Scotius Posted November 4, 2016 Share Posted November 4, 2016 1 hour ago, DDE said: I am even more skeptical since all the whackos in NASA are rallying around it. The warp drive team claims that the EmDrive's cavity produces a warped space-time metric of the kind they're looking for. Well, something IS pushing this thing back and forth. Why not minuscule but noticeable, localised "bump" in spacetime curvature? It's like water flowing through the channel with variable width - changes of water level are clearly visible depending how much room it have between channel's walls. And water needs to be moving - without active flow water level will equalize, and there will be no "wave" to surf on for a warpship. Maybe differences is compression of microwave flow between wider and narrower ends of EmDrive chamber are sufficient for creation of small, weak "bubble"? Exciting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDE Posted November 4, 2016 Share Posted November 4, 2016 2 minutes ago, Scotius said: Well, something IS pushing this thing back and forth. Why not minuscule but noticeable, localised "bump" in spacetime curvature? It's like water flowing through the channel with variable width - changes of water level are clearly visible depending how much room it have between channel's walls. And water needs to be moving - without active flow water level will equalize, and there will be no "wave" to surf on for a warpship. Maybe differences is compression of microwave flow between wider and narrower ends of EmDrive chamber are sufficient for creation of small, weak "bubble"? Exciting Yeah, but that's no better explanation than "reverse the polarity of the neutron flow". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuke Posted November 4, 2016 Share Posted November 4, 2016 the only one i seen that looked even remotely promising is the tiny one that can fit in a cube sat. runs at a higher frequency so requires a smaller resonant cavity. when activated if it begins a slow spiral out, it works. it gets it into the realm of crowd funding and is probibly cheaper than all experiments done on the em drive so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YNM Posted November 5, 2016 Share Posted November 5, 2016 If people aren't convinced with something, you can just try send one into orbit. Then let's see whether they works or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanamonde Posted November 5, 2016 Share Posted November 5, 2016 The previous thread got locked for persistently degenerating into personal arguments. Let's try again but avoiding that, okay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaarst Posted November 5, 2016 Share Posted November 5, 2016 (edited) My undergraduate physics knowledge tell me this is not possible (high school knowledge tells me the same thing). Some (I suppose) intelligent people at NASA and a good lot of well-known labs and universities tell this is not possible. A handful of random guys claim they built several, with no theoretical research supporting their claims, results drowning in noise, and obvious bias towards their own interests. People were sceptical about QM and relativity about a century ago. Until M-M experiment showed ether was fantasy and photoelectric stuff was explained by wave-particle duality. I still think EM drive it's BS though. Putting one of their holed boxes in orbit will hopefully give an answer to this (though the inventors probably have dozens of excuses ready if it doesn't work). Edited November 5, 2016 by Gaarst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rfmwguy Posted November 5, 2016 Share Posted November 5, 2016 45 minutes ago, Gaarst said: My undergraduate physics knowledge tell me this is not possible (high school knowledge tells me the same thing). Some (I suppose) intelligent people at NASA and a good lot of well-known labs and universities tell this is not possible. A handful of random guys claim they built several, with no theoretical research supporting their claims, results drowning in noise, and obvious bias towards their own interests. People were sceptical about QM and relativity about a century ago. Until M-M experiment showed ether was fantasy and photoelectric stuff was explained by wave-particle duality. I still think EM drive it's BS though. Putting one of their holed boxes in orbit will hopefully give an answer to this (though the inventors probably have dozens of excuses ready if it doesn't work). I am one of the handful of random guys. Feel free to ask me a question while I happen to be posting here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotius Posted November 5, 2016 Share Posted November 5, 2016 3 hours ago, rfmwguy said: I am one of the handful of random guys. Feel free to ask me a question while I happen to be posting here. Yaay! You're here I followed your experiments on NASASpaceflight until i got bogged in a backlog of unread posts This guy is legit, folks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radonek Posted November 5, 2016 Share Posted November 5, 2016 OK, question: what is the fuss with null article producing thrust? And could the thing fit into cubesat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerbart Posted November 5, 2016 Share Posted November 5, 2016 11 minutes ago, radonek said: OK, question: what is the fuss with null article producing thrust? And could the thing fit into cubesat? Aside from violating Newton's laws of motion that are pretty much the basis for physics as we know it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radonek Posted November 5, 2016 Share Posted November 5, 2016 6 minutes ago, Kerbart said: Aside from violating Newton's laws of motion that are pretty much the basis for physics as we know it? Yes, aside from that :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSK Posted November 5, 2016 Share Posted November 5, 2016 19 hours ago, Jonfliesgoats said: I still think confirmation bias from hopeful nerds plays a role in the success of the EM drive, but, if this thing does genuinely produce thrust in a vacuum, we need it in KSP. So what are people's thoughts on this thing? We already got it in KSP. Strap an LV-1 on the back of your ship, dial the thrust limiter way back and switch on infinite fuel. I suppose purists could request a mod to remove the exhaust plume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerbart Posted November 5, 2016 Share Posted November 5, 2016 2 minutes ago, KSK said: We already got it in KSP. Strap an LV-1 on the back of your ship, dial the thrust limiter way back and switch on infinite fuel. Turning on infinite fuel would be cheating. Using a mod with an engine that doesn't use propellant, obviously, is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotius Posted November 5, 2016 Share Posted November 5, 2016 Hey, what's the fuss about? We accepted the Quantum Thruster - engine that is creating thrust by pumping virtual quantum plasma. "Virtual" as in "it doesn't really exist, but we can fool Nature into thinking it actually does." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSK Posted November 5, 2016 Share Posted November 5, 2016 Nah - it's only cheating if you clip a bunch of them into each other to get around the pitiful thrust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts