Cannae/EmDrive

[Technical Ben]

"Once they have been given that energy, they should not be able to simply vanish with it; "

As said above. Certain requirements are applied by physics (that is, they are based on our current observations else where).

So this might be an energy -> matter converter making it's own propellent out of energy. Though, a photon drive is the normal type of energy to propulsion direct conversion, I've no idea on the limits on making actual particles from that energy (if it's possible or if it's really low % efficient).

There is a thing called observation. Observation is usually correct. "This device has a kick/thrust". The theory can take decades to understand. So any shots at the theory are likely wrong. It could be simple (ablation of copper as a new type of easy ion drive) or complex (it's pulling on quantum strings to climb to space! ). Until we make more observations, were blind and trying to see an elephant:

[magnemoe]

Just don't get your hopes up, EM Drive fans. This is almost certainly not going to work out. Just because NASA is testing something doesn't mean it's reputable. I've actually worked in government. It was depressing. A lot of people just trying to justify their jobs, basically. So NASA isn't exactly the beacon of science it used to be. There are people there who can't be fired, basically, and can do some whacky stuff.

So the EM drive is supposedly making thrust in a vacuum. Ok, if that's actually true, now, move the metal walls of the vacuum chamber away. I'm wondering if it's possible it's inducing eddy currents in the walls of the chamber that are providing a "thrust".

Yes, this is part of an special subgroup who test out various weird engine ideas. Only four requirements: obvious one is no crackpots, the theory must has some credibility, it must not be to expensive to test, it must be for spaceflight and not very interesting outside it, program don't deal with fusion as its has general use even if it can be used as an engine.

No they don't expect to get anything out of it but it don't cost much, this is also why they do various go / no go milestones. First test was on the workbench as it was cheapest, then they test in vacuum, next off is more tests with higher effect and more variables, followed by replication. If all this works out its time to look serious on it and budget will increase. If not it will be dropped.

- - - Updated - - -

Possible testing:

Aim the tail of the thruster to some sort of very small magnetic scoop, then count the amount of particles in the scoop. If it increases, then the thruster might work because it accelerates its own outgas. It it didn't, increase sensitivity until you give up and just accept new physics

Far simpler, an metal plate mounted behind the engine and connected to it would cancel any trust from spatting / out-gassing.

More likely its an electromagnetic cobbling between the engine itself and the vacuum chamber or static equipment, they tested using an static load but that would also disable the engine.

However this effect could be detected by rotating the engine as the vacuum chamber is not uniform, might also be interesting to check if an strong magnetic field affect it.

[K^2]

And if you missed the last edit in my post, consider neutrinos.

Would you like to venture a guess how much extra energy that will take? ANY generation of mass will result in efficiency of a photon drive at best. The reaction mass must already exist for better-than-photon-drive efficiency.

As said above. Certain requirements are applied by physics (that is, they are based on our current observations else where).

So this might be an energy -> matter converter making it's own propellent out of energy. Though, a photon drive is the normal type of energy to propulsion direct conversion, I've no idea on the limits on making actual particles from that energy (if it's possible or if it's really low % efficient).

Then the Poincare local symmetry is broken, and then you can extract any amount of energy from free space. Best part? You can actually use this to make free energy with magnets. All you need is a tiny symmetry break, and you can pump as much energy out of it as you need.

Except absolutely nothing in the universe works that way. Not just here, but anywhere. That symmetry holds from subatomic particles, to distances spanning galaxies. We've been testing and probing this stuff with far, far, far greater precision than this device is capable of exploiting.

I completely understand that you guys don't know better. That as far as you know, this is entirely plausible. It is not. Unicorns and leprichauns literally have better odds of existing. I'm not even talking about lottery, because that's practically a certainty in contrast. That's something you can go, and actually win. EMDrive working without reaction mass would require the entirety of field theory to be a fluke. Black holes, neutron stars, superconductors, superfluids, semiconductors, metals, nuclear energy, lasers, and countless other discoveries and models - totally by chance. Versus EMDrive being a flop. People who invest money in EMDrive are the same people who spend all their savings on lotery tickets. Except, as I've pointed out, that would be an improvement.

[Frozen_Heart]

K^2: Do you believe that NASA should even continue testing this device?

As I've said I personally don't believe its real but I think that NASA should continue working on it on the very small chance that something is up. New discoveries aren't made by saying "its impossible so don't bother trying"

[Sean Mirrsen]

Would you like to venture a guess how much extra energy that will take? ANY generation of mass will result in efficiency of a photon drive at best. The reaction mass must already exist for better-than-photon-drive efficiency.

I think you are getting bogged down in the definitions, and looking past the basic simile that can drive this sort of thing. If the creation of virtual particles is not merely conversion of energy input into matter, then it is an entirely new principle.

Think of a bizarre universe in which the streets are littered with fragmentation grenades. Every regular thruster, photon drive included, just scoops up varying quantities of grenades and chucks them like ordinary rocks - it imparts just the energy that was put into the projectile in the first place. A virtual-particle thruster, in this bizarre universe, pulls the pin on its grenade first - the resulting explosion signifying the mass that the virtual particle has compared to a regular photon. Of course the universe only gets more bizarre from there, depending on whether the virtual particle actually disappears entirely, converts its entire mass into neutrinos, teleports elsewhere, or goes back in time, with increasingly more complex similes derived from the exploding grenade that I can't think up at the moment.

Yes, it's a long shot. But it's not impossible. And it doesn't require the field theory to be a fluke. The field theory would just need to be expanded to cover virtual particles. A case that requires specific circumstances to manifest does not invalidate the theory - it just points to there being more to it.

[K^2]

K^2: Do you believe that NASA should even continue testing this device?

Yes. It could be useful to know why it works. While no variation on QT can beat photon drive in absolute vacuum, this stuff might be interacting with atmosphere in interesting and very indirect ways. And even if it's simply a leak of some sort, we're still learning a lot about making fine measurements.

Caveat, I see absolutely no reason to test it as an orbital unit. There is nothing we can't test better and cheaper in the lab.

I think you are getting bogged down in the definitions, and looking past the basic simile that can drive this sort of thing. If the creation of virtual particles is not merely conversion of energy input into matter, then it is an entirely new principle.

[...]

Yes, it's a long shot.

No. It is not the long shot. It is the longest shot. Ever. By many orders of magnitude.

Conservation of energy and momentum were the most fundamental principles of Newtonian Mechanics. They went into foundations of more advanced Mechanics as it developed, with Noether's Theorem connecting it to symmetries. In Thermodynamics, which was originally developed as fluid dynamics, these were founding principles. And later, as it became Statistical Mechanics, it held. Quantum Mechanics was built on these principles as well. But it wasn't until Gauge Theory that we understood why it is so fundamental. When Gauge Theory came along, we suddenly had one, clear explanation that worked on every scale, from Quantum to Cosmological. We've done measurements at both ends of this scale to 12 decimal places. Twelve. One part in a trillion. Absolutely no theory has ever stood up to such a test. The statistical significance is incomparable. The odds of these principles failing, by smallest amounts, are effectively zero. As close to it as anything ever was. Anything else you consider a certainty is nowhere close to that certain.

It could be wrong. But then we are talking about absolutely all of science being absolutely wrong. Error here would mean that we cannot trust measurements as a point of principle. That predictive power of any model is null.

And here you go, trying to convince yourself and others that it could be wrong, just to satisfy your desire for a cheap thruster, without even clearly understanding just what it is that you're suggesting.

[rtxoff]

People, K2 is right, i would be a little bit more skeptical. This kind of propulsion is not enough tested yet to conclude anything meaningful. I wouldn't be surprised if they find something that wasn't considered yet and renders the idea useless. I also don't think they should give up on it, finding out why they get this results is for sure a good idea. However IMO all this won't lead to a new miracle propulsion technology but i could also be wrong on this. Just don't be too disapointed if it don't, science so far says it is not possible.

[N_las]

Yes, it's a long shot. But it's not impossible. And it doesn't require the field theory to be a fluke. The field theory would just need to be expanded to cover virtual particles. A case that requires specific circumstances to manifest does not invalidate the theory - it just points to there being more to it.

Hahaha sorry, but you have no idea what you are talking about. "The field theory would just need to be expanded to cover virtual particles." Virtual Particles are descriped by field theory. Thats like saying: "General relativity has to be expanded to include space-time."

Here, read the first sentence of this wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

[Sean Mirrsen]

Hahaha sorry, but you have no idea what you are talking about.

Indeed I don't. I don't even pretend to. I mean, I don't speak of experience or credentials I can't prove to have or anything. You could probably amend that line to "the theory would be expanded to cover that particular case of virtual particles" in that case.

Indeed I don't even care about theory as such. I much prefer the experimental side of things. Theorize all you want, but keep the experiments going.

Conservation of energy and momentum were the most fundamental principles of Newtonian Mechanics.

And? They are not being broken here.

And here you go, trying to convince yourself and others that it could be wrong, just to satisfy your desire for a cheap thruster, without even clearly understanding just what it is that you're suggesting.

I understand full well what is being suggested - not by me, mind. I fully understand that it may as well be wrong. What you don't seem to realize - or accept - is that I understand just as well that it may as well be right, without the far-reaching implications you are suggesting. It just needs specific enough circumstances.

I call it the "rule of exceptions". For every established rule, an exception can be found. The stricter the rule, the more specific the circumstances must be for the exception to be valid.

As corollary, the rule of exceptions is a rule itself - thus subject to itself. A specific enough set of rules can be devised that precludes any exception from being valid.

Basically, I don't believe the Laws of Thermodynamics as applied to what is observed here, are specific enough. It may be that being limited to three-dimensional space precludes the existence of a "closed" system, or the existence of quantum phenomena may interfere with a system that can be considered "closed", thus altering its energy state. Find a specific enough set of circumstances, a specific enough point of view or frame of reference, and you can break them. The Laws may as well hold - you're just not considering every possible variable.

[K^2]

And? They are not being broken here.

They are. Again, energy and momentum aren't two independent things. If you want to carry away a certain amount of momentum without pulling in and ejecting mass, you have to expend a certain amount of energy.

I understand full well what is being suggested - not by me, mind. I fully understand that it may as well be wrong. What you don't seem to realize - or accept - is that I understand just as well that it may as well be right, without the far-reaching implications you are suggesting. It just needs specific enough circumstances.

The circumstances that have been excluded with hundreds of years of experiments. You are seriously on the level of, "They're going to find unicorns, because they are looking where nobody else did." Yet you keep insisting that you are right based on what, exactly? I understand if you're having this conversation with a random person off the street. What makes you think that you know better than somebody who spent over a decades studying the subject, with all of the history, math, and experimental background? Or are you so naive that you really think that we waste our time with the education, and it's anything goes in science?

I don't get it. Is it the, "You're all winners," sort of education that everyone's brought up with these days? You can't "all be right". There are subjects on which you cannot have a right opinion unless you've spent many years studying said subject. You lack every qualification required to make a good call on the subject. You WILL NOT be able to come up with "what if" in a few minutes that you've been exposed to the subject that thousands of far better educated people who spent decades on the subject have not considered. It is a fact. You need to learn to deal with such a fact.

Edited February 10, 2015 by K^2

[Rakaydos]

Hmm.

this is a reaction drive that creates matter to push against(that has 0 net energy, but it spends energy to propel both the particles and antiparticles separately out the back- and unless antiparticles have negative mass- (woohoo warp drive!) the net mass of the quantum foam being "realized" is positive.

Because the reaction mass has 0 net energy to start with, it can be created for efficent amounts of energy, then interacted with to confer momentum. it is no longer quantum foam, it's just a matter-antimatter stream who's net energy is entirely goverened by the momentum transfered to the craft

Theorycheck K2?

Is a energy->matter converter hooked up to an antimatter drive more paltable than a -direct- energy->momentum drive?

Edited February 10, 2015 by Rakaydos

[K^2]

Is a energy->matter converter hooked up to an antimatter drive more paltable than a -direct- energy->momentum drive?

It's worse. Lets do everything in c = 1 units, because I'm lazy. And lets say that you want to get momentum p. Your options are:

1) Just turn on a flashlight: E = p.

2) Create mass m and give it momentum. E = Sqrt(m² + p²)

3) Take mass m that already exists and expell it. E = Sqrt(m² + p²) - m

For m >> p, that last one is approximately p²/(2m), which is your standard mechanics Kinetic energy. But in absolutely any scenario, that's the smallest number, and 2) is always worse than 1).

Edit: I think I might be mis-reading you. You don't want to use matter-antimatter as reaction mass, but just burn it in antimatter drive? Then it's the same as just using a direct photon drive. I mean, it is a photon drive.

(All of these assume 100% efficiency, by the way.)

[Scotius]

OK, OK. I see the temperature of the discussion is rising. Let's cool off, and not give moderators reason to close this interesting thread.

I think i can safely say no one frequenting this forum believes in magic, witches and metaphysical space engines. More or less we all understand how things work. And yet...there is an experiment running in a lab, that creates measurable thrust. While laws of physics say it absolutely shouldn't. Even weirder - it works even when its creator said it shouldn't (Cannae drive without slots cut in it). It is happening, but why? From what i've read there are a couple of theories - each one have its opponents and proponents. And they all can't be true.

What i'm asking is: What are the odds we accidentally stumbled upon some unexpected wrinkle in Quantum Theory or laws of thermodynamics or whatever? Is it posible that scientists overlooked something that is accessible with such little energy needed, instead of requiring a huge particle accelerator?

[N_las]

Things many people are unclear about:

-To impart momentum on a virtual particle, you have to "make it real".

-To make a virtual particle real, you have to invest energy into it (as if you were creating that particle out of energy)

-"Producing" your own reaction mass for a thruster out of energy is in the best case just as efficent as a lamp.

-If the measurments were correct, this thruster is way more efficent than a photon drive.

-> The explanations involving virtual particles are nonsense, made by people who were just in search of any half-assed way to explain their data.

Edit:

What i'm asking is: What are the odds we accidentally stumbled upon some unexpected wrinkle in Quantum Theory or laws of thermodynamics or whatever? Is it posible that scientists overlooked something that is accessible with such little energy needed, instead of requiring a huge particle accelerator?

The odds are incredibly small in comparison to the odds of a simple error in the experiment. Everbody who ever worked in a lab knows how easy you measure nonsense, and how incredibly hard it can be to rule out errors. That is the reason why most people were sure about the faster-than-light-neutrinos being an error.

It is always possible there is something there, but to make an analogy: If you got a letter in your mailbox, adressed to another person: It could be you are losing your mind, and the postman delivered the letter correctly, you are actually that other person. You just have false memories of another life because you are insane. OR: The postman just made an error with the mail.

Edited February 10, 2015 by N_las

[K^2]

The explanations involving virtual particles are nonsense, made by people who were just in search of any half-assed explanation.

The original QT idea was never about getting more thrust than a photon drive. It was always supposed to be a photon drive. Just with fewer losses than you'd get out of a laser. So it's actually a neat idea, and it can be explained with virtual particles. It's just not some miracle reactionless drive that people seem to make out of it.

What i'm asking is: What are the odds we accidentally stumbled upon some unexpected wrinkle in Quantum Theory or laws of thermodynamics or whatever? Is it posible that scientists overlooked something that is accessible with such little energy needed, instead of requiring a huge particle accelerator?

No. It's a symmetry violation. It'd have "ears" all over. In far more conspicuous places. We wouldn't be able to get the math right on a whole lot of things that we actually can predict with incredible precision. And it's not just particle accelerators. Anomalous magnetic moment would be wrong. A whole lot of math on neutron stars would be completely wrong.

Edited February 10, 2015 by K^2

[Sean Mirrsen]

They are. Again, energy and momentum aren't two independent things. If you want to carry away a certain amount of momentum without pulling in and ejecting mass, you have to expend a certain amount of energy.

And? Energy is being expended. Not an insignificant amount of energy either. It doesn't get more energy in thrust than it puts out in electric power. The equal and opposing force just... er. I was going to say "disappears into the aether", but that would probably hit a bit too close to home in this case.

The circumstances that have been excluded with hundreds of years of experiments. You are seriously on the level of, "They're going to find unicorns, because they are looking where nobody else did."

Yes. Is there a different way of discovering new things? Do you expect to discover new things by looking in the same place over and over again? (which is a funny metaphor because the exact opposite is happening here - people are looking in the same place using a new method, instead of using the same methods to look elsewhere) Theoretical research is just a way to pick new places to look.

Yet you keep insisting that you are right based on what, exactly? I understand if you're having this conversation with a random person off the street. What makes you think that you know better than somebody who spent over a decades studying the subject, with all of the history, math, and experimental background? Or are you so naive that you really think that we waste our time with the education, and it's anything goes in science?

Because, pardon me if I do so offend you, but to me you are a random person on the internet. I am having a discussion with you as I would with anyone else. Your experience and knowledge allows you back your claims with what is already known, and I respect that knowledge - but at the same time I know better than to rely on established knowledge absolutely. Because that's not knowledge anymore, that's faith. Laws of physics are not written on sacred stone tablets (even though they might as well be nowadays), they were discovered and proven by experiments performed by quacks (of the time) as often as respected scientists. And if there are any new laws to discover, that's also the way they will have to be established. Either by careful research, or wild experimentation (followed by careful research of what went right).

I don't get it. Is it the, "You're all winners," sort of education that everyone's brought up with these days? You can't "all be right". There are subjects on which you cannot have a right opinion unless you've spent many years studying said subject. You lack every qualification required to make a good call on the subject. You WILL NOT be able to come up with "what if" in a few minutes that you've been exposed to the subject that thousands of far better educated people who spent decades on the subject have not considered. It is a fact. You need to learn to deal with such a fact.

Indeed I lack every qualification required to be an authority on the subject. And I can still have a right opinion on things I do not understand. Ultimately, at the very least the same way I can be right about the color of your favorite coffee cup. (is it red?)

Sheer. Random. Chance.

(it's green, isn't it?)

Returning to slightly more serious mode for a moment, do you always just outright dismiss the possibility of not knowing everything there is to know about a given circumstance? You are pretty apt at theorizing variables that would result in the EMDrive not working. Can you give your mind an extra dimension and try to think of ways in which it can, without breaking anything.. too much? What possible variable could exist that would allow a conventional particle to spontaneously exist, then not exist, in a given point of space at a given point in time, without violating the principles of conservation of energy and momentum? I can think of... three ways, right off the bat, just thinking in concepts. I lack any sort of experience in related sciences, but I can think at random. You have the experience, can you take a random thought and give it direction?

(Besides the question of why would you want to, I mean, heh. That's the response I usually get in these sort of discussions. )

edit: Aaand it seems I've been ninja'd several times. Well, the post can stay, I guess.

Edited February 10, 2015 by Sean Mirrsen

[K^2]

And? Energy is being expended.

Energy isn't a conserved quantity. Stress-energy is. And the only way to not violate it at that power-to-thrust is with a reaction mass. I have actually outlined that above.

As I was saying, you don't even have a first clue what the problem is. You refuse to listen about it. You only keep repeating that there is a possibility that it's not a problem. Your entire statement is, "I have no idea what you're talking about, but I'm sure there is a chance you could be wrong." Not only that, but you keep trying to invent scenarios wher it would be. Without having a first clue of what the problem is. And you still don't think you're doing anything wrong.

[magnemoe]

OK, OK. I see the temperature of the discussion is rising. Let's cool off, and not give moderators reason to close this interesting thread.

I think i can safely say no one frequenting this forum believes in magic, witches and metaphysical space engines. More or less we all understand how things work. And yet...there is an experiment running in a lab, that creates measurable thrust. While laws of physics say it absolutely shouldn't. Even weirder - it works even when its creator said it shouldn't (Cannae drive without slots cut in it). It is happening, but why? From what i've read there are a couple of theories - each one have its opponents and proponents. And they all can't be true.

What i'm asking is: What are the odds we accidentally stumbled upon some unexpected wrinkle in Quantum Theory or laws of thermodynamics or whatever? Is it posible that scientists overlooked something that is accessible with such little energy needed, instead of requiring a huge particle accelerator?

Even weirder, on the nasaspaceflight site who has an in dept discussion it becomes clear that they have models on how the drive should work including frequency, the 50 uN result with just 2 watt was not an error but an frequency who was hard to use for some reason.

Yes it was way above my head

[Frozen_Heart]

This discussion is getting a bit too heated. :/

Everyone needs to just calm down and wait for more test results. That's the only thing that can clear up what's happening.

[CptRichardson]

Energy isn't a conserved quantity. Stress-energy is. And the only way to not violate it at that power-to-thrust is with a reaction mass. I have actually outlined that above.

And they have a good idea on how to TEST for the reaction mass already and are trying to design a rig to test for it. Granted, it still bends/ pretzels quantum mechanics as we know it, but it doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics.

[Rakaydos]

It seems K2 is hung up on the established thought that there is no way to push off the quantum foam itself- you would need to create matter out of raw energy to push off of. This is reasonable, but nowhere near the efficiency claimed. And if you take that statement of non-interaction as axiomatic, hes right, this drive cant work.

Which implies that if this drive DOES work, that axiom is false. That under certian engineered circomstances unlikely to be replicated in nature (like the "impossible" physical properties of metamaterials such as negative indexes of refraction) it is possible to interact with the quantum foam directly.

[RuBisCO]

Argue over theory only after MORE EVIDENCE, 3RD PARTY VERIFICATION, REPEATED MULTIPARTY VALIDATION, until then you might as well be arguing over how many angels fit on the head of a pin. If and when it is absolute verified to produce thrust, then there is no arguing that it can't work, only arguing over how the heck it does work.

Just want to say though if this works, and that a very doubtful if: Die Hoffman transfer, die! Oh unholy space cthulhu would this be awesome!

Edited February 10, 2015 by RuBisCO

[Frozen_Heart]

Where on Earth are you getting 4N or even 0.4N per kW? According to what my calculations its going at 0.003N per kW.

[Technical Ben]

Would you like to venture a guess how much extra energy that will take? ANY generation of mass will result in efficiency of a photon drive at best. The reaction mass must already exist for better-than-photon-drive efficiency.

Then the Poincare local symmetry is broken, and then you can extract any amount of energy from free space. Best part? You can actually use this to make free energy with magnets. All you need is a tiny symmetry break, and you can pump as much energy out of it as you need.

Except absolutely nothing in the universe works that way. Not just here, but anywhere. That symmetry holds from subatomic particles, to distances spanning galaxies. We've been testing and probing this stuff with far, far, far greater precision than this device is capable of exploiting.

I completely understand that you guys don't know better. That as far as you know, this is entirely plausible. It is not. Unicorns and leprichauns literally have better odds of existing. I'm not even talking about lottery, because that's practically a certainty in contrast. That's something you can go, and actually win. EMDrive working without reaction mass would require the entirety of field theory to be a fluke. Black holes, neutron stars, superconductors, superfluids, semiconductors, metals, nuclear energy, lasers, and countless other discoveries and models - totally by chance. Versus EMDrive being a flop. People who invest money in EMDrive are the same people who spend all their savings on lotery tickets. Except, as I've pointed out, that would be an improvement.

As said, I don't know fluid dynamics (or field dynamics even ), but do know a ship with a propeller can push against water.

So not disagreeing with you, just saying I'd need much more simple a starting point to know why the fields in QM/GR (or whatever) cannot be used in the same way a fluid medium can be.

I always thought the likes of Maxwell's Demon (as an example) is an illustration of why we cannot get "free energy" from such systems (a submarine using a prop in the sea cannot use the sea as "free energy" and a QM drive could not use the quantum foam for free energy either?). That's the level of simplicity my poor brain can cope with. But I guess as said a photon drive is the "best case efficiency" and as this is over that, it cannot be creating any force interaction with the quantum foam over what we'd expect from a photon drive (as causing an interaction, either as reaction mass, or as a type of "propeller" of some other interaction, would be the same cost in energy and same thrust etc.)

Really the observation is the key. Just as with the "superliminal neutrinos". It was a measurement/apparatus/calculation error with those, and the solution was going back over new observations (again and again until found). The same here. No amount of head crunching will give a solution. Even Einstein needed his observations during a solar eclipse to prove his theory... it was not his theory that proves light is bent by gravity...

So everyone here trying to use theory to prove the drive works.... um...

Edited February 10, 2015 by Technical Ben

[K^2]

As said, I don't know fluid dynamics (or field dynamics even ), but do know a ship with a propeller can push against water.

So not disagreeing with you, just saying I'd need much more simple a starting point to know why the fields in QM/GR (or whatever) cannot be used in the same way a fluid medium can be.

They can. The excitations in these fields are called particles. For example, if you try to push off electromagnetic field, as you would from water, you produce photons which take the recoil. You just built a photon drive. You can do the same with gravitational waves. Which sounds all sorts of awesome, but gives you the same 1N / 300MW of power input. You can even push from fermion fields, producing particle-antiparticle pairs in your wake. That requires even more energy.

The reason things are so easy with water is because water already has mass. Vacuum is at zero point, and there is no way to bring it bellow zero point, so anything you do to push from it requires extra mass. And that is tons and tons of wasted energy. Efficiency that EMDrive demonstrates absolutely proves that what it pushes off from is a bunch of real, massive particles. Whether it's something from the environment, say, ionized upper atmosphere, or if it's something ejected from the craft, say a leak, there is a reaction mass. Which means that all they've really built is an ion drive. It might end up the most efficient ion drive we know with some work. So it's worth looking into. But it's going to have all the limitations of a conventional ion drive. If the thrust is due to environment, it will be fundamentally limited to tiny fractions of N, because atmo is so rare so high up. If it's due to a leak, it will be limited to stored propellant. Either way, this keeps us within current limitations of ion drives.