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.

 

The peer-reviewed EMDrive works according to Finnish scientist

page: 2
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 08:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
They're still working with the idea of rockets and rockets are always going to be big, expensive and wasteful.


Because mgh is a cruel taskmaster.
unless you can nullify m, g will reduce with h gain




posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 09:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: BrianFlanders

If you have any better ideas, by all means share them with the academic community.


Well, I would think getting into orbit as cheaply and efficiently as possible would be higher on the priority list than getting to the moon in 4 hours. And that's just it. I don't have a better idea but I'm not supposed to.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

Then its your lucky day because the vast amount of money and effort is spent on getting to orbit cheaply compared to getting to the moon in 4 hours.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: 0bserver1

"Getting us to the Moon in four hours," would be delivering a mush of human remains there. Let's see, there is the acceleration and the deceleration. That would create mush on the rear bulkhead and on the front bulkhead if I'm not mistaken.



A quick calc indicates that wouldn't necessarily be the case
IE accelerating at a pedestrian steady rate of 1G could get you halfway there in about 1.8 hours, followed by a deceleration of 1G would get you to the destination in under 4 hours total. And virtually stress-free as well


In-flight meals wouldn't be a problem with the artificial gravity of that acceleration. Just a brief period of weightlessness while making the transition to deceleration to deal with.
edit on 17/6/2016 by Pilgrum because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Same story there will be another peer-review in which it won't work after that it will disappear beyond subspace heaven.
Anyone remember the E-cat ?
edit on 6172016 by frenchfries because: (no reason given)

edit on 6172016 by frenchfries because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Didn't think the EM-Drive was online/working yet just testing phase?

Guess it's still in testing, but does show by reports it's valuable in space engine tec.

Couldn't they use a larger and more efficient version of the black project Aurora engine?..That's one hell of an engine.

Edit, didn't mean for the Aurora engine to make it to the moon. just more thrust out of the atmosphere, before the EM-Drive kicked in.
edit on 17-6-2016 by DarkvsLight29 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: frenchfries

E-Cat was a fraud that never underwent independent peer-review (but accepted funding hand over fist).



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

so this is the real thing , i beg to differ.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: BrianFlanders

If you have any better ideas, by all means share them with the academic community.


Launch loop

Space elevator

Nuclear pulse.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam
I found Annila's explanation to be sort of hard to swallow as well, if it's strictly a photon drive, then you ought to get more thrust by simply removing the cone and turning up the microwaves.

Well, you might need some sort of impedance matching horn. But that's the general idea.


Yes, then there's nothing that interesting technologically, and the quantity of supposed thrust being produced in experiments must be mostly error, as it is wildly larger than classical electromagnetic momentum in some experiments.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel
...as it is wildly larger than classical electromagnetic momentum in some experiments.


I started to bring that up but figured I'd eye-poked poor Dr Annila enough already. It sort of obviates photon leakage as the source of thrust.

I find the 'still measuring thrust with the power off' thing to be the most interesting aspect of all. Either it's telling you that your setup isn't capable of accurately measuring thrust, in which case the experiment design is trash, or something even cooler is going on.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Wouldn't the cone be needed to direct waves that produce the photons backwards else the escape of photons in all directions wouldn't produce any directional thrust.



Light at microwave lengths is the fuel that's being fed into the cavity ... and the EM drive exhausts backwards paired photons," he says. "When two photons travel together, but having opposite phases, then the pair has no net electromagnetic field, and hence it will not reflect back from the metal walls, but goes through.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 06:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Bedlam

Wouldn't the cone be needed to direct waves that produce the photons backwards else the escape of photons in all directions wouldn't produce any directional thrust.


The 'waves' ARE the photons, that's what he's telling you.

His statement is that the microwaves that are being pumped into the chamber are occasionally leaking out and the recoil is the thrust.

However, in that case, you could increase the thrust many fold by simply removing the chamber and attaching a horn. And that wouldn't be 'in all directions'. It ought to increase the thrust, if Annila is correct. And thus is a way to invalidate his conjecture.

There's another issue, though, and that's if ALL the microwaves were directed out, it still wouldn't provide the thrust people claim to see. So leakage of a small amount of them certainly won't do it, if all of them won't.

So the guys in the article might not have really thought this through.



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 03:28 AM
link   
a reply to: 0bserver1

Well, they are not only explaining the emd thrust, but also redefining inertia, gravity and the vacuum of space.

Their main claim, that pairs of out of phase photons (destructive interference, same direction) don't interact electromagnetically, should be easy to test I think.



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Here's the Em drive website, for anyone who wants to take a look for themselves:
www.emdrive.com...
Here's a quote from that site:

At first sight the idea of propulsion without propellant seems impossible. However the technology is firmly anchored in the basic laws of physics and following an extensive review process, no transgressions of these laws have been identified.

The principle of operation is based on the well-known phenomenon of radiation pressure. This relies on Newton’s Second Law where force is defined as the rate of change of momentum. Thus an electromagnetic (EM) wave, travelling at the speed of light has a certain momentum which it will transfer to a reflector, resulting in a tiny force.

emdrive.com...
edit on 19-6-2016 by TheBadCabbie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
Thus an electromagnetic (EM) wave, travelling at the speed of light has a certain momentum which it will transfer to a reflector, resulting in a tiny force.

emdrive.com...

Except that can't be the explanation. THAT's the explanation that gets poo-poohed. Because the exact opposite momentum will be transferred to the emitter. It should balance out.

The explanations where the microwaves are shoving dark matter or causing a bias in virtual particle production inside the cone are at least shaggy dog quality.



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam
Forget about the EM drive for a moment and use a flashlight as an example because it's a familiar object that sends photons out in more or less the direction the flashlight is pointed. Those photons have momentum, so wouldn't conservation of momentum say the flashlight will end up with equal but opposite momentum of the photons leaving in the direction it's pointed? (disregarding IR or thermal photons for the same of simplicity). So yes they balance but you still have the photon momentum in one direction and the flashlight in the other direction, don't you?

The problem in that example is, the momentum of the photons is so small, that even if the flashlight does end up with momentum in the opposite direction, it may be too small an effect to measure. It's really, really, really small. The photon momentum is Planck's constant divided by the wavelength and Planck's constant is an almost unimaginably small number. It doesn't help that microwaves don't have particularly short wavelengths so dividing by a somewhat largish wavelength (compared to the flashlight example which has shorter wavelengths) makes the momentum per photon even smaller for microwaves than for the flashlight photons.

But I guess if you had enough pennies you could be a millionaire so likewise if you had enough photons it might add up to something significant, but it would take a lot of photons to do that.



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 11:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Right! But as you say, microwave photons are low energy, big and mushy so the momentum is low per photon.

If you had a flashlight, then the light goes one way, the flashlight the other and away you go, albeit slowly. With the EM drive, the photons don't leave the "system" so the emitter wants to go one way, the back surfaces of the cone the other and no acceleration should occur, classically.

If you had a total annihilation drive, you could get more than enough photons for a traditional photon drive though.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 01:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam
You're right, they say it's a closed system, somehow I missed that part earlier. Now I understand the theoretical objections better.

edit on 2016620 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 12:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

Except that can't be the explanation.

I don't see the problem with Shawyer's theory. Here's another quote, picking up from where I left off:

If the same EM wave is travelling at a fraction of the speed of light, the rate of change of momentum, and hence force, is reduced by that fraction. The propagation velocity of an EM wave, and the resulting force it exerts, can be varied depending on the geometry of a waveguide within which it travels. This was demonstrated by work carried out in the 1950’s. (CULLEN, A.L. ‘Absolute Power Measurements at Microwave Frequencies’ IEE Proceedings Vol 99 Part 1V 1952 P.100)

Thus if the EM wave travelling in a tapered waveguide is bounced between two reflectors, with a large velocity difference at the reflector surfaces, the force difference will give a resultant thrust to the waveguide linking the two reflectors. If the reflectors are separated by a multiple of half the effective wavelength of the EM wave, this thrust will be multiplied by the Q of the resulting resonant cavity, as illustrated in fig 1.

emdrive.com...




top topics



 
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join