Cannae/EmDrive

[Technical Ben]

But Einstein and every other "luck/chance/out of field" discovery has been backed by observations and predictions/explinations (which only serve to allow repeat experiments/verifications, as we don't need 100% explanations, just repeats).

Here we don't have one. We have an electric device creating a field/force while powered in an atmosphere. That is 99% of all results of all tests. NOT getting a result would have been amazing.

They need to back it up with a force generating "thrust" and/or a force we can see is different than others (thermal/magnetic etc) that already exist as current technology and propulsion systems.

That would require a test in a vacuum. Until then, it's no different than a back of the napkin guess at what shape a fusion power core needs to be to allow fusion. Could be right, but currently has no math or test to show it's anything more than sci-fi or a complete guess. :/

[N_las]

From that perspective:

A physicist is regarded as "established" if he makes a great achievement. So OF COURSE many great achievements are made by physicist that aren't "established" yet. And many great achievements are made by "established" people. I really fail to see the relevance here.

It certainly doesn't support the claimed point, that "established" physicists are "simply too deeply rooted in conventional ways of thinking, and incapable of seeing things from another perspective." Young folks are always more productive than older people. But Northstar is trying to make the point, that "conventional" physics is holding back new discoveries with its "narrow minded thinking".

There is no conventional and alternative physics. There is just physics. If you think you have made a great discovery, then write convincing papers and do extensive experiments. There aren't any old conservative physicists sitting in rocking chairs and plotting evil conspiracies to prevent you from getting your idea out. They are mearly laughing at you for a stupid idea.

[Technical Ben]

Best way to look at the situation is objectively if we are talking about objective things. A rocket engine is an object subject to physical laws.

Looking at science and it's community, looking at human belief and looking at how people feel about a situation is all a distraction.

If you really want to know if this thruster works, we need to look at it's physical results. Pure and simply they are in an atmosphere, so must be considered "untested", as it fails the basic requirement. All tests in an atmosphere will suffer from atmospheric interference (thermal heating of gas) let alone the other risks (magnetic forces triggering sensors instead of thrust/movement). It's no different than a mistake, or at worse a slight of hand under the counter change of the cards.

[CptRichardson]

How is this the worst case? The worst case is, that the force is just an artifact in the experment. There is no experimental data that suggest a "superconducting version" would work better. There is no real explanation for how the effect should work. For all we know, a "superconducting version" could work worse not better.

There is "something incredibly useful to be gained" in every experiment. Nothing special about this one. It is just naive to EXPECT anything incredible.

The NASA tests were conducted with equipment specifically design to null out any other force other than 'test rig producing thrust'. This literally cannot be 'just' a flawed experimental regimen anymore. That worst case is now off the table, but the real cause of the thrust remains to be determined. This being an atmospheric heating effect is also fairly unlikely, as they've documented roughly similar thrust in near vacuum. So, without an orbital test that cannot be left off the table, but it's almost certainly not the case. There is still 'pushing off the earth's magnetic field' and other effects which might be possible that would be bad, but still useful.

As for the 'NASA is almost certain a superconducting version will work 10 times better', they're basing it off of certain superconducting magnet quirks they think will have an effect. Even if it doesn't pan out, this thing is still a pretty awesome drive system once they figure out what's going on.

[m4inbrain]

But Northstar is trying to make the point, that "conventional" physics is holding back new discoveries with its "narrow minded thinking".

I agree to a certain point though. There's nothing wrong with being sceptical. That's totally fine (and in my mind, important) for a scientist. What Northstar is saying, is not that "conventional" physics is holding back stuff, but the unwillingness to give stuff at least a chance. And that's where i agree. Scientists nowadays rely way too much on "what we know" (so much so that they rule everything else out), rather than "what we might not know".

To think, that everything so far is hammered in stone and the law of the universe is quite arrogant really, considering that we're only researching for a couple of hundred years. Going faster than speed of light is impossible, until somebody found a (theoretically sound and working, and i know it's not actually going FTL) loophole. Who's to tell that this couldn't happen again? Now, i'm not saying that this device works (as i said, being sceptical is absolutely welcomed) - but a scientist being arrogant enough to say "there's no way that this could work because we know it can't" ("there's no way the earth is round/there's no way the earth orbits the sun"-syndrom) is not a good one.

And, as a general sidenote: a person/scientist thinking "we got it all figured out already, can't work" won't ever make a big discovery. Same goes for people who actually think that there's no big discoveries out there anymore. And if somebody says "there's alot/too many scientists out there that think that way" - i'd agree.

Edited November 3, 2014 by m4inbrain

[Rakaydos]

To be fair, the "loophole" of FTL has been known for decades. We know several "theortically possible" FTL/time travel methods, in fact. The big news is finding a variation of the loophole that doesnt require more energy than an antimatter-jupiter could produce.

The MHD quantum thruster has fairly clear operating principles, even if they basically amount to "push off the aether." We know what should happen, and we can test if it works.

The Canne Drive has no such theoretical framework (or rather, it did and was proven to not be valid). We still need to prove or disprove the currently- unmodeled result, which could result in new science if real.

[KerikBalm]

It's true that other things can cause the force aside from thrust, but the experiments they performed *were* of the types normally used to try and measure thrust, and *did* appear to measure it.

Except for, you know the lack of a vacuum....

Because certain precautions may or may not have been taken, it is impossible to know *for sure* if the results were valid yet. But simply saying "A appears to be Y, but A *could* be X; therefore A it *must* be X, and any claim that A is really Y is bogus" is terrible logic, and I think you know better.

You are using what wikipedia defines as "weasel words", and no, I would not use them.

Because improper controls were performed, and the one control they did use disproved their only explanation, you cannot claim you have any evidence at all for a reactionless thruster. It doesn't even appear that way to a real scientist.

What we have is an unexplained force. When you try to claim this constitutes evidence for something specific (reactionless thrust in a vacuum, violation of conservation of momentum), your claims are rightly labeled BS.

have you ever even considered that there might be active efforts to SUPPRESS this "discovery" (if it does turn out to be such), simply because it challenges the position of those who thought it impossible? I'm not talking a conspiracy-theory here, I'm talking about the repeatedly-observed tendencies of human beings in positions of power and authority to do everything they can to try and preserve that authority. Time and time again in human history, senior scientists have tried to suppress what turned out to be major scientific breakthroughs, simply because the breakthrough was perceived to challenge their authority by saying that they were actually *wrong* about certain things...

So you're not talking about a conspiracy... but you're talking about a conspiracy.... right...

they've documented roughly similar thrust in near vacuum. So, without an orbital test that cannot be left off the table, but it's almost certainly not the case. There is still 'pushing off the earth's magnetic field' and other effects which might be possible that would be bad, but still useful.

Please cite and quote the part that explicitely says they tested at near vacuum conditions, not just that the vacuum chamber could be taken down to near vacuum.

Its already been posted earlier in this thread that the tests were done at ambient pressure, and that their wording was apparently deceptive

Edited November 3, 2014 by KerikBalm

[Mazon Del]

One point I feel needs to be restated for this, the thrust effects were observed in an immediet sense after the application of power to the system. Power on, thrust, power off, no thrust. Atmospheric-thermal effects would take time to build up once power was applied and would take time to dissipate after power was cut.

That said, yes, we do still need a full vacuum setup. The Mythbusters did test that one "magic drive" where it turned out to just be ionizing the air and pulling it downwards, which would have been a different effect.

Assuming NASA has stuck to their original planned timeline vacuum tests should have occurred already and a "production test article" should be currently in design for sale to external labs for testing by the end of the year. On a side note, I'm quite curious how much that ends up costing. I doubt within my payscale, though if the engine does turn out to work, owning one of the original test articles could make it quite valuable in the future.

Right now ALL we know is that NASA IS proceeding with tests and that we'll likely get some sort of information within the next several months. Worst case, it turns out to not be a useful space drive. Best case, it is an excellent space drive and we have a working thoery for its workings. Acceptable case, it is an excellent space drive and we have no damn clue how it works, but we can build and use them.

There was a fairly detailed post by K^2 I believe on why, if the drive works, almost all of science comes crashing down and how that alone is reason we should just ignore the drive because it means we can no longer succesfully predict the outcomes of things. The way I look at it, even if the drive works AND does present an insurmountable stumbling block in terms of no other science can explains how it works. That doesn't mean the science is worthless, things like GPS, CERN. Nuclear Reactors, etc all STILL work, even if it somehow turns out our understanding of WHY they work is wrong.

Unless of course we live in that one RPG universe universe in which wide-spread belief in something makes it true (Mage: The Ascension), in which case we MAY be in trouble.

[N_las]

One point I feel needs to be restated for this, the thrust effects were observed in an immediet sense after the application of power to the system. Power on, thrust, power off, no thrust. Atmospheric-thermal effects would take time to build up once power was applied and would take time to dissipate after power was cut.

The measured force is so miniscule, that the underlying atmosperic-termal effects would not have to be big. They could be so small that their build-up time is insignificant. Think about how fast a piece of dust can react to any small temperature variation.

There was a fairly detailed post by K^2 I believe on why, if the drive works, almost all of science comes crashing down and how that alone is reason we should just ignore the drive because it means we can no longer succesfully predict the outcomes of things. The way I look at it, even if the drive works AND does present an insurmountable stumbling block in terms of no other science can explains how it works. That doesn't mean the science is worthless, things like GPS, CERN. Nuclear Reactors, etc all STILL work, even if it somehow turns out our understanding of WHY they work is wrong.

You are missrepresenting K^2s point completely. He doesn't draw the conclusion that we should ignore the drive because it would crash our science. He just wanted to paint the picture, that IF the conservation of momentum isn't true, that then ALL our science up to this point would just work by luck because all our explanations are nonsense. That so many inventions and machine would just work by luck is incredibly unlikely, and there would be no reason to think that any future invention build upon our false science would work. (Just because you won the lottery a million times in a row by an unbelivably unlikely streak of luck doesn't mean that you have any other than the next guys chances in the next lottery.)

He just wanted to showcase how unlikely it is that the conversation of momentum isn't true, because it isn't acutally "just conservation of momentum" but a way more significant underlying principle concerning Symmetry.

For example, if conservation of momentum isn't true, then automaticaly conservation of energy isn't true either.

Edited November 3, 2014 by N_las

[rtxoff]

The fact that we don't understand yet how that machine works doesn't mean it's breaking the science. Stick to the facts if you want a serious discussion. Only things we know for sure yet it's requiring power and it's producing thrust with it, the rest is just speculation about it and as long as nobody is actually doing the science and collects the data with experiments this discussion is just useless.

[N_las]

The fact that we don't understand yet how that machine works doesn't mean it's breaking the science. Stick to the facts if you want a serious discussion. Only things we know for sure yet it's requiring power and it's producing thrust with it, the rest is just speculation about it and as long as nobody is actually doing the science and collects the data with experiments this discussion is just useless.

Nobody claimed that "because we don't understand how the machine works, science is brocken". I stated: "If conservation of momentum isn't true, then our science is brocken."

Your statement "stick to the facts if you want a serious discussion." right after spouting such a misrepresentation highlights just how unsuited for a serious discussion you are yourself.

And we DON'T know that the machine produces thrust. The measurments show something, but without the proper controls, we don't know anything.

[Mazon Del]

You are missrepresenting K^2s point completely.

I'll more let his posts in my thread on "Cold Fusion, Q-Thrusters, Neutrinos, and Scientific Bias" do their own talking, that way I can't do any misconstruing or misrepresenting. As far as it seems given my most recent read-through, that is the point I got.

And about the miniscule force in question, that somewhat misses the point that thermal effects still take time to occur. They were receiving thrust measurement reactions on a scale far too quickly to achieve via thermal effects given the low power ratings of the equipment. Now, what I am fully willing to consider a possibility is that some sort of electro-static force on the atmosphere is at fault, that could happen on the observed time scales. This is one of the reasons I agree they need to do the test in vacuum.

It is possible, on thinking about it, that one situation that may have delayed the vacuum tests (if indeed any delay has occured) is the possibility that they are taking extra time to redesign aspects of the system to allow for increased input power. It is one of the noted differences between the NASA paper, the Chinese paper, and the information that Feta has put out. The NASA test was done at very lower power compared with what the others were tossing around. Of course, the lower power likely resulted from the availability of cheap equipment for what was judged to be a small scale test. The rating/calibration process for that sensor is not in any particular doubt, so they could use the same sensor but pump up the power to theoretically get a greater thrust effect.

[rtxoff]

Nobody claimed that "because we don't understand how the machine works, science is brocken". I stated: "If conservation of momentum isn't true, then our science is brocken."

If nobody claimed that then why are you offended?

Your statement "stick to the facts if you want a serious discussion." right after spouting such a misrepresentation highlights just how unsuited for a serious discussion you are yourself.

Maybe, but who are you to judge me? You are offending me and not saying anything against my argument.

And we DON'T know that the machine produces thrust. The measurments show something, but without the proper controls, we don't know anything.

While we could argue now if it is producing thrust or not it wouldn't make much sense without further experiments, that's why this thread is useless, as i said there is more experiments necessary.

[Mazon Del]

I know that sides on this topic tend to get amusingly heated, but lets refrain from such attacks for now lest we invite the horror of threadlock.

Does anyone happen to have any links to newer information on the topic?

[N_las]

I'll more let his posts in my thread on "Cold Fusion, Q-Thrusters, Neutrinos, and Scientific Bias" do their own talking, that way I can't do any misconstruing or misrepresenting. As far as it seems given my most recent read-through, that is the point I got.

I see, you are right. In his first post in the last paragraph in the thread you mentioned he basically made that point.

@Gipsic:

You wrote:

The fact that we don't understand yet how that machine works doesn't mean it's breaking the science. Stick to the facts if you want a serious discussion.

I wrote:

Nobody claimed that "because we don't understand how the machine works, science is brocken". I stated: "If conservation of momentum isn't true, then our science is brocken."

Then you replied:

If nobody claimed that then why are you offended?

You implied that I would hold a ridiculus opinion. I corrected that by putting my actual opinion in contrast. I really can't make any sense of your reply. It is nonsensical and has no logical or even semantic connection to the previous sentences.

You are offending me and not saying anything against my argument.

What argument? That this discussion is useless? I happen to agree with you about that.

Edited November 3, 2014 by N_las

[magnemoe]

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/02/update-on-emdrive-work-at-nasa.html

Looks like it gives trust in vacuum, they have also tested and extracted electromagnetic interaction with the vacuum chamber or other equipment.

Ongoing work is to get better results and try to get more trust, currently its around 50uN at 16W. They want 100 uN stable before going to the next phase.

Here they will try to use more power and see how it affect the results.

Now even the current version with 50uN at 16W is interesting if it can be scaled up, used on the Dawn probe with 10KW power it would be able to get 30mN trust, dawn can do 90mN at 10KW, however the EMdrive version would not need any propellant for it giving you the option to burn until turnover.

[Frozen_Heart]

I really look forward to continued testing of this. Though we really don't get the physics of it... if it works it works.

I'm still sceptical but would really enjoy being proven wrong. A fuel-less engine would completely change spaceflight (though not the launching part)

Also why are they using such tiny amounts of power? Just stick the thing on the national grid and if it goes through the roof then it works...

*Yes I know that's not how it works...

Edited February 7, 2015 by Frozen_Heart

[Elthy]

When NASA is still researching this it may be possible. But when i think about the stuff that possible with such a drive i wonder why they dont spend a few millions and stick it on a small cubesat or similar.

[sgt_flyer]

L

I really look forward to continued testing of this. Though we really don't get the physics of it... if it works it works.

I'm still sceptical but would really enjoy being proven wrong. A fuel-less engine would completely change spaceflight (though not the launching part)

Also why are they using such tiny amounts of power? Just stick the thing on the national grid and if it goes through the roof then it works...

*Yes I know that's not how it works...

By reading the article, i think it's because they are on low budget, and they have to regularly replace the RF capacitors they use (and which are regularly damaged by the hard vacuum of the test chamber (potentially overheating or pressure containment failure if those things contain liquids or gases)- guess those components were never designed with spaceworthiness in mind to begin with )

Now, we should let them continue their tests, they want to increase the thrust output to be able to replicate the experiment elsewhere - once they can reach replicability with independant testers, that would be the time when it becomes truly something to look after

Edited February 7, 2015 by sgt_flyer

[magnemoe]

L

By reading the article, i think it's because they are on low budget, and they have to regularly replace the RF capacitors they use (and which are regularly damaged by the hard vacuum of the test chamber (potentially overheating or pressure containment failure if those things contain liquids or gases)- guess those components were never designed with spaceworthiness in mind to begin with )

Now, we should let them continue their tests, they want to increase the thrust output to be able to replicate the experiment elsewhere - once they can reach replicability with independant testers, that would be the time when it becomes truly something to look after

Yes, this is still an low chance / high profit projects but so far its looks very good.

And yes this would be very useful for satellites too, one low power application would be too use it for satellite station keeping, no fuel and no moving parts.

[Karriz]

According to the article they're expecting to get more thrust/power than with ion engines if this turns out to work. I do hope so, as it would really revolutionize spaceflight, but it sounds like it's too good to be true.

[Kibble]

It also would mean any crazy group or person with enough money to buy a cubesat with an emdrive has the ability to easily exterminate the human race.

[linkxsc]

?? Why? ^^

[Kibble]

?? Why? ^^

Because with infinite delta vee, they could fly to an asteroid and push it into a collision course with Earth. If they fly to an asteroid that turns out to be a rubble pile, they can just fly to a new one.

[Stargate525]

also why are they using such tiny amounts of power? Just stick the thing on the national grid and if it goes through the roof then it works...

MORE SCIENCE MUST BE DONE THIS WAY!

Because with infinite delta vee, they could fly to an asteroid and push it into a collision course with Earth. If they fly to an asteroid that turns out to be a rubble pile, they can just fly to a new one.

Not how this works. You're limited by both time and energy input, as well as speed of light issues. And 'fly to an asteroid, push it to collide with earth' at the miniscule thrust you'd get from a cubesat... We'd be dead of solar expansion by then, I wager.