It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NASA Confirms New EM Thruster Violates Laws Of Conservation

page: 11
150
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mary Rose

originally posted by: Harte
Force is defined as mass times acceleration.


Isn't that exactly like gravity, where we have a formula, but we don't know what causes it? And that's a problem?

No. Not at all.

The cause of gravity is a problem. The cause of a force is simply an action - like gravity causes a force, but what causes gravity.

Force is caused by many things. Your car engine creates a force on your car that makes it move. That engine force comes from exploding fuel confined in a cylinder and that force comes from the chemical makeup of the fuel and the energy it releases upon combustion in the form of heat expanding the gases trapped in the cylinder.

The force that breaks a person's jaw in a fistfight comes from the other person's fist movement and that movement comes from a force provided by muscle contractions and that contraction movement comes from a force rising out of the chemical composition of certain chemicals in muscle tissues in the puncher's arm and shoulder.

Momentum itself "carries" force in a way (energy as well,) because when an object impacts something, the amount of force it imparts on that something depends on the momentum of the moving object. Which depends on the force that caused the object's motion in the first place.

We don't actually know why mass causes gravity (yet.) But forces are varied and normally their cause can be easily ascertained.

Harte




posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Subsonic


If they ran the test in a vacuum at temps close to absolute zero, as would be found in space (there is essentially no ambient temperature in space), and the results showed thrust, that might be more interesting.

So basically, he found it interesting, but felt that more controlled testing needed to be done before results could really be proved accurate.


welp. you know there are at least 5 different versions of this thing as a class. one is Dr Woodward in California. his rig is in a vacuum chamber on a torsion balance and he too has detected thrust. he is a slow careful researcher and has been building a case for decades. his devices main problem is it can't take the stresses of the rapidly cycling of his power waveform. he needs better materials. he gets his thrust signals for a bit and then his device breaks. as you can guess he is using a solid state piezoelectric ceramic sandwich instead of a hollow resonant chamber in his QV approach.



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte

Somehow that sounds like a circular argument to me.



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 12:44 PM
link   
www.youtube.com...

this is one of many video on Dr Woodward's approach. He is a physics and history Professor at CSU. not some youtuber showing you his basement lab repleat with levitating ice makers. instead he has a university physics lab repleat with blue glowy warp core looking stuff that shows thrust traces on fancy osciliscopes.

edit on 2-8-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mary Rose

originally posted by: Harte
Force is defined as mass times acceleration.


Isn't that exactly like gravity, where we have a formula, but we don't know what causes it? And that's a problem?

Thanks for your input.


No force is well defined theirs no argument as to its meaning. As far as gravity we know its cause as well its mass what we dont know is how mass causes gravity. So in other words we can tell you everything about gravity except where it comes from so the formulas are correct they have been tested over and over.



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 12:49 PM
link   
A little bird gave me a copy of the full conference paper.

The paper notes that:


The resistive RF Load evaluation indicated no significant systemic cause for torsion pendulum displacement. Based upon this observation, both test articles (slotted and unslotted) produced significant thrust in both orientations (forward and reverse).


So what they are saying is that a dummy test device (called the resistive RF load) produced no thrust, while two variations of the thruster design did in fact produce noticeable directional thrust. The paper also details all of the steps they took to control the test environment so that external vibrations didn’t interfere with the testing equipment. The device produced about 40 micronewtons of force compared to the RF null device that produced none. This means it is highly unlikely the observed forces are simply due to testing artifacts.

I think the paper clears up a lot of misconceptions about this. The news articles didn't clearly explain the testing process, nor did the abstract. I think it's clear that the force being produced is not an artifact.


edit on 8/2/2014 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: Subsonic


If they ran the test in a vacuum at temps close to absolute zero, as would be found in space (there is essentially no ambient temperature in space), and the results showed thrust, that might be more interesting.

So basically, he found it interesting, but felt that more controlled testing needed to be done before results could really be proved accurate.


welp. you know there are at least 5 different versions of this thing as a class. one is Dr Woodward in California. his rig is in a vacuum chamber on a torsion balance and he too has detected thrust. he is a slow careful researcher and has been building a case for decades. his devices main problem is it can't take the stresses of the rapidly cycling of his power waveform. he needs better materials. he gets his thrust signals for a bit and then his device breaks. as you can guess he is using a solid state piezoelectric ceramic sandwich instead of a hollow resonant chamber in his QV approach.


If your talking mach effects i have seen his work but the numbers he gets is so small as to easily be explained by even temperature variance. But it would really be clue if this does work it would be a major breakthrough with all kinds of things possible. Unfortunately him and others experimenting in this get anomalies than try to reproduce them later and get different results. This means they are not taking something into account in the experiment what it is we dont know but to claim they violate laws of physics is far fetched. Researchers will let publicists play that game to get further investments so far they have always been wrong. Even in situations where neutrinos moved faster than light it was released by publicists for the lab the scientists were alot more reserved and later discovered their error.



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 01:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Harte
Resorting to flimflam artists and quantum flapdoodlists for information is as appalling as trying to say this drive produces energy when in fact it actually consumes energy.

Harte


"Quantum flapdoodlists" - ha, I like it!

You are correct about the scientific illiteracy in this thread. I partly blame the OP for mentioning charlatans like BlackLight (who DO claim to be able to create energy out of their own imagination) in the same breath.



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Rob48

They don't just "claim," they demonstrate. If you want to skip to the demo, it starts in the second video.




edit on 8/2/2014 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
a reply to: Rob48

They don't just "claim," they demonstrate. If you want to skip to the demo, it starts in the second video.



So, no chance of hiding any secret power sources in there at all. Ooooh no.

Anyone who believes in BLP needs a brain transplant. And will very soon need a wallet transplant, if they put their money where their gullibility is.



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Rob48

Well, considering they turned the device all around, put on numerous demonstrations using numerous systems, and that the power being generated is coming from explosions, it seems a bit ridiculous to assume there's something hidden in there.

It also seems a bit ridiculous to assume it's staged considering three universities replicated the experiments in their own labs and found them to work as claimed.

The explosive light is obvious.


edit on 8/2/2014 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: Subsonic


If they ran the test in a vacuum at temps close to absolute zero, as would be found in space (there is essentially no ambient temperature in space), and the results showed thrust, that might be more interesting.

So basically, he found it interesting, but felt that more controlled testing needed to be done before results could really be proved accurate.


welp. you know there are at least 5 different versions of this thing as a class. one is Dr Woodward in California. his rig is in a vacuum chamber on a torsion balance and he too has detected thrust. he is a slow careful researcher and has been building a case for decades. his devices main problem is it can't take the stresses of the rapidly cycling of his power waveform. he needs better materials. he gets his thrust signals for a bit and then his device breaks. as you can guess he is using a solid state piezoelectric ceramic sandwich instead of a hollow resonant chamber in his QV approach.


If your talking mach effects i have seen his work but the numbers he gets is so small as to easily be explained by even temperature variance. But it would really be clue if this does work it would be a major breakthrough with all kinds of things possible. Unfortunately him and others experimenting in this get anomalies than try to reproduce them later and get different results. This means they are not taking something into account in the experiment what it is we dont know but to claim they violate laws of physics is far fetched. Researchers will let publicists play that game to get further investments so far they have always been wrong. Even in situations where neutrinos moved faster than light it was released by publicists for the lab the scientists were alot more reserved and later discovered their error.


yes. but he is careful and slow and methodical. i believe he is building new test articles out of tougher materials (just completed one?) and it should hold up better. he should be able to push it further. he is not even gonna talk (in practical hands on experimental terms) about his wormhole ideas yet. he is working on the space drive portion of mach's equation for now. he's been working on the linear portion for decades now.

edit on 2-8-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Nobody has ever lost by betting against anyone claiming free energy. I very much doubt I'll be the first in history to do so.

Anyway this thread isn't about BlackLight Scams, Inc. It is about a potentially interesting thruster which has NOTHING to do with free energy.
edit on 2-8-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 01:57 PM
link   
oh and in the largest meaning none of these things violate the laws of physics. they may violate the current model just as Einstein's relativity diverged from Newtons laws of physics. by necessity QG will "violate" Einstein's relativity. by necessity when Dark matter is nailed down it will violate the standard model as it stands now. there is no new scientific discovery that does not violate the previous understanding of physics. if it could be accounted for by established understandings why would anyone investigate? there would be nothing new to find.

there is a difference between what the universe's laws are and what we currently know of them. there is nothing that can be discovered that is unreal. if it works it is by definition real even if we did not know it would work before hand.

you cannot do the impossible. but to say science currently knows everything that is possible is laughable.
edit on 2-8-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
a reply to: Rob48

Well, considering they turned the device all around, put on numerous demonstrations using numerous systems, and that the power being generated is coming from explosions.




If I light a stick of dynamite with a match the output of energy was more than the match BUT the energy output was NOT created from nothing was it!!!



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 02:31 PM
link   
yeah but that's not a good argument. more energy is always input into our technological devices than we get out.finding mining refining combining machining fueling powering a car is way more energy intensive than just driving the thing. especially as all of those other activities have activities that support and enable them and thing that enable those and so forth.

the thing isn't about getting more energy than went in. its about having concentrated power to do work when needed. it would take tremendously more energy to get a usable amount of antimatter for a space voyage than you'd get out of it. but the antimatter would still enable you to do something you would not be able to do with a conventional propellant.

who care is a new fangled device has an ultra-battery with 50 TW/Hs of power stored in it? who cares if it takes 5 years to charge the thing? once it's there and once it's charged you can do a lot of stuff with it. and thats the way it has always been. nothing we use takes less energy than we get out of it.



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
yeah but that's not a good argument. more energy is always input into our technological devices than we get out.

the thing isn't about getting more energy than went in. its about having concentrated power to do work when needed.


If you're talking about BlackLight Power (which wmd was) then that is EXACTLY what it is about.

Their unique selling point is that they claim to be creating energy out of nothing. Over-unity. More power out than in.

That is why they are scammers.

If you are talking about the EmDrive, which this thread started off talking about, then nobody is claiming over-unity.



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
yeah but that's not a good argument. more energy is always input into our technological devices than we get out.

the thing isn't about getting more energy than went in. its about having concentrated power to do work when needed.


If you're talking about BlackLight Power (which wmd was) then that is EXACTLY what it is about.

Their unique selling point is that they claim to be creating energy out of nothing. Over-unity. More power out than in.

That is why they are scammers.

If you are talking about the EmDrive, which this thread started off talking about, then nobody is claiming over-unity.


over unity is not a deal killer in an open system. for example geothermal heat pumps are over unity and no one cares. if a device taps some sort of pervasive energy source it could well be over unity and not violate the laws of conservation or thermodynamics.



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 02:45 PM
link   
actually the probable deal killer for blacklight is not over unity. Admittedly; thats kind of a warning flag. the deal killer would most probably be the evocation of bizarre energy rest states undetected by all of nuclear physics and chemistry and non standard model particles with impossible properties according to the standard model.



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Once you factor in the outside sources of an open system it's meaningless to call it "over unity". There are zero examples of over unity energy production in this universe.



new topics

top topics



 
150
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join