NASA admits reactionless thruster works, but doesn't know how it works.

[Galane]

Finally, some scientists decided to be scientists instead of just "debunking" things that don't appear to obey known laws of physics.

http://www.gizmag.com/cannae-reactionless-drive-space-propulsion/33210/

Now if they'll apply the same actually scientific investigation method to the Biefeld-Brown effect instead of the "test" they did in a vacuum chamber with a crude model made unlike what any other B-B experimenter had made, then declared that since their design didn't work, the effect could only be an ionic wind device that would only work with an atmosphere to blow around.

Nevermind that many hobbyist/experimenters have shown these devices lifting when fully enclosed in plastic bags or secured to balance scales with cardboard etc to block any effect from air movement. Any air pushed down by ionic effect hits the inside of the bag or the blocking plate and the thrust cancels out.

Same effect as a truck full of flying birds has exactly the same downward force on the tires as when the birds are all sitting on the floor.

Some experimenters have calculated the volume and speed of the air blown down, and thus how much mass that airflow could support - yet the B-B device can lift itself plus a payload that exceeds that mass.

There's something to the B-B effect other than ion wind and it's high time there's genuine scientific research into what it is instead of just declaring it to be nothing and wasting time building deliberately non-functional "experiments" to "prove" their conclusions.*

The hallmark of a genuine scientists when faced with something he or she hasn't a clue how it does what it does is to say "I wonder how it does that!", not "It cannot do that and I'm going to prove it can't.".

*Like on Mythbusters with their "experiment" electrolyzing water into hydrogen and oxygen to run an engine. Of course such a small device could not produce enough hydrogen to run a big block V8 engine, but they went "the extra mile" to ensure it wouldn't work by completely blocking the carburetor inlet so that the only fuel and oxidizer supply was the small hose from the electrolyzer. An internal combustion engine does not work solely on the fuel supplied and the oxygen in the air. The nitrogen and other gasses (that make up 70+% of air) act as a "working fluid" that is heated and expanded by the fuel rapidly combining with the oxygen. If you tried to run an engine on the fuel it needs and just the amount of oxygen in air it either would not run or would run very poorly. What they should have done on Mythbusters is just put the hose from the device into the open carb, like they later did with a bigger hose from a tank of hydrogen (on which the engine ran a bit). They also should have tried different sizes of engines and explained the stoichiometric ratios of hydrogen and other fuels with both air and pure oxygen, and volumetric efficiency and just how much total volume of air goes through an engine.

But investigating to see if it *could* work was not their agenda with that "experiment", it was to "prove" that it could not work at all in any circumstance which is why they completely blocked the carb inlet, and insulted the intelligence of everyone in their audience who knows how internal combustion engines work.

[NASAFanboy]

Don't we already have three threads on this? I mean, it may be the historical breakthrough that we need to get off this boring mudball, but I don't think three threads are needed to discuss it.

[problemecium]

I concur that there's too much hype going on regarding this engine that's been in existence and known about for years now, but anyway.

I think what they've really made is basically a space propeller - it takes the various particles that exist in ambient space and thrusts against them, which naturally yields very little actual pushing power but like an air or water propeller doesn't need fuel to run. That doesn't violate any laws of physics, especially considering the real-life Kraken quantum mechanics.

[vger]

I think the new thread was created specifically because it's more of a fair reaction to the news than the articles cited in other threads, ones that led to a "It's got to be bogus" attitude.

[Specialist290]

I think the new thread was created specifically because it's more of a fair reaction to the news than the articles cited in other threads, ones that led to a "It's got to be bogus" attitude.

That may be true, but let's try to keep the discussion to one thread per topic, please.

Closing this one as a duplicate topic. Have a nice day, everyone