Support NeoGAF

[Cosmo Clock 21]

How much thrust is 30 micronewtons? Can someone put that into perspective for me?

Using the number cited on the NASA website, the Voyager spacecraft use thrusters that deliver over 800,000 micronewtons of thrust. Those don't continuously fire, though, so it's somewhat inaccurate to judge the two.

 

[Kurdel]

Ars Technica : don't buy stock in Impossible drives just yet

Thrust was observed on both test articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce thrust. Specifically, one test article contained internal physical modifications that were designed to produce thrust, while the other did not (with the latter being referred to as the "null" test article).

In other words, the negative control in the experiment worked. Which means that the experiment as a whole tells you nothing. Clearly, the device (even when disabled) appears to produce a force. But Lee suggested a variety of ways that this could happen and indicated that there are ways to monitor the device's operation to see if any of them play a role (for example, he suggested that a mass imbalance of as little as 3 mg could account for the small force the NASA researchers found. "All in all," Lee concluded, "it will take a lot more information before we can judge whether the thrust is really a thrust or not."

I think skepticism and patience is the key here, concerning all other claims with this tech, until we get more info.

 

[Yamauchi]

I don't believe that it is real, but it is fun to imagine how it could be applied if it were. I believe satellite orbit maintenance has been mentioned, and that would be a pretty logical first step.

For greater distances, I could imagine a solar sail being used to collect the energy needed to power this engine, but I have no clue how much energy such a device could collect and if it would work, but hey, Count Dooku's ship had a cool design in my opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IKAROS

Just strap it to a fission reactor.

And yeah, the negative control result is a major flag. We'll have to wait and see.

 

[SigmasonicX]

Ars Technica : don't buy stock in Impossible drives just yet



I think skepticism and patience is the key here, concerning all other claims with this tech, until we get more info.

Another thing to be added to the OP.
... Just make sure to get the original post, not the quote, this time.

 

[Timedog]

If you want to propose a theory describing "fractal resonance" then go ahead. Quantum mechanics may be imperfect, but it has a tremendous track record. Physics doesn't claim to describe reality, it just predicts how it behaves with some degree of accuracy. For anything to be taken seriously it needs to do the same. It doesn't sound like you know much about the subject though.

Actually I'm one of the world's preeminent authorities on: Physics, Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, Math, Hacking, Burger King, and Cosmology. I think I know what I'm talking about more than any scientist aka "flip flopper" when I say that each of the 3 spatial dimensions is a fractal set and time arises from the interaction between the "roughness" of each set, mkay?

 

[kswiston]

If you interpret electron as a particle then yea, but if you interpret electron as a wave, then the classical physics can perfectly describe the interference patterns.

New theories usually don't invalidate previous theories but expand and build upon the previous ones. You know the old saying of standing on the shoulders of giants by Newton.

It still violates classical physics because particle-wave duality didn't exist under that theory. I wasn't saying that Newtonian physics is useless (it obviously isn't), or that relativity and quantum mechanics are completely new theories that don't borrow heavily from what came before, but all sorts of stuff violates classical theories of physics.

 

[Cronox]

I just want my hoverboard. Make it happen people.

 

[Timedog]

Why is it impossible to have thrust when you're not expecting thrust? It's not. It's just highly "improbable". But what if there's a way to adjust what scientists think of as "probability"?

 

[The Technomancer]

Actually I'm one of the world's preeminent authorities on: Physics, Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, Math, Hacking, Burger King, and Cosmology. I think I know what I'm talking about more than any scientist aka "flip flopper" when I say that each of the 3 spatial dimensions is a fractal set and time arises from the interaction between the "roughness" of each set, mkay?

Have you been reading Timecube again?

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Actually I'm one of the world's preeminent authorities on: Physics, Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, Math, Hacking, Burger King, and Cosmology. I think I know what I'm talking about more than any scientist aka "flip flopper" when I say that each of the 3 spatial dimensions is a fractal set and time arises from the interaction between the "roughness" of each set, mkay?

Oh yeah? What's the best Burger King burger then?

 

[Timedog]

Have you been reading Timedogcube again?

ftfy

Oh yeah? What's the best Burger King burger then?

I quantify "best" as taste/value ratio and I'd say the Big King when it was on sale in 2005.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

I quantify "best" as taste/value ratio and I'd say the Big King when it was on sale in 2005.

Correct. So I'm going to assume that you know what you're talking about wrt the science.

 

[Kevin]

I want this to be real but so many times have I seen reports similar to this one claiming major breakthroughs in propulsion systems and guess what? They never lead anywhere and are quickly forgotten about. It's the sad truth. I'd like to be wrong through but I don't think we will be going to Mars in a week's time anytime in our lifetime.

 

[Deleted member 80556]

Hype has been deflated with the two realist posts. Damn, I felt like I was going to walk on Mars within my life. So close.

Jesus, NASA should just build their own machine to regulate the results. This smells of scam just for the manufacturer to say "look! Even NASA took us seriously!". Seems kind of a waste of time if they don't want to be open about this "revolutionary" discovery for mankind.

 

[Nostremitus]

This is definitely interesting if true...

I don't believe them, but just for shits and giggles...

So the drive magically knows when it's moving? Force is force. How does the EmDrive know when it's simply acting against gravity and when it's "accelerating along the thrust vector"?

So a quantum vacuum drive... that reacts differently when acting against gravity..., and needs extra energy when farther from a gravity well? I read that correctly?

That's not describing a thruster... that would be a gravity drive, right? Pulling energy from a quantum vacuum? That means the amount of potential energy is directly related to the density of space-time within the engine? So the farther the engine is from a gravity well, the more electricity needed to produce the same amount of thrust because the amount of space-time there to provide the artificial or "anti-grav" forces is reduced? That would also rule out interstellar travel with these engines as space-time would be so thin between stars that the amount of energy required to produce thrust would be "astronomical." But then, you wouldn't need thrust again until you approached the next star and needed to slow down. If, however, you miscalculated and missed the next system you'd have no way to correct your course without another form of propulsion...

Again, not saying I believe these "results" just brainstorming why they would exist IF true.

 

[TheVampire]

Can't wait till Warp drives are real. Just you watch. That day will come.

Yeah but we will all be dead

 

[block tower]

lol. America's black budget projects say hi! call me a conspiracy theorist all you want, but im a huge Northrop fan and read quite a few books on Jack Northrop and Lockheed Co. considering that work on the SR-71 started sometime around that late 1940's/early 1950's, and that it was used pre-cold war on reconnaissance, only to be discovered during the cold war; i wouldn't be shocked that we have alternative engines, specifically ones for flight, already in use in secret. the idea that people are waiting for NASA to build these future engines on their measly budgets when the black budgets far exceed NASA's budget is silly.

for anyone unfamiliar with the U.S.'s Black Budget: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_budget

"A black budget article by the Washington Post, based on information given by Edward Snowden, detailed how the US allocated $52.8 billion in 2012 for the black budget."

i think its safe to say the Black Budget in 2014 is probably more around $60-$70 Billion. thats a lot of money to build on research and programs that have likely been funded for decades. anyone thinking these secret programs are simply blowing billions on spying and conventional military projects are naive. there's a lot you can get done with that type of annual budget for projects and programs people dont vote on or scrutinize.

 

[PdotMichael]

The last people I except to be such skeptics are scientist. These are the people that should think almost anything is possible when it comes to space right?

No, that are sci-fi writers. Scientists know the Newton's laws of motion just too well.

 

[Rapstah]

lol. America's black budget projects say hi! call me a conspiracy theorist all you want, but im a huge Northrop fan and read quite a few books on Jack Northrop and Lockheed Co. considering that work on the SR-71 started sometime around that late 1940's/early 1950's, and that it was used pre-cold war on reconnaissance, only to be discovered during the cold war; i wouldn't be shocked that we have alternative engines, specifically ones for flight, already in use in secret. the idea that people are waiting for NASA to build these future engines on their measly budgets when the black budgets far exceed NASA's budget is silly.

for anyone unfamiliar with the U.S.'s Black Budget: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_budget



i think its safe to say the Black Budget in 2014 is probably more around $60-$70 Billion. thats a lot of money to build on research and programs that have likely been funded for decades. anyone thinking these secret programs are simply blowing billions on spying and conventional military projects are naive. there's a lot you can get done with that type of annual budget for projects and programs people dont vote on or scrutinize.

I'd hope black budget projects would be able to create more thrust than the gravitational force on a snowflake.

 

[block tower]

I'd hope black budget projects would be able to create more thrust than the gravitational force on a snowflake.

im sure with the people who run and work in the programs and given the funding they receive, they probably achieve a lot. i wont wait on NASA or any other public space program to be the ones showing off the type of things that were discussed in OP. we're long past the time where NASA is prioritized in the space race or race for space tech. the lack of funding for NASA is no coincidence, its not the program that is useful for that type of research anymore. as far as commercial space travel goes, the govt will just let private industry take over and let NASA do the star gazing while military programs do the real research.

 

[Bisnic]

Yeah but we will all be dead

Don't worry, someone will find a way to stop aging...someday! Before the next 20 years hopefully.

Spoiler

lol

 

[RedShift]

lol. America's black budget projects say hi! call me a conspiracy theorist all you want, but im a huge Northrop fan and read quite a few books on Jack Northrop and Lockheed Co. considering that work on the SR-71 started sometime around that late 1940's/early 1950's, and that it was used pre-cold war on reconnaissance, only to be discovered during the cold war; i wouldn't be shocked that we have alternative engines, specifically ones for flight, already in use in secret. the idea that people are waiting for NASA to build these future engines on their measly budgets when the black budgets far exceed NASA's budget is silly.

for anyone unfamiliar with the U.S.'s Black Budget: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_budget



i think its safe to say the Black Budget in 2014 is probably more around $60-$70 Billion. thats a lot of money to build on research and programs that have likely been funded for decades. anyone thinking these secret programs are simply blowing billions on spying and conventional military projects are naive. there's a lot you can get done with that type of annual budget for projects and programs people dont vote on or scrutinize.

Again there is no way this is being used for planes. There's no point pushing against quantum flux plasma or whatever when you can push against actual air. Even space planes I imagine it'd way better to use conventional propulsion for pretty much any covert mission rather than lug a nuclear reactor or whatever with you.

 

[block tower]

Again there is no way this is being used for planes. There's no point pushing against quantum flux plasma or whatever when you can push against actual air. Even space planes I imagine it'd way better to use conventional propulsion for pretty much any covert mission rather than lug a nuclear reactor or whatever with you.

yes i agree, i was more or less making the point that even if these things existed or were possible in the somewhat near future, don't wait on NASA or any other similar program to be the one to announce this tech in existence. NASA has neither the funding, support, or incentive to aggressively go after this type of tech. I'd expect the Black Budget and programs funded by it to be the creators of these types of engine. but like i said i agree, these types of engines aren't practical for any travel on our planet or inside our own solar system.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

im sure with the people who run and work in the programs and given the funding they receive, they probably achieve a lot.

They may have achieved a lot, or they may have achieved a little, but in the absence of knowledge you can't say what. There's no sense of scale for what they might or might not have accomplished, and I think you're just letting your imagination run wild. The precedents we have for black projects are things like spyplanes and stealth bombers, all of which are impressive but apply existing, known physics in groundbreaking or novel ways. They're also very, very expensive projects to develop and implement.

Likely projects include ones related to stealth vehicles, hypersonic aircraft, cutting edge information warfare and cyberespionage, asat weaponry and so on. People have been imagining that the DOD was building flying saucers and rayguns with the black budgets for decades but the truth has been shown to be fairly grounded. Projects are usually kept secret on the basis that they are a) sufficiently small scale or subtle as to effectively hide them, and b) believed to be critical to maintaining an edge in matters of national security. This covers espionage and advanced weapons, but there is never going to be some vast underground kabal of scientists working on scientific principles beyond the rest of the world. That's not really how their procurement and development works.

 

[User 73706]

I never get these "scientists just can't explain it" articles. Like, I'm pretty sure you could at least get some conjecture from the people that worked on it or chalk it up to compression in a non-binary system (entropy), relativity etc. Shit doesn't just work that way.

"So, do you think you guys could explain how this thing works?"

"Well, it relies on a lot of causative quantum hypoconfooblamics - it's largely theoretical at this point. When we get a working model out of the purely hypothetical stage and make it graspable enough to the public for mainstream production, we could probably offer some data-"

"SCIENTISTS BAFFLED BY TECHNOLOGY. THEY JUST DON'T KNOW HOW THIS ONE MIRACLE HAPPENED! DID ALIENS DO IT? DID GOD DO IT? DID THE REPUBLICRATS DO IT? Details on pg. 13"

 

[block tower]

They may have achieved a lot, or they may have achieved a little, but in the absence of knowledge you can't say what. There's no sense of scale for what they might or might not have accomplished, and I think you're just letting your imagination run wild. The precedents we have for black projects are things like spyplanes and stealth bombers, all of which are impressive but apply existing, known physics in groundbreaking or novel ways. They're also very, very expensive projects to develop and implement.

Likely projects include ones related to stealth vehicles, hypersonic aircraft, cutting edge information warfare and cyberespionage, asat weaponry and so on. People have been imagining that the DOD was building flying saucers and rayguns with the black budgets for decades but the truth has been shown to be fairly grounded. Projects are usually kept secret on the basis that they are a) sufficiently small scale or subtle as to effectively hide them, and b) believed to be critical to maintaining an edge in matters of national security. This covers espionage and advanced weapons, but there is never going to be some vast underground kabal of scientists working on scientific principles beyond the rest of the world. That's not really how their procurement and development works.

like i said in another response, im very grounded in that i don't believe we have achieved or are close to achieving the type of tech that was discussed in the OP. i completely agree with you that most of what is developed in the black budget projects are grounded in what we know, although there are very likely sci-fi esque projects that are in the works. my point was that if such tech does come to fruition like what was discussed in the OP, NASA isn't going to be the program to debut it, it'll likely be related to military use and shown off by a military program or branch of the armed forces. i will say that i think we are at a point that we can assume that if tech in the private sector is rapidly advancing for trivial tech devices and everyday use, i dont think its farfetched to assume there are much more critical advancements being made under heavily funded govt programs.

my anecdote with the SR-71 was that although commercial aviation in the U.S. and around the globe was just taking off in the 1950's with commercial airlines; the SR-71 was already a reality furthering existing tech and the current understanding of physics. to people in the 1950's the SR-71 was very much something theyd imagine seeing decades later, not then and there. when we see private industry making strides in commercial space flight, i would think its logical to expect the govt and black budget programs having the same sort of tech but possessing much more advanced and capable versions of it. but like you said we essentially have to "wait and see" so to speak lol.

 

[Woorloog]

I never get these "scientists just can't explain it" articles.

Usually they don't make sense. Nowadays anyway. That doesn't mean that there can't be or haven't been cases where an effect is found first and the explanation came later.
In this case, though, this is suspicious i think.

 

[CharlieDigital]

We're sure this is not fake? The Chinese did something before the scientists in NASA? I figured NASA would have a more advance space program than the Chinese.

It is likely that NASA wasn't really taking this seriously - given that no one can definitively say how the momentum is generated - until two independent teams (Chinese and Argentine) seemed to have found something of interest.

The US team found much lower thrust than the Chinese team did

Chinese team also had a higher wattage input source (2500w vs 700w, at least according to Wiki)

 

[Battersea Power Station]

Wired posted a follow up article, attempting to answer some FAQs about it:

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-08/07/10-qs-about-nasa-impossible-drive

 

[SigmasonicX]

Well, time to start celebrating again! Put that in the OP!

Spoiler

Until someone posts a rebuttal article.

 

[Jackpot]

The true 'null test' was when a load was used with no resonant cavity, and as expected this produced no thrust:

Equally significantly, reversing the orientation of the drive reversed the thrust.

Guess that answers that.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

Guess that answers that.

Huh. Well. I'm a bit confused. Considerably more excited, though. Let's do some more tests!

 

[Tertullian]

Wired posted a follow up article, attempting to answer some FAQs about it:

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-08/07/10-qs-about-nasa-impossible-drive

Whoa, that article makes this sound super legit. Manned Mars mission in the next 20 years an actual possibility?

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

Wired posted a follow up article, attempting to answer some FAQs about it:

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-08/07/10-qs-about-nasa-impossible-drive

So the emdrive produces more thrust from less leccy compared to the cannae, and an improved version of this is going to built and tested soon.

For explorations sake I hope this is all true and not measurement errors.

 

[CornDogg]

Where do we sign up to join the crew of one of the Battlestars?

 

[_Ryo_]

I just can't stop saying wow. This is really amazing if legit.

 

[Epsilon-delta]

Wired posted a follow up article, attempting to answer some FAQs about it:

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-08/07/10-qs-about-nasa-impossible-drive

Sounds good so far. Obviously, we need more tests to confirm the results. If this ends up being real, than this is a game changer.

 

[jett]

Wired posted a follow up article, attempting to answer some FAQs about it:

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-08/07/10-qs-about-nasa-impossible-drive

Man this really sounds like the game-changing technology space travel needed. I wonder how long until we launch a spacecraft with an engine of this sort.

 

[GuitarAtomik]

Wired posted a follow up article, attempting to answer some FAQs about it:

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-08/07/10-qs-about-nasa-impossible-drive

Whoa whoa whoa!

7. What's this about hoverboards and flying cars?

A superconducting version of the EmDrive, would, in principle, generate thousands of times more thrust. And because it does not require energy just to hold things up (just as a chair does not require power to keep you off the ground), in theory you could have a hoverboard which does not require energy to float in the air.

You'll have to provide the lateral thrust yourself though, or expend energy pushing the thing along by other means --- and in any case, superconducting electronics are rather bulky and expensive, so the super-EmDrive is likely to be a few years away.

It's Happening!!!

 

[Kinthalis]

The NASA test's control experiment ALSO registered a net force.

That's not at all conclusive.

One of the commenters on Ars mentions the very real possibility of thrust aciton coming from forces on atmospheric particles, rather than on virtual particles in space.

I remain unconvinced. Extraordinary results require extraordinary evidence. And we definitley don't have that yet, nevermind the silly talk about hoverboards.

 

[GuitarAtomik]

The NASA test's control experiment ALSO registered a net force.

That's not at all conclusive.

The Wired article addresses that:

2. Thrust was also measured from the 'Null Drive', doesn't that mean the experiment failed?

Lots of commenters jumped on this, assuming incorrectly that this was a control test and that thrust was measured when there was no drive.

In fact, the 'Null Drive' was a modified version of the Cannae Drive, a flying-saucer-shaped device with slots engraved in one face only. The underlying theory is that the slots create a force imbalance in resonating microwaves; the 'Null Drive' was unslotted, but still produced thrust when filled with microwaves. This may challenge the theory -- it is probably no coincidence that Cannae inventor Guido Fetta is patenting a new version which works differently -- but not the results.

The true 'null test' was when a load was used with no resonant cavity, and as expected this produced no thrust:

"Finally, a 50 ohm RF resistive load was used in place of the test article to verify no significant systemic effects that would cause apparent or real torsion pendulum displacements. The RF load was energised twice at an amplifier output power of approximately 28 watts and no significant pendulum arm displacements were observed."

Equally significantly, reversing the orientation of the drive reversed the thrust.

 

[Kinthalis]

The Wired article addresses that:

So the control was accounting for magnetic load from the energy source, if I'm reading this right?

That makes sense. We're still talking about such low quantities of force here that we can't rule out issues with atmospheric particles.

 

[CDX]

Wired posted a follow up article, attempting to answer some FAQs about it:

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-08/07/10-qs-about-nasa-impossible-drive

in theory you could have a hoverboard which does not require energy to float in the air.

OMG!

HOVERBOARDS!

 

[KHarvey16]

So the control was accounting for magnetic load from the energy source, if I'm reading this right?

That makes sense. We're still talking about such low quantities of force here that we can't rule out issues with atmospheric particles.

The actual control is intended to rule that out. A simple 50 ohm RF load registered no thrust.

 

[GuitarAtomik]

So the control was accounting for magnetic load from the energy source, if I'm reading this right?

That makes sense. We're still talking about such low quantities of force here that we can't rule out issues with atmospheric particles.

1. Isn't such a tiny force likely to be experimental error?

The equipment can measure forces of less than ten micronewtons, and the thrust was several times that high.

The test rig is carefully designed to remove any possible sources of error. Even the lapping of waves in the Gulf of Mexico 25 miles away every three to four seconds would have showed up on the sensors, so the apparatus was floated pneumatically to avoid any influence. The apparatus is completely sealed, with power and signals going through liquid metal contacts to prevent any force being transmitted through cables.

Similar consideration was given to any other possible factors that could influence the result, for example shielding everything from electromagnetic effects. There may be a gap somewhere, but the Nasa experimenters appear to have been scrupulous.

So definitely possible, but they seemed to have been pretty thorough.

 

[SigmasonicX]

So the control was accounting for magnetic load from the energy source, if I'm reading this right?

That makes sense. We're still talking about such low quantities of force here that we can't rule out issues with atmospheric particles.

There are two relevant sections:

1. Isn't such a tiny force likely to be experimental error?

The equipment can measure forces of less than ten micronewtons, and the thrust was several times that high.

The test rig is carefully designed to remove any possible sources of error. Even the lapping of waves in the Gulf of Mexico 25 miles away every three to four seconds would have showed up on the sensors, so the apparatus was floated pneumatically to avoid any influence. The apparatus is completely sealed, with power and signals going through liquid metal contacts to prevent any force being transmitted through cables.

Similar consideration was given to any other possible factors that could influence the result, for example shielding everything from electromagnetic effects. There may be a gap somewhere, but the Nasa experimenters appear to have been scrupulous.

3. They didn't do it in a vacuum, so how do we know the result is valid in space?

While the original abstract says that tests were run "within a stainless steel vacuum chamber with the door closed but at ambient atmospheric pressure", the full report describes tests in which turbo vacuum pumps were used to evacuate the test chamber to a pressure of five millionths of a Torr, or about a hundred-millionth of normal atmospheric pressure.

 

[Nostremitus]

Well then... This is getting exciting.

 

[LuffyZoro]

Whoa whoa whoa!



It's Happening!!!

Wait, am I missing something? Wouldn't you need energy in order to work against gravity?

 

[Arkos]

But can it go plaid?

 

[MilesTeg]

6. How does this get us to Mars?

The small but steady push of the EmDrive is a winner for space missions, gradually accelerating spacecraft to high speed.

The Nasa paper projects a 'conservative' manned mission to Mars from Earth orbit, with a 90-ton spacecraft driven by the new technology. Using a 2-megawatt nuclear power source, it can develop 800 newtons (180 pounds) of thrust. The entire mission would take eight months, including a 70-day stay on Mars.

This compares with Nasa's plans using conventional technology which takes six months just to get there, and requires several hundred tons to be put into Earth's orbit to start with. You also have to stay there for at least 18 months while you wait for the planets to align again for the journey back. The new drive provides enough thrust to overcome the gravitational attraction of the Sun at these distances, which makes manoeuvring much easier.

A less conservative projection has an advanced drive developing ten times as much thrust for the same power -- this cuts the transit time to Mars to 28 days, and can generally fly around the solar system at will, a true Nasa dream machine.


It's happening?