The "Impossible" Engine is real, NASA says so!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oersted said:
Remember when the chinese released this at the beginning of the year. If that works out, gamechanger would be an understatement.
Click to expand...

The Chinese supposedly had their version of EmDrive produce a force of 720 millinewtons.

I want to believe; I want this to be verifiable and replicable by other parties.
 
I found this comment on reddit. This person is bringing up the questionable integrity of the original inventor of the Emdrive, but also that of the man who convinced NASA to conduct the research. Looks like he's a managing director at a company called Cannae LLC, and him providing the equipment and hiding the results does indeed smell fishy.

http://www.cannae.com/

[–]rageagainsttheapes 11 points 6 hours ago
Apparently Guido Fetta, the guy who convinced NASA to do the test and built the equipment, calls it the "Cannae drive". That's very appropriate in Scottish, as in "It cannae drive".
Jokes aside, this is either experimental error or outright fraud. I say that as someone who would dearly, and I mean dearly, love for this drive to be real. Here are just a few of the problems with it:
The theory it's based on is laughably wrong. It would be one thing if the inventor said, "I don't know how this works, but it works, see for yourself." But he has an elaborate theory about it that is plain wrong in a forehead-smackingly simple way. Basically, he drew some arrows on his conical cavity diagram, and the direction of the arrows was wrong (he made it look like, for some magical reason, the photons striking the sides of the cavity would only exert force perpendicular to the axis of the cone, not perpendicular to the sides).
Going to Guido Fetta's website and clicking on Experimental Results results in a 404 not found error. So does Numerical Results. Surely a scientist bright enough to invent something like this should be able to maintain a website, especially the most important pages.
When a reviewer pointed out a flaw in Shawyer's paper, Shawyer simply deleted the paragraph in question and published the paper again, with no other changes. Dodgy much? Now he says "The design of the cavity is such that the ratio of end wall forces is maximised, whilst the axial component of the sidewall force is reduced to a negligible value." Reduced how? How exactly are the microwave photons being convinced to exert more pressure on the ends than on the sides? This is pure handwaving.
The implications of this discovery, if it were real, are profoundly staggering (far, far greater than even controlled nuclear fusion would be). It is also cheap and easy to test experimentally - there's no big engineering involved, it's just a sealed cone with a microwave emitter inside. Put those two facts together and people should be experimenting like crazy with this thing and it should already have been developed further quite a bit.
Shawyer claims that it's possible to produce 30kN (3 tonnes) of thrust with 1 kilowatt. It would be nice to see even 3N of force, not 30 micronewtons. That's overwhelmingly likely to be experimental error.
The equipment used by NASA was built by Guido Fetta, which raises the possibility of deliberate trickery.
It can hover, but it cannae drive!
More from Shawyer's FAQ:
Note however, because the EmDrive obeys the law of conservation of energy, this thrust/power ratio rapidly decreases if the EmDrive is used to accelerate the vehicle along the thrust vector. (See Equation 16 of the theory paper). Whilst the EmDrive can provide lift to counter gravity, (and is therefore not losing kinetic energy), auxiliary propulsion is required to provide the kinetic energy to accelerate the vehicle.
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"?
More reassuring statements:
BTE-Dan: If NASA or the ESA agreed to test your EmDrive, would you be willing to let them test it?
Roger: If either organisation showed a rigorous understanding of the theory, we would consider such a request.
Riiiiiight. I have an invention that will turn all of known science on its head and change the world forever, but I'll only show it to you if you understand the theory believe in it first! Because that's how this scientist does science.
Click to expand...
 
agrajag said:
Is that how they currently travel, accelerate to a certain velocity and then turn off the engines?
Click to expand...

Thats how space travel works right now from what I know. They thrust to get some speed, shut off thrust to conserve fuel and travel at that speed till they need to stop or adjust course, in which they thrust in an opposite direction.
 
Cragvis said:
Thats how space travel works right now from what I know. They thrust to get some speed, shut off thrust to conserve fuel and travel at that speed till they need to stop or adjust course, in which they thrust in an opposite direction.
Click to expand...

Gotcha. I wonder, for long range travel, couldn't they refuel in space? Like, dock at the ISS, wait for another ship to bring more fuel (since there's no gravity in space, the original ship could be modulated with as many additional fuel tanks as they want). Then on the way home, they could once again refuel at the space station.
 
Ace Harding said:
Ok I'll be the idiot that asks: Why wouldn't this work? Assume there is very little friction.
Edit: I guess because the magnet in the back will also be pulling the one in the front? And it doesn't matter if one is more powerful than the other, the force is equal in either direction?
Click to expand...

Because that steel bar in the back of the "car" is exerting a force in the opposite direction.
 
A week to Mars? I ain't no scientific man, but at that velocity wouldn't those G-forces be lethal? Someone explain to me why I'm wrong.
 
Telecinision said:
I found this comment on reddit. This person is bringing up the questionable integrity of the original inventor of the Emdrive, but also that of the man who convinced NASA to conduct the research. Looks like he's a managing director at a company called Cannae LLC, and him providing the equipment and hiding the results does indeed sound really fishy.

http://www.cannae.com/
Click to expand...

NOOOOOOOOO get out of here with your facts and scepticism!

I can't hear you over the BIRTH OF INTERGALACTIC CIVILIZATION
 
agrajag said:
Gotcha. I wonder, for long range travel, couldn't they refuel in space? Like, dock at the ISS, wait for another ship to bring more fuel (since there's no gravity in space, the original ship could be modulated with as many additional fuel tanks as they want). Then on the way home, they could once again refuel at the space station.
Click to expand...

Thats what they do now with the ISS, but for very long travels that we never have done before, the ISS is basically next to the earth, no where near where they would need to be to get more fuel outside our solar system.

We would have to build gas stations in space all over the place. This new propulsion system would make fuel a non equation. As long as we are near a solar tar, we will have power.

Actually kind of like superman, who gets his powers from the sun, can fly very fast, and we have no idea how he does it.

This engine should be called the Reeve engine!
 
agrajag said:
Gotcha. I wonder, for long range travel, couldn't they refuel in space? Like, dock at the ISS, wait for another ship to bring more fuel (since there's no gravity in space, the original ship could be modulated with as many additional fuel tanks as they want). Then on the way home, they could once again refuel at the space station.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but that's an elaborate plan with only an $18 billion/year budget.

TheXbox said:
A week to Mars? I ain't no scientific man, but at that velocity wouldn't those G-forces be lethal? Someone explain to me why I'm wrong.
Click to expand...
You can go as fast as you want as long as your acceleration stays within lethal limits.
 
This is why I love science.

"X is impossible, because Y"

"My theory shows X is possible, regardless of Y."

"My experiment shows X is possible, regardless of Y."

"Same here. We just can't figure out why Y doesn't matter."

"Well.... shit. Back to the drawing board about X, Y, and probably Z while we are at it."

Theoretical science in a nutshell.
 
I hope this ends up like:

home_header_noflash_1000x467.jpg
Click to expand...

and not:

Doom_cover_art.jpg
 
agrajag said:
Is that how they currently travel, accelerate to a certain velocity and then turn off the engines?
Click to expand...

Sort of. The best way we have of traveling between planets right now is using the Earth (or other planets') gravity as a sort of slingshot. Basically, you use small amounts of fuel to propel yourself into the right orbit so that you whip around the planet and the resulting speed de-orbits you and sends you in the direction you want to go. Using this method, traveling to Mars would take months because you travel at a constant speed (the speed at which you escaped orbit from Earth).
 
Telecinision said:
I found this comment on reddit. This person is bringing up the questionable integrity of the original inventor of the Emdrive, but also that of the man who convinced NASA to conduct the research. Looks like he's a managing director at a company called Cannae LLC, and him providing the equipment and hiding the results does indeed smell fishy.

http://www.cannae.com/
Click to expand...

This should probably be added to the OP, so people don't get their hopes up too much.
 
I feel like a lot of the people in this thread saying "Fuck yeah, science!" in this thread are going O be singing a different tune when this is discredited. Something like "Thanks for ruining all the fun, science."

But then, I'll bet a lot of people who love science don't like feathered dinosaurs, either.
 
Science! Man this will change everything we know about spaceflight. And yes Interstellar comes to mind also and other movies where we thought it couldn't work or happen.

61142-Mmmmm-science-Pepsi-can-gif-cDA2.gif
 
agrajag said:
Gotcha. I wonder, for long range travel, couldn't they refuel in space? Like, dock at the ISS, wait for another ship to bring more fuel (since there's no gravity in space, the original ship could be modulated with as many additional fuel tanks as they want). Then on the way home, they could once again refuel at the space station.
Click to expand...

The ship, and the fuel still have mass. More fuel means more mass to move while on thrust, which means you'll be spending shitloads of extra fuel just cause you have extra mass, there is indeed a gain though. I just don't think it's viable.
 
TheXbox said:
A week to Mars? I ain't no scientific man, but at that velocity wouldn't those G-forces be lethal? Someone explain to me why I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

You could get to Mars in a little over a day by accelerating at 1 g (depending on where it is in its orbit relative to Earth).

Edit: Obviously if you also want to slow down when you get there it's a little different. But even then it's doable in a bit under two days at 1 g.
 
Well, the quantum world is a bubbling broiling world where virtual particles pop into and out of existence all the time. Perhaps it manages to use these virtual particles as a propellant.
 
SigmasonicX said:
This should probably be added to the OP, so people don't get their hopes up too much.
Click to expand...

If you follow GAF science threads, you should know that info to the contrary won't stop anyone.


Science Article: "Scientists discover method of slowing the effects of aging in rat organs by 10% using new treatment"

GAF: "Fuck yes! Immortality in my lifetime!"
 
This wouldn't allow FTL travel but even being able to travel at almost the speed of light would make it possible for humans to colonize our Solar System.

I would like to see this happen in my lifetime.
 
gutshot said:
Does that include time for deceleration?
Click to expand...

Sure, deceleration is really, really fast. It happens when you hit the planet.

speculawyer said:
Well, the quantum world is a bubbling broiling world where virtual particles pop into and out of existence all the time. Perhaps it manages to use these virtual particles as a propellant.
Click to expand...

I suppose, but wouldn't that make the drive lose mass? Ejecting one of the virtual particles form the pair out into space would add negative energy to the structure and it would lose mass. I'm pretty sure that's what Hawking Radiation is, but I'm not physicist. Even if you could focus the effect in one direction, the kinematics of it would work out just like if the drive were just ejecting it's own mass.
 
That's really cool. I hope we can better understand the science behind it because it could lead to even more cool stuff being possible.

Reading about the Emdrive now, and it seems like there's a lot of people who want it to fail, most of it because it goes against conventional knowledge of physics and quantum mechanics :/
 
Hrmm... so, how long until the super species/predator wipes us out for good ?


fonts:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=852070
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wait-but-why/the-fermi-paradox_b_5489415.html
Possibility 5) There's only one instance of higher-intelligent life -- a "superpredator" civilization (like humans are here on Earth) -- who is far more advanced than everyone else and keeps it that way by exterminating any intelligent civilization once they get past a certain level.
 
GSG Flash said:
That's really cool. I hope we can better understand the science behind it because it could lead to even more cool stuff being possible.

Reading about the Emdrive now, and it seems like there's a lot of people who want it to fail, most of it because it goes against conventional knowledge of physics and quantum mechanics :/
Click to expand...

I don't think there are many who want it to fail. And certainly not for those reasons. There are people who are confident it will fail, but that's not the same as wanting it to. This is a discovery that could shatter previously conceived limits. Science is all about that. Problem is, we're pretty sure those limits are ironclad. I'd love to see it work. I don't expect it to.
 
Now, American scientist Guido Fetta and a team at NASA Eagleworks—the advanced propulsion skunkworks led by Dr Harold "Sonny" White at the Johnson Space Center—have published a new paper that demonstrates that a similar engine working on the same principles does indeed produce thrust.
Click to expand...

Now, American scientist Guido Fetta
Click to expand...

Guido Fetta
Click to expand...

.
 
Gotchaye said:
You could get to Mars in a little over a day by accelerating at 1 g (depending on where it is in its orbit relative to Earth).

Edit: Obviously if you also want to slow down when you get there it's a little different. But even then it's doable in a bit under two days at 1 g.
Click to expand...
Huh, that's really cool, I didn't know that. At the Earth/Mars closest approach in 2003 (56 Million Km) apparently it takes 14 hours to reach the half-way point accelerating at 1g. So ~28 hours total taking into account deceleration and Earth/Mars escape velocities.

Woo Math!
 
Paganmoon said:
The ship, and the fuel still have mass. More fuel means more mass to move while on thrust, which means you'll be spending shitloads of extra fuel just cause you have extra mass, there is indeed a gain though. I just don't think it's viable.
Click to expand...

Damnit, this is what I get for sucking at physics. Makes sense though. I figured if they had extra fuel, maybe they could afford to go a little faster and then a trip to Mars wouldn't take as long as it currently does. That's a moot point anyway, if this quantum engine thing indeed works.
 
P3P5I said:
Huh, that's really cool, I didn't know that. At the Earth/Mars closest approach in 2003 (56 Million Km) apparently it takes 14 hours to reach the half-way point accelerating at 1g. So ~28 hours total taking into account deceleration and Earth/Mars escape velocities.

Woo Math!
Click to expand...

I'll add that at the midpoint, at 14 hours with 3600 sec/hr and 9.8m/s^2, you be going 493.92 km/sec.

One of the fastest moving and most extraordinary extrasolar planets is WASP-12b, which zips around an otherwise unremarkable star known as 2MASS J06303279+2940202, 870 light-years from Earth in the constellation Auriga. WASP-12b was discovered by a group of astronomers led by Leslie Hebb at Scotland’s University of St Andrews. Hebb and her team measured the brightness of 2MASS J0630 thousands of times throughout 2006 and 2007, eventually identifying a tiny 1.3% dimming of the star’s light that lasted about three hours and repeated every 26 hours.

From this we conclude that, as viewed from Earth: WASP-12b blocks 1.3% of light from its parent star during its three-hour transit across the star; and the total time for one orbit around its star is 26 hours. This information, combined with other measurements and calculations, tells us that WASP-12b is almost twice the diameter of Jupiter and hits a top speed in its orbit of 850,000 km/h, or about 235 km per second.
http://cosmosmagazine.com/features/extreme-speed/
Click to expand...
 
Cragvis said:
A single thrust will keep you going yes, but only at that speed.

If you thrust to 2mph, then you will only be going 2mph forever or till you hit something.

If you have this type of unlimited thruster you can keep it on, thus constantly be going faster and faster and faster.

With fuel, you can only go as fast as long as you still have fuel to burn, no more fuel = no more increase in speed.

The faster we can move in space = the further we can go in a lifetime.
Click to expand...
But... Solar energy isn't "unlimited" in a sense, it takes time to charge enough solar energy to do this thing. Isn't the problem with long distance space travel that you need huge amounts of energy, the kinds of amounts that it would take years, decades even, to get the amount of fuel to needed for it. The same problem applies to solar-energized space travel. The space ship would need to be able to charge itself with solar energy for a very, very long time (and be able to store that charge) before it'd have the energy to increase the speed to the kind of numbers that it would make sense for space travel outside of our solar system, let alone even further. So the reality is still against us if one space shuttle would need decades and some higly advanced battery tech to be able to store the energy before it has enough energy to be able to accelerate to the kind of speeds needed for superlongdistance space travel.
 
Small light probe that has 5-10 years to build up speed to 1/10 of the speed of light, and in ~5 decades, while I am still alive, we can get images and scans back from the Alpha Centaury system.
 
Famassu said:
But... Solar energy isn't "unlimited" in a sense, it takes time to charge enough solar energy to do this thing. Isn't the problem with long distance space travel that you need huge amounts of energy, the kinds of amounts that it would take years, decades even, to get the amount of fuel to needed for it. The same problem applies to solar-energized space travel. The space ship would need to be able to charge itself with solar energy for a very, very long time (and be able to store that charge) before it'd have the energy to increase the speed to the kind of numbers that it would make sense for space travel outside of our solar system, let alone even further. So the reality is still against us if one space shuttle would need decades and some higly advanced battery tech to be able to store the energy before it has enough energy to be able to accelerate to the kind of speeds needed for superlongdistance space travel.
Click to expand...
This could be really good for keeping satellites in orbit, if shown functional and improved.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

LTTP: Mission Impossible - The Final Reckoning
8
154
Cyberpunkd replied
Paramount is streaming Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning (2025) on Youtube (starts in 10 minutes)
14
477
Saber replied
So this AI crap is for real? John carmack is recruited by open ai "AGI Future"
25
1K
Hari Seldon replied
Ridley Scott says Hollywood is “drowning in mediocrity”
2 3
112
830
Men_in_Boxes replied
NASA briefing on potential signs of simple life on Mars
20
515
Miyazaki’s Slave replied
Top Bottom