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.

 

'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours

page: 11
95
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: 11andrew34
It's not really a propulsion system. It's a vectored 'emergency brake.'
How fast are you moving when you are sitting still?
It's all about reference frames.
...
Throwing a lot of energy back and forth in that chamber may be creating something analogous to drag with respect to larger reference frames.


Self quote lol...

But I guess what I'm suggesting amounts to something like that the energy in the chamber is creating a significant amount of interference with gravity waves. I mean, I guess it'd have to be gravity waves that it was interfering with? If they were somehow made temporarily weaker along a vector, then you'd appear to accelerate in the opposite direction, wouldn't you?

So given that this would already be a powered "brake" then to "hit the brakes" you just cut the power. Given that you are a tiny spaceship in an enormous solar system, galaxy, universe etc, you'd just return to baseline for your reference frames.

Apparent acceleration speed would I guess be dependent on amount of interference with the gravity waves. More interference, then faster acceleration. More interference would require higher amounts of energy.




posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Experimentor error has not been ruled out, no matter how much the wishful thinking. This is especially pertinent to such extraordinary claims.



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Experimentor error has not been ruled out, no matter how much the wishful thinking. This is especially pertinent to such extraordinary claims.
I didn't say it had. i implied that if it was experimental error it is not one easily ferreted out even with hordes of qualified experts trying to find it.



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic
I do not have the rigor and science understanding to refute the claims about the EM drive, but I did find this on the web:
www.projectrho.com - Reactionless Drives...

Scroll down to EmDrive.

He supplies these links:
plus.google.com/117663015413546257905/posts/WfFtJ8bYVya
plus.google.com/117663015413546257905/posts/C7vx2G85kr4
blogs.discovermagazine.com - Did NASA Validate an “Impossible” Space Drive? In a Word, No....
medium.com - How to fool the world with bad science...

My guess is either the system will turn out go be open--so no laws of conservation are broken--or the supposed thrust remains within the range of error and does not prove to scale up outside of this range.

If it turns out the system is open and can scale to produce viable thrust, it may still be useful, depending on what's going on.

A review of the points in the above links:
1) The recorded thrust is within the range of precision error
2) The US team working on it is the same team working on the warp drive concept
3) It claims to break the laws of physics
4) A test by the same US researchers using a null variant of the device produced the same trhust
5) The finding have not been suibmitted for peer reviewe

Regarding (4), this apparently means a device which shouldn't produce the thrust produced it. This indicates the thrust is measurement error.
edit on 31-7-2015 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701

And I agree. Don't get me wrong, I would love nothing more than this to pan out successfully but my head is erring very much on the side of
caution.



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Based on my reading the past couple days, my confidence is low. The fact it hasn't been submitted for peer review yet is huge. This is a small team working in a NASA facility, but they're not NASA. All that these experiments have produced is within the range of measurement error. And since a null apparatus of similar design produced the same thrust, it indicates either they don't know what they're doing or it's all measurement error.

At this point, it's just a claim. All these articles saying "We'll get to Pluto in 18 months!" are fueling the hype. It's unscientific.

Sorry, but that's just the way it's. Don't be hyped.

Here's one of the people tied to the team working on it:
en.wikipedia.org - Harold G.White...

The team has something like ~5 members.

I welcome everyone to read this and remain skeptical of the EM drive:
blogs.discovermagazine.com - Did NASA Validate an “Impossible” Space Drive? In a Word, No....

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

PS: That evidence has not been produced.
edit on 31-7-2015 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: jonnywhite

Have you seen this post?
And, the video in it...the video is an hour long, with EM drive starting at about 30 min.

Dr. White explains this system in wonderful detail. I was very skeptical before viewing...now I think I have a handle on "how", perhaps "why" it works.

Also, it appears this thing can produce the equivalent of real world thrust...though not much yet...the best reported is about a quarter pound per kilowatt...

NASA, according to Dr. White, isn't seriously interested in the "high power" applications this system may have to offer, but rather in the low power applications. This system can offer an alterative to the ion drive that only needs an electricity source...solar cells or nuclear battery...no ion source required. In this application it may prove quite useful...for long range "starship" applications, probably not so good, but still well suited to any sub-light operations on any scale...

This is interesting science and technology, but, you have to go over to the "quantum side".




edit on 31-7-2015 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: tanka418
None of what he says gives me any confidence because it doesn't address the important points made by critics. White's team hasn't confirmed anything. None of it has been peer reviewed. So if a random someebody says they confirm it, you'll believe it, without peer review? And the thrust being reported by White's team is within the range of error. As well, at least in one of the experiments they performed, a variant of the device which was disabled produced thrust ANYWAY. It'd be like trashing an engine in your car and then it still works. That indicates measurement error to me.

Sorry I didni't even mention all of hte problems. There're more.

I'm not saying I won't someday agree. I love science and discovery. A cheap and fast form of space travel would open up a lot of unknowns to scientific scrutiny. And this could be it, maybe. I just am not going to jump on the bandwagon with the rest of you until this thing is tested by more teams and ALL of the details are released for peer review and confirmed.

Sorry but you shouldn't throw away the laws of physics and peer review so easily. I think the hype has caught a lot of you.
edit on 31-7-2015 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 05:00 PM
link   
OK so compared to a physicist or scientist I'm a moron, but I can at least tell you the difference between gravity and inertia. Here's the basics so people can just move on from this and discuss the topic at hand.

Mass = A unit calculated by an objects gravity and moment of inertia. It's hard to define in simple terms, but most importantly it's not to be confused with Weight.
Weight = The measurement of an object's mass when subjected to gravity against a fixed point.
Gravity = A force of attraction between objects with mass (i.e. anything). The more mass, the more attraction.
Inertia = The natural instinct of mass to resist change in acceleration. The more mass, the more inertial value.

The inertial value of an object does not change when subjected to the vacuum of space. It's a constant value. The mass of an object does not change when subjected to the vacuum of space. It's a constant value. The weight of an object changes as it is distanced from the source of gravitational pull.


From what I've read so far about the EMdrive is that it's force is currently so weak that it was difficult to even measure it, hence why there has been so much debate to whether it truly works or not. I'm not sure how they are able claim this obscene amount of thrust at this point. My guess is the force of thrust is proportionate to the size of the engine (or solar receptors). To equal the thrust they are talking about would require an extremely enormous, non-practical sized spacecraft. This is just my opinion however and I could be wrong (wouldn't be the first time).



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: JadeStar
I'm just going to put this right here, courtesy of the nice people i met at NASA Ames:



Wow...thank you.

That was quite interesting...a magneto hydrodynamic drive using the quantum vacuum...

Q-drive stuff starts around 30 min...


I feel that by the time I am a senior citizen in 45 years we will already have sent an interstellar probe on the way to some nearby solar system either by crazy fast means or a slower (but still 100-1000x faster than New Horizons) "traditional" means.


Hey with gene therapy in 45 years you may have another 150 years of life left in you!

You focus on getting us out in space and us biologists will keep you young and healthy enough to keep up your work



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 05:19 PM
link   
eh. it actually has been peer reviewed even if not in an academic sense. White, Shawyer, the chinese, Tajmar and now at least half a dozen independent professional efforts have replicated and verified the effect is present in similar apparatus. What has not been sorted out is what exactly is the cause.

the fact that peers have replicated the effect to my mind *IS* peer review. what else do you call independent confirmation by multiple credentialed professionals? perhaps peer reviewed isn't technically accurate but practically? practically I'd say that what has transpired should count.



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701
Here's another link which expresses skepticism (dated July 30 2015):
www.extremetech.com - Despite recent claims, the EmDrive remains long on speculation, short on proof...

How do you respond to these quotes from the link?

If the EmDrive is still generating thrust even when the power is turned off, it strongly implies that the measured energy was thermal, and therefore indicative of a false positive reading. This latest project is just one of many that has attempted to determine whether EmDrives or the closely related Cannae Drive can actually function. None of the experiments yet performed have been subjected to rigorous peer review, and many of them were publicized and interpreted by the developers of the drives — not independent scientists.


Unfortunately for all involved, wishing really, really hard for a thing to be true doesn’t make it so. Until the EmDrive has undergone rigorous experimental validation from a neutral independent team of scientists with no ties to the inventors, it’s impossible to claim the drive works. The equipment needed to measure the amount of thrust and the experimental controls required to validate it are extensive enough as to be daunting to even well-funded labs. As great as the EmDrive looks on paper, we don’t recommend anyone start packing for their 12-hour Moon excursion anytime soon.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan.

Read that quote a coupule times.

Do you really think we have the needed extraordinary evidence? I don't think we do. Not even. This demands it.
edit on 31-7-2015 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
eh. it actually has been peer reviewed even if not in an academic sense. White, Shawyer, the chinese, Tajmar and now at least half a dozen independent professional efforts have replicated and verified the effect is present in similar apparatus. What has not been sorted out is what exactly is the cause.


Has theeffect been reproduced? It's far from clear that what people are seeing is the same thing.


the fact that peers have replicated the effect to my mind *IS* peer review. what else do you call independent confirmation by multiple credentialed professionals? perhaps peer reviewed isn't technically accurate but practically? practically I'd say that what has transpired should count.


The idea that a specifc proposed effect is both concrete enough theoretically and physically to make predictions AND those same predictions have been verified AND those experiments all show the same replication of the same prediction isn't so yet.

You have experiments which have effects close to the size of noise, don't all have clear null vs non-null signatures consistent with reasonable theoretical proposals and aren't necessarily compatible.

Effect appearing to continue with microwaves OFF is a very major problem.

Three experiments published in _nature_ which each show the same effect and internal and external consistency---that's what we need to go further.

I want my impulse engines (or warp drive) at least as much as anybody but it's not there yet.



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 10:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: combatmaster

originally posted by: southernplayalistic
Alpha Centauri, 100 years. Build a big ship. Bring families along. Mate. I'll volunteer to be the guy who impregnates all the women.

Find a habitable planet. Start a new civilization.


Hey, i already called digs on the 'breeder' job...



Rock, paper, scissors.



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 11:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: jonnywhite
a reply to: tanka418
None of what he says gives me any confidence because it doesn't address the important points made by critics.


What points are those? Most of the material I've seen, save for the NASA video has been rather a lot of misunderstanding, and old as well.



White's team hasn't confirmed anything. None of it has been peer reviewed. So if a random someebody says they confirm it, you'll believe it, without peer review?


Well, let's see...
White, Shawyer, North West Polytechnic , Tajmar, Cannae...North West Poly has published paper on this...that is a part of NASA's inspiration. So, it would appear there is plenty of support.

You also give "peer review" to much credit. Firstly, it is primarily a mechanism t help gain research funds, publishing a paper gives a scientist greater visibility, it does not, however, make him more credible. Secondly; IF I need a "review" of someone's method, findings, etc. I can do that myself...if I'm not capable of making that evaluation myself, then I'm at the mercy of the various authors anyway, and can only hope to find something warm and fuzzy in someone else's opinion.

Finally, I'm an engineer, we don't rely on "peer reviewed" anything, and lean more upon the whitepaper.



And the thrust being reported by White's team is within the range of error. As well, at least in one of the experiments they performed, a variant of the device which was disabled produced thrust ANYWAY. It'd be like trashing an engine in your car and then it still works. That indicates measurement error to me.



Actually the thrust that is being seen is what is predicted by the models f the system. This kind of indicates that both the system, and the model is accurate. I don't know about this "disabled" and still produces thrust, I didn't see anything like that that I could consider credible.

What I did see is that with the NASA experiments when a dummy load was used, there was no thrust. I've also see quite a lot of misunderstanding.



Sorry but you shouldn't throw away the laws of physics and peer review so easily. I think the hype has caught a lot of you.


Well, no one is violating any laws of Physics...not even close, and everything has a rather logical explanation, even IF at the quantum level. And that is enough to provide plenty of fodder for misunderstanding...the quantum world can be rather screwy.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Well let's a move on I need a lift pack.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 12:55 AM
link   
Thanks for posting some cutting-edge tech. Like the first experiments with electricity, we know something makes it work, but, well, we need some more theory to explain it. What has been observed, however, is tiny amount of thrust. So we're not ready to go zipping around the solar system with it just yet. But we have an actual, working, massless thruster. And so now, we can try to turn the tiny thrust into a very large thrust, but without needing any fuel. Years of work for this one.
a reply to: neoholographic



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 06:31 AM
link   
I really don't think it's hard to explain, it's just that if it's true and it works, it will re-write the coming century in the way that electricity (mostly Tesla) re-wrote the 20th century. So people are having a hard time accepting that it might be true.

It's not a rocket. It doesn't actually produce thrust, yet apparently it does. That doesn't leave too much left that it could be, eh? If it works, it is creating a local weakness in gravity.

It would be working just like how your microwave disrupts your cell phone signal, except it's more microwaves in one little area and it's significantly disrupting gravity waves.

When you run your microwave, all those microwaves move through the space where the cellphone's RF signal would also like to travel through. The microwaves are very high energy and on a much smaller scale so they do a good job of occupying the space. They are high energy so they can win out in a push comes to shove contest vs other em waves, but they are small scale so they can still be completely stopped by a little plastic microwave door.

The 'resonant cavity' seems to me to be analogous to something like a 'short circuit' or 'mirror pointing at a mirror to create the appearance of infinity' type trick. You end up with so many microwaves moving through a little area that they will interfere significantly even with the passage of gravity waves!

If it really works, travel to the Moon and Mars are two of the LEAST interesting changes to human life in the 21st century that will come from it. You could end up with crazy stuff like a city flying above a city, one building or car at a time, just like in the freakin' Jetsons.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: jonnywhite
a reply to: stormbringer1701
Here's another link which expresses skepticism (dated July 30 2015):
www.extremetech.com - Despite recent claims, the EmDrive remains long on speculation, short on proof...

How do you respond to these quotes from the link?

If the EmDrive is still generating thrust even when the power is turned off, it strongly implies that the measured energy was thermal, and therefore indicative of a false positive reading. This latest project is just one of many that has attempted to determine whether EmDrives or the closely related Cannae Drive can actually function. None of the experiments yet performed have been subjected to rigorous peer review, and many of them were publicized and interpreted by the developers of the drives — not independent scientists.


Unfortunately for all involved, wishing really, really hard for a thing to be true doesn’t make it so. Until the EmDrive has undergone rigorous experimental validation from a neutral independent team of scientists with no ties to the inventors, it’s impossible to claim the drive works. The equipment needed to measure the amount of thrust and the experimental controls required to validate it are extensive enough as to be daunting to even well-funded labs. As great as the EmDrive looks on paper, we don’t recommend anyone start packing for their 12-hour Moon excursion anytime soon.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan.

Read that quote a coupule times.

Do you really think we have the needed extraordinary evidence? I don't think we do. Not even. This demands it.


The first quote: I am following the NSF replication thread at NSF which is approaching it's fourth iteration and thousands of pages long and full of both skeptics and people willing and able to do replication projects. it is full of engineers physicists and others. it is full of cites of articles and papers both pro and con. guess what? i have not seen one, not one, claim that it produces thrust when turned off. That is odd considering the fact that someone there posts every article about this, and even journal entries and article cites as well as the remarks of qualified skeptics such as Sean Carrol. in addition they link to side conversations and similar threads such as on Redit where it pertains. No mention of thrust signals when unenergized. none.

The second quote: what part of that is other than a summary opinion?

Once again: it's not "just NASA" Eagleworks that is working on it. They didn't even think it up. furthermore; the claim that it's just a few people at NASA working on it and implying that those people are kooks or unqualified somehow is not evidence either. firstly; that team is respectable. period. And secondly they are definitely not the only people making the claim. there are so many people who are working on replication or did it first; not even including the originating claimant such as Shawyer or Cannae.
edit on 1-8-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-8-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: 11andrew34

It's not the plastic in the door which is impermeable to the microwaves. It's the metal screen between the layers of plastic/glass. And I'm not sure about your gravity wave idea. It would make sense if they were only positioning the prototype to produce thrust vertically, pointing up. But that's about it. Among other reasons.



new topics

top topics



 
95
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join