mars would take less time than the Apollo missions spent flying to the Moon. It may not be a warp drive but we're on the cusp of impulse drive, to yoink terms from Star Trek.
[QUOTE=Deathtrooper2;48308303]There should be a thing when you use the emoticon, Johnnymo1 gets a notification from it.[/QUOTE]
That's what happens, his name is literally the name of the emoticon so it'll trigger the ticker's "Mentioned" tag for posts. Otherwise it's defeat the point, no?
[QUOTE=TestECull;48313952]It would certainly mean a trip to Mars would take less time than the Apollo missions spent flying to the Moon. It may not be a warp drive but we're on the cusp of impulse drive, to yoink terms from Star Trek.[/QUOTE]
Well we already have the technology to make it to Mars pretty cheaply using fission-fragment rockets, but actually confirming the numbers and launching something with that is kind of a political quagmire because you need fissile material to power it. You know, U-235 or plutonium. There isn't any danger of radiation if it's fired up outside the atmosphere (we're orbiting a ball of raw radiation) but getting it up there is the issue because nobody wants to fly anything up with the same stuff that makes ICBMs go boom. (everyone immediately points out that the rocket could explode and trigger a nuclear winter or whatever ridiculous shit they have in their heads)
It's just general anti-nuclear sentiment and unfounded fears that prevent this from being a reality.
[QUOTE=Del91;48312678][url]http://facepunch.com/fp_ticker.php[/url][/QUOTE]
Holy shit let's see how fast it updates with this.
[editline]28th July 2015[/editline]
Immediately! Amazing
who could believe this, "quantum vacuum virtual plasma" sounds like so laughably like star trek technobabble
So long as it doesn't rip open an interstice between here and the Tentacleverse, and force an oversized quantum harmonizer into my photonic resonance chamber, it can technobabble all it likes without invoking elder beings with unheard syllabubbles.
[QUOTE=ironman17;48325384]So long as it doesn't rip open the Tentacleverse and force an oversized quantum harmonizer in my photonic resonance chamber, it can technobabble all it likes without invoking elder beings with unheard syllabubbles.[/QUOTE]
i can easily solve your oversized quantum harmonizer with my virtual-boson detecting carboniferous vaccum detector device
[QUOTE=SFC003;48325607]i can easily solve your oversized quantum harmonizer with my virtual-boson detecting carboniferous vaccum detector device[/QUOTE]
No way man, that'll cause a parabolic destabilization of the fission singularity. And that's a fast track to butt cancer.
[QUOTE=SFC003;48325607]i can easily solve your oversized quantum harmonizer with my virtual-boson detecting carboniferous vaccum detector device[/QUOTE]
you better watch it or ill quantum fission your front teeth so you cant bite down when i stick my boson in so i can deposit all my quarks in your meson tunnel
[editline]29th July 2015[/editline]
bitch
[editline]29th July 2015[/editline]
fight me irl i have 40 phd devices on my diploma
Why not build a brick and strap this on it, send it to space, and see if it works. If it does, then figure out how. What is it, less than $4 Mil for a launch of something small?
[QUOTE=TheTalon;48330142]Why not build a brick and strap this on it, send it to space, and see if it works. If it does, then figure out how. What is it, less than $4 Mil for a launch of something small?[/QUOTE]
Because NASA doesn't really believe this works as advertised and so they're not willing to spend $4 million on it yet.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;48330471]Because NASA doesn't really believe this works as advertised and so they're not willing to spend $4 million on it yet.[/QUOTE]
I think what he meant was why don't they deploy it on a cubesat
[QUOTE=Sableye;48339756]I think what he meant was why don't they deploy it on a cubesat[/QUOTE]
Probably because i doubt it can be deployed on a cubesat
I don't think cubesat is capable of providing 500W input to drive it
[QUOTE=Magman77;48339884]I don't think cubesat is capable of providing 500W input to drive it[/QUOTE]
From what i could find it does around 12W, so no
[QUOTE=BreenIsALie;48339921]From what i could find it does around 12W, so no[/QUOTE]
Consider the mass of this though, the device itself is about the size of a large microwave oven.
Strapping that onto a CubeSat is silly when you could put more conventional thrust like compressed CO2 canisters.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.