Discussion:
[OT News] "Impulse Drive" a reality?
(too old to reply)
Your Name
2015-07-30 02:01:39 UTC
Permalink
From today's New Zealand Herald newspaper (30 July, 2015) ...


Solar propulsion drive a gateway to the stars
---------------------------------------------
Interplanetary travel could be a step closer after
scientists confirmed that an electromagnetic propulsion
drive, which is fast enough to get to the Moon in four
hours, actually works.

The EM Drive was developed by British inventor Roger
Sawyer nearly 15 years ago, but was ridiculed at the
time as scientifically impossible.

It produces thrust by using solar power to generate
multiple microwaves that move back and forth in an
enclosed chamber. This means that until something fails
or wears down, theoretically the engine could keep
running forever without the need for rocket fuel.

The drive, which has been likened to Star Trek's Impulse
Drive in the Starship Enterprise, has left scientists
scratching their heads because it defies one of the
fundamental concepts of physics - the conservation of
momentum - which states that if something is propelled
forward, something must be pushed in the opposite
direction. So the forces inside the chamber should
cancel each other out.

However, in recent years NASA has confirmed that they
believe it works and this week Martin Tajmar, a
professor and chairman for space systems at Dresden
University of Technology in Germany, also showed that
it produces thrust.

The drive is capable of producing thrust several
thousand times greater than a standard photon rocket
and could get to Mars within 70 days or Pluto within
18 months. A trip to Alpha Centauri, which would take
tens of thousands of years right now, could be achieved
in just 100 years.

"Our test campaign cannot confirm or refute the claims
of the EM Drive, but intends to independently assess
possible side-effects in the measurements methods used
so far," said Tajmar. "Nevertheless, we do observe
thrust close to the actual predictions after eliminating
many possible sources that should warrant further
investigation into the phenomena."


** End of article **




If this is indeed working, then so much the brainless imbeciles who
claim human beings already know everything and they're moronic belief
that anything which doesn't stick to what we already know doesn't
classify as "science fiction".

Even if it doesn't work as a propulsion system, there's still something
happening that scientists don't yet understand.
Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
2015-07-30 15:14:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Your Name
If this is indeed working, then so much the brainless imbeciles who
claim human beings already know everything and they're moronic belief
that anything which doesn't stick to what we already know doesn't
classify as "science fiction".
Even if it doesn't work as a propulsion system, there's still something
happening that scientists don't yet understand.
Magnetic fields are quite well understood, (that's the likely cause of
the tiny amount of thrust seen in this test). The simple fact that _it
keeps working even when intentionally broken_ should be a clue that there
is an unaccounted for effect at play, (just like the earlier claim of the
EM Drive working actually being a thermal effect).


Also, the article you quote makes the usual error of confusing "a tiny
lab at NASA that spends spare time looking into things that almost
certainly don't work," for NASA as a whol;e.
--
Chakat Firepaw - Inventor and Scientist (mad)
Your Name
2015-07-30 21:31:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
Post by Your Name
If this is indeed working, then so much the brainless imbeciles who
claim human beings already know everything and they're moronic belief
that anything which doesn't stick to what we already know doesn't
classify as "science fiction".
Even if it doesn't work as a propulsion system, there's still something
happening that scientists don't yet understand.
Magnetic fields are quite well understood, (that's the likely cause of
the tiny amount of thrust seen in this test).
It's not a "tiny amount of thrust". It's reportedly better than the
standard rockets NASA, etc. currently use, although I don't think it's
any use for actually launching rockets off the surface, only for actual
travel in space.
Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
The simple fact that _it keeps working even when intentionally broken_
should be a clue that there is an unaccounted for effect at play, (just
like the earlier claim of the EM Drive working actually being a thermal
effect).
Nowhere in what I posted did it say anything about "working when
broken". In fact it specifically said it will work continuously
(without needing to carry fuel) *unless* something is broken.
Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
Also, the article you quote makes the usual error of confusing "a tiny
lab at NASA that spends spare time looking into things that almost
certainly don't work," for NASA as a whole.
It was a professor at a German university who was running the tests
that showed it produced thrust in some unknown / "impossible" way. NASA
was running their own tests.
Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
2015-08-01 05:40:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Your Name
Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
Post by Your Name
If this is indeed working, then so much the brainless imbeciles who
claim human beings already know everything and they're moronic belief
that anything which doesn't stick to what we already know doesn't
classify as "science fiction".
Even if it doesn't work as a propulsion system, there's still
something happening that scientists don't yet understand.
Magnetic fields are quite well understood, (that's the likely cause of
the tiny amount of thrust seen in this test).
It's not a "tiny amount of thrust". It's reportedly better than the
standard rockets NASA, etc. currently use, although I don't think it's
any use for actually launching rockets off the surface, only for actual
travel in space.
The _thrust_ is tiny. The test device generates a whole 20uN, enough for
a whopping 0.000002G acceleration of a single kilogram.

Why such a drive would be so good, (if it worked), is that non-reaction
drives only need a mass ratio of 1 and effectively have infinite
propellant. "Hummingbird power" is fine if you can run your drive for
months on end and don't need to haul along propellant tanks an order of
magnitude heaver than the rest of your craft put together.

Remember, real space drives have _2_ performance factors. The first is
thrust, this is how fast it can change velocities. The second is
specific impulse, this determines how much it can change velocities.
Post by Your Name
Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
The simple fact that _it keeps working even when intentionally broken_
should be a clue that there is an unaccounted for effect at play, (just
like the earlier claim of the EM Drive working actually being a thermal
effect).
Nowhere in what I posted did it say anything about "working when
broken". In fact it specifically said it will work continuously (without
needing to carry fuel) *unless* something is broken.
IOW: You read a piece of credulous garbage by a reporter who probably
doesn't understand the first thing about the topic at hand and didn't
bother to look up any actual details.

Remember this isn't exactly a new bit of garbage. It has gone through
many of the standard tests for a device that supposedly does something,
which include seeing what happens when you turn it off or disable it,
(e.g. make it so the microwaves never enter the chamber in the first
place), and turn it on.
Post by Your Name
Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
Also, the article you quote makes the usual error of confusing "a tiny
lab at NASA that spends spare time looking into things that almost
certainly don't work," for NASA as a whole.
It was a professor at a German university who was running the tests that
showed it produced thrust in some unknown / "impossible" way. NASA was
running their own tests.
The "NASA" testing was the guys at Eagleworks, which is the "spare time
looking into things that almost certainly don't work," I referred to.


At _best_, what they have here is a highly power-inefficient photon
drive. Note, photon drives are reaction drives and don't get the whole
"infinite propellant with a mass ratio of 1," thing.
--
Chakat Firepaw - Inventor and Scientist (mad)
J. Clarke
2015-08-01 12:51:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
Post by Your Name
Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
Post by Your Name
If this is indeed working, then so much the brainless imbeciles who
claim human beings already know everything and they're moronic belief
that anything which doesn't stick to what we already know doesn't
classify as "science fiction".
Even if it doesn't work as a propulsion system, there's still
something happening that scientists don't yet understand.
Magnetic fields are quite well understood, (that's the likely cause of
the tiny amount of thrust seen in this test).
It's not a "tiny amount of thrust". It's reportedly better than the
standard rockets NASA, etc. currently use, although I don't think it's
any use for actually launching rockets off the surface, only for actual
travel in space.
The _thrust_ is tiny. The test device generates a whole 20uN, enough for
a whopping 0.000002G acceleration of a single kilogram.
Why such a drive would be so good, (if it worked), is that non-reaction
drives only need a mass ratio of 1 and effectively have infinite
propellant. "Hummingbird power" is fine if you can run your drive for
months on end and don't need to haul along propellant tanks an order of
magnitude heaver than the rest of your craft put together.
Remember, real space drives have _2_ performance factors. The first is
thrust, this is how fast it can change velocities. The second is
specific impulse, this determines how much it can change velocities.
Post by Your Name
Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
The simple fact that _it keeps working even when intentionally broken_
should be a clue that there is an unaccounted for effect at play, (just
like the earlier claim of the EM Drive working actually being a thermal
effect).
Nowhere in what I posted did it say anything about "working when
broken". In fact it specifically said it will work continuously (without
needing to carry fuel) *unless* something is broken.
IOW: You read a piece of credulous garbage by a reporter who probably
doesn't understand the first thing about the topic at hand and didn't
bother to look up any actual details.
Remember this isn't exactly a new bit of garbage. It has gone through
many of the standard tests for a device that supposedly does something,
which include seeing what happens when you turn it off or disable it,
(e.g. make it so the microwaves never enter the chamber in the first
place), and turn it on.
Post by Your Name
Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
Also, the article you quote makes the usual error of confusing "a tiny
lab at NASA that spends spare time looking into things that almost
certainly don't work," for NASA as a whole.
It was a professor at a German university who was running the tests that
showed it produced thrust in some unknown / "impossible" way. NASA was
running their own tests.
The "NASA" testing was the guys at Eagleworks, which is the "spare time
looking into things that almost certainly don't work," I referred to.
At _best_, what they have here is a highly power-inefficient photon
drive. Note, photon drives are reaction drives and don't get the whole
"infinite propellant with a mass ratio of 1," thing.
You only get "infinite propellant" if you have free energy. Otherwise
you are still expending mass to make energy. Discussing the efficiency
of space engines for which the means of energy production is separate
from the means of thrust generation is not something that lends itself
to a simple figure of merit.

And a photon drive does not expend mass, so it does have infinite
propellant as long as energy is free.
Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
2015-08-01 14:16:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
At _best_, what they have here is a highly power-inefficient photon
drive. Note, photon drives are reaction drives and don't get the whole
"infinite propellant with a mass ratio of 1," thing.
You only get "infinite propellant" if you have free energy. Otherwise
you are still expending mass to make energy.
You don't need free energy, you just need to avoid carrying your fuel.
For instance, you could use a beamed power setup.
Post by J. Clarke
Discussing the efficiency
of space engines for which the means of energy production is separate
from the means of thrust generation is not something that lends itself
to a simple figure of merit.
The power required for a given thrust is a very simple and useful
measure. Note that I was specifically referring to the power efficiency,
(an ideal photon drive requires 300MW/N, the claimed figure for the EM
Drive is about 1GW/N).
--
Chakat Firepaw - Inventor and Scientist (mad)
J. Clarke
2015-08-01 22:07:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
At _best_, what they have here is a highly power-inefficient photon
drive. Note, photon drives are reaction drives and don't get the whole
"infinite propellant with a mass ratio of 1," thing.
You only get "infinite propellant" if you have free energy. Otherwise
you are still expending mass to make energy.
You don't need free energy, you just need to avoid carrying your fuel.
For instance, you could use a beamed power setup.
Might be ok for stationkeeping on a satellite but it's not going to get
you to Alpha Centauri (yeah, I know there are schemes to do that--if you
decide to run the numbers on them be sure to swallow your drink before
you look at the results).
Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
Post by J. Clarke
Discussing the efficiency
of space engines for which the means of energy production is separate
from the means of thrust generation is not something that lends itself
to a simple figure of merit.
The power required for a given thrust is a very simple and useful
measure.
I'm not talking about the "power required ror a given thrust", I'm
talking about the mass consumed to generate a given increment of delta-
v.
Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
Note that I was specifically referring to the power efficiency,
(an ideal photon drive requires 300MW/N, the claimed figure for the EM
Drive is about 1GW/N).
And how much does kerosene require per newton?
Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
2015-08-01 23:11:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
At _best_, what they have here is a highly power-inefficient photon
drive. Note, photon drives are reaction drives and don't get the
whole "infinite propellant with a mass ratio of 1," thing.
You only get "infinite propellant" if you have free energy.
Otherwise you are still expending mass to make energy.
You don't need free energy, you just need to avoid carrying your fuel.
For instance, you could use a beamed power setup.
Might be ok for stationkeeping on a satellite but it's not going to get
you to Alpha Centauri (yeah, I know there are schemes to do that--if you
decide to run the numbers on them be sure to swallow your drink before
you look at the results).
Yes, I know what the numbers get like for _any_ interstellar craft using
a reaction drive of _any_ kind.

There's a reason why the more serious ideas tend to involve sending
things no larger than a toaster.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
Post by J. Clarke
Discussing the efficiency of space engines for which the means of
energy production is separate from the means of thrust generation is
not something that lends itself to a simple figure of merit.
The power required for a given thrust is a very simple and useful
measure.
I'm not talking about the "power required ror a given thrust", I'm
talking about the mass consumed to generate a given increment of delta-
v.
Given that I'm the one that brought up that efficiency issue, I was kind
of the one who got to specify what kind of efficiency I was talking about.

I even _specifically said_ that I was talking about power efficiency,
something that is important with things like electrically powered drives.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
Note that I was specifically referring to the power efficiency,
(an ideal photon drive requires 300MW/N, the claimed figure for the EM
Drive is about 1GW/N).
And how much does kerosene require per newton?
On the order of 3kW/N.
--
Chakat Firepaw - Inventor and Scientist (mad)
J. Clarke
2015-08-02 12:30:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
At _best_, what they have here is a highly power-inefficient photon
drive. Note, photon drives are reaction drives and don't get the
whole "infinite propellant with a mass ratio of 1," thing.
You only get "infinite propellant" if you have free energy.
Otherwise you are still expending mass to make energy.
You don't need free energy, you just need to avoid carrying your fuel.
For instance, you could use a beamed power setup.
Might be ok for stationkeeping on a satellite but it's not going to get
you to Alpha Centauri (yeah, I know there are schemes to do that--if you
decide to run the numbers on them be sure to swallow your drink before
you look at the results).
Yes, I know what the numbers get like for _any_ interstellar craft using
a reaction drive of _any_ kind.
There's a reason why the more serious ideas tend to involve sending
things no larger than a toaster.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
Post by J. Clarke
Discussing the efficiency of space engines for which the means of
energy production is separate from the means of thrust generation is
not something that lends itself to a simple figure of merit.
The power required for a given thrust is a very simple and useful
measure.
I'm not talking about the "power required ror a given thrust", I'm
talking about the mass consumed to generate a given increment of delta-
v.
Given that I'm the one that brought up that efficiency issue, I was kind
of the one who got to specify what kind of efficiency I was talking about.
I even _specifically said_ that I was talking about power efficiency,
something that is important with things like electrically powered drives.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
Note that I was specifically referring to the power efficiency,
(an ideal photon drive requires 300MW/N, the claimed figure for the EM
Drive is about 1GW/N).
And how much does kerosene require per newton?
On the order of 3kW/N.
So what's wrong with this picture?
Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
2015-08-02 16:32:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
Note that I was specifically referring to the power efficiency,
(an ideal photon drive requires 300MW/N, the claimed figure for the
EM Drive is about 1GW/N).
And how much does kerosene require per newton?
On the order of 3kW/N.
So what's wrong with this picture?
Nothing, power efficiency is a comparison between the power required to
actually get a certain thrust and an ideal drive with the same specific
impulse. Ideal chemical drives top out at about 5kW/N, but that's
because their specific impulse sucks, (500s at best).

Meanwhile, photon drives have a specific impulse of 30,559,884s.
--
Chakat Firepaw - Inventor and Scientist (mad)
J. Clarke
2015-08-02 16:49:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
Note that I was specifically referring to the power efficiency,
(an ideal photon drive requires 300MW/N, the claimed figure for the
EM Drive is about 1GW/N).
And how much does kerosene require per newton?
On the order of 3kW/N.
So what's wrong with this picture?
Nothing, power efficiency is a comparison between the power required to
actually get a certain thrust and an ideal drive with the same specific
impulse. Ideal chemical drives top out at about 5kW/N, but that's
because their specific impulse sucks, (500s at best).
Meanwhile, photon drives have a specific impulse of 30,559,884s.
You remind me of the fellow who was criticizing phonics on a commercial
a while back. He correctly read a sentence from a book but then
complained "I don't know what it means".

You are trying so hard to miss the point that this discussion has become
a huge waste of time.
Bernard Peek
2015-08-04 17:59:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
Note that I was specifically referring to the power efficiency,
(an ideal photon drive requires 300MW/N, the claimed figure for the EM
Drive is about 1GW/N).
And how much does kerosene require per newton?
It's irrelevant to the discussion. If (admittedly a big if) the drive works
as described then it isn't intended for roles that a reaction drive can
fill. The quantity of energy it uses to achieve a given amount of force is
not a useful measure of efficiency. Efficiency is a ratio between cost and
benefit achieved. The drive as described produces thrust without expending
mass. Its cost is therefore zero and if it generates any thrust its
efficiency is infinite.
--
Bernard Peek
***@shrdlu.com
J. Clarke
2015-08-05 01:06:20 UTC
Permalink
In article <%37wx.138800$***@fx47.am4>, {bap}@gamma.shrdlu.com
says...
Post by Bernard Peek
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
Note that I was specifically referring to the power efficiency,
(an ideal photon drive requires 300MW/N, the claimed figure for the EM
Drive is about 1GW/N).
And how much does kerosene require per newton?
It's irrelevant to the discussion. If (admittedly a big if) the drive works
as described then it isn't intended for roles that a reaction drive can
fill. The quantity of energy it uses to achieve a given amount of force is
not a useful measure of efficiency. Efficiency is a ratio between cost and
benefit achieved. The drive as described produces thrust without expending
mass. Its cost is therefore zero and if it generates any thrust its
efficiency is infinite.
You know that and I know that but the bright boy who was on about energy
per newton doesn't seem to get it.
Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
2015-08-05 14:55:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
says...
Post by Bernard Peek
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
Note that I was specifically referring to the power efficiency,
(an ideal photon drive requires 300MW/N, the claimed figure for the
EM Drive is about 1GW/N).
And how much does kerosene require per newton?
It's irrelevant to the discussion. If (admittedly a big if) the drive
works as described then it isn't intended for roles that a reaction
drive can fill. The quantity of energy it uses to achieve a given
amount of force is not a useful measure of efficiency. Efficiency is a
ratio between cost and benefit achieved. The drive as described
produces thrust without expending mass. Its cost is therefore zero and
if it generates any thrust its efficiency is infinite.
Not when you are talking about how efficiently it uses _POWER_ rather
than _REACTION MASS_. Those are two different things, both of which are
relevant to the discussion of how good a particular drive is.

Consider a pair of ion drives, both with a specific impulse of 8000s.
However, engine A uses 80kW to generate 1N of thrust while engine B
requires 85kW/N: It is correct, and very useful, to describe A as being
more efficient.

Greater power efficiency means, obviously, that you don't need to provide
as much power. This means that you can get by with less mass spent on
generating power and either a larger useful payload or a lower dry mass,
(the latter of which resulting it it also being more efficient in the use
of reaction mass).
Post by J. Clarke
You know that and I know that but the bright boy who was on about energy
per newton doesn't seem to get it.
So you still don't understand what I said. Heck, you're still obsessing
about an aside.

Here's a hint for you: When a drive uses electrical power, how big of a
generator you need is a very important factor. Replacing 20 tonnes of
propellant with a 30 tonne reactor is not a good trade.
--
Chakat Firepaw - Inventor and Scientist (mad)
Bernard Peek
2015-08-05 20:21:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Bernard Peek
It's irrelevant to the discussion. If (admittedly a big if) the drive
works as described then it isn't intended for roles that a reaction
drive can fill. The quantity of energy it uses to achieve a given
amount of force is not a useful measure of efficiency. Efficiency is a
ratio between cost and benefit achieved. The drive as described
produces thrust without expending mass. Its cost is therefore zero and
if it generates any thrust its efficiency is infinite.
Not when you are talking about how efficiently it uses _POWER_ rather
than _REACTION MASS_. Those are two different things, both of which are
relevant to the discussion of how good a particular drive is.
Consider a pair of ion drives, both with a specific impulse of 8000s.
However, engine A uses 80kW to generate 1N of thrust while engine B
requires 85kW/N: It is correct, and very useful, to describe A as being
more efficient.
Greater power efficiency means, obviously, that you don't need to provide
as much power. This means that you can get by with less mass spent on
generating power and either a larger useful payload or a lower dry mass,
(the latter of which resulting it it also being more efficient in the use
of reaction mass).
Post by J. Clarke
You know that and I know that but the bright boy who was on about energy
per newton doesn't seem to get it.
So you still don't understand what I said. Heck, you're still obsessing
about an aside.
Here's a hint for you: When a drive uses electrical power, how big of a
generator you need is a very important factor. Replacing 20 tonnes of
propellant with a 30 tonne reactor is not a good trade.
It could be if the 30 tonne generator can deliver more delta-V.

We know that there is a theoretical limit on the delta-V that a reaction
drive carrying its own propellant can deliver. Do the same limits apply if
the generator/engine combination does not use any propellant?

I think in practice the most likely configuration would be an externally
powered first stage to accelerate the payload then an internally powered
stage to decelerate at the other end.
--
Bernard Peek
***@shrdlu.com
Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
2015-08-06 19:49:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bernard Peek
Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
Here's a hint for you: When a drive uses electrical power, how big of
a generator you need is a very important factor. Replacing 20 tonnes
of propellant with a 30 tonne reactor is not a good trade.
It could be if the 30 tonne generator can deliver more delta-V.
In that case it isn't replacing 20 tonnes of propellant, it's replacing
more than 20 tonnes. At some point, the extra mass of the reactor is
less than amount of propellant and tankage needed for the same
performance.
Post by Bernard Peek
We know that there is a theoretical limit on the delta-V that a reaction
drive carrying its own propellant can deliver. Do the same limits apply
if the generator/engine combination does not use any propellant?
Note: This is all about me describing the best case scenario for the EM
Drive scam being that is is a poor example of a known type of reaction
drive.

If you can source all the fuel and propellant you need from outside, then
yes there is no limit on how much deltaV you have. However, there may be
other limitations on performance. Solar sails can only get so fast
before they quickly fly too far away from the star they are using,
magsails have the same issue. Bussard ramjets, (assuming you could fix
the reasons they probably won't work at all), can't go faster then their
exhaust velocity, (relative to the interstellar medium).
Post by Bernard Peek
I think in practice the most likely configuration would be an externally
powered first stage to accelerate the payload then an internally powered
stage to decelerate at the other end.
Assuming you had a drive that would do better than a laser sail.
--
Chakat Firepaw - Inventor and Scientist (mad)
J. Clarke
2015-08-01 12:45:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Your Name
Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
Post by Your Name
If this is indeed working, then so much the brainless imbeciles who
claim human beings already know everything and they're moronic belief
that anything which doesn't stick to what we already know doesn't
classify as "science fiction".
Even if it doesn't work as a propulsion system, there's still something
happening that scientists don't yet understand.
Magnetic fields are quite well understood, (that's the likely cause of
the tiny amount of thrust seen in this test).
It's not a "tiny amount of thrust". It's reportedly better than the
standard rockets NASA, etc. currently use, although I don't think it's
any use for actually launching rockets off the surface, only for actual
travel in space.
So it has produced more than the 705,000 pounds of thrust of the RS-68
engine in the Delta IV? Source?

Perhaps you mean something other than thrust?
Post by Your Name
Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
The simple fact that _it keeps working even when intentionally broken_
should be a clue that there is an unaccounted for effect at play, (just
like the earlier claim of the EM Drive working actually being a thermal
effect).
Nowhere in what I posted did it say anything about "working when
broken". In fact it specifically said it will work continuously
(without needing to carry fuel) *unless* something is broken.
Perhaps not in anything you posted, but that was the case in previous
tests.
Post by Your Name
Post by Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
Also, the article you quote makes the usual error of confusing "a tiny
lab at NASA that spends spare time looking into things that almost
certainly don't work," for NASA as a whole.
It was a professor at a German university who was running the tests
that showed it produced thrust in some unknown / "impossible" way. NASA
was running their own tests.
Since that was stipulated, what is your point?

If this thing actually works it could be wonderful, but so far a
convincing demonstration has not been achieved.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...