Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Chinese Say They're Building 'Impossible' Space Drive

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Source:
blog.wired.com...





Chinese researchers claim they've confirmed the theory behind an "impossible" space drive, and are proceeding to build a demonstration version. If they're right, this might transform the economics of satellites, open up new possibilities for space exploration –- and give the Chinese a decisive military advantage in space.

To say that the "Emdrive" (short for "electromagnetic drive") concept is controversial would be an understatement. According to Roger Shawyer, the British scientist who developed the concept, the drive converts electrical energy into thrust via microwaves, without violating any laws of physics. Many researchers believe otherwise. An article about the Emdrive in New Scientist magazine drew a massive volley of criticism. Scientists not only argued that Shawyer's work was blatantly impossible, and that his reasoning was flawed. They also said the article should never have been published.

"It is well known that Roger Shawyer's 'electromagnetic relativity drive' violates the law of conservation of momentum, making it simply the latest in a long line of 'perpetuum mobiles' that have been proposed and disproved for centuries," wrote John Costella, an Australian physicist. "His analysis is rubbish and his 'drive' impossible."

Shawyer stands by his theoretical work. His company, Satellite Propulsion Research (SPR), has constructed demonstration engines, which he says produce thrust using a tapering resonant cavity filled with microwaves. He is adamant that this is not a perpetual motion machine, and does not violate the law of conservation of momentum because different reference frames apply to the drive and the waves within it. Shawyer's big challenge, he says, has been getting people who will actually look into his claims rather than simply dismissing them.

Such extravagant claims are usually associated with self-taught, backyard inventors claiming Einstein got it all wrong. But Shawyer is a scientist who has worked with radar and communication systems and was a program manager at European space company EADS Astrium; his work rests entirely on Einstein being right. The thrust is the result of a relativistic effect and would not occur under simple Newtonian physics. Many have dismissed his work out of hand, and British government funding has ceased. He has had some interest from both the United States and China. Now the Chinese connection with the Northwestern Polytechnical University (NPU) in Xi'an seems to have paid off.

"NPU started their research program in June 2007, under the supervision of Professor Yang Juan. They have independently developed a mathematical simulation which shows unequivocally that a net force can be produced from a simple resonant tapered cavity," Shawyer tells Danger Room. "The thrust levels predicted by this simulation are similar to those resulting from the SPR design software, and the SPR test results."



(image and quote tags)




[edit on 17/11/08 by Jbird]




posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Personally I find a few factors involved in this one to be amusing as hell.

For example.
Look here New Scientist Comments and tell me if i have missed the logic presented or does the general tone of these comments merely represent the screaming and grinding of teeth reminiscent of a 5 year old being told santa clause will not pay a personal visit?

As to does it work?
No idea. Didn't build it, didn't research it, haven't tested it.

His hypothesis on the other hand seems to be just fine albeit a little contradictory.

As to giving the chinese an advantage?
That one I fail to see completely.

An ideal of 300 millinewtons of thrust is good only if one considers (exploratory) spacecraft and the time scale in which they operate.

As for strategic or tactical weaponry, well... its worthless.
Too little too late.
Unless you wanted a really really lazy war, you could do better by just strapping astronauts to warheads and feeding them too many beans.



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by rocksarerocks
 


Ok first you have to use external quotes or else you are plagiarizing.
Second, please your own thoughts to the story, and not just cut and paste.
Don't mean to be petty but both issues are in the T&C.



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


I think, that only applies to breaking news, But i dont know, im pretty new
(Even though it feels like ive been here for years)

Interesting, that the chinese want it. Im sure it will work wonders in their underwater sets....



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
reply to post by rocksarerocks
 


Ok first you have to use external quotes or else you are plagiarizing.
Second, please your own thoughts to the story, and not just cut and paste.
Don't mean to be petty but both issues are in the T&C.






I put a source in there, so that is not plagiarizing anything.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by rocksarerocks
 

This thing was never tested in a vacuum chamber, so there's no way we can be sure whether it'll work in outer space. There is a reason why this thing is so controversial you know.

I don't know why the chinese wants it, but if this thing turns out to be bogus, the chinese will surely lose face in a major way.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by rocksarerocks
 


G'day. I heard that NASA is working on the same basic thing. I am sure it is about a "iron drive". I could be wrong.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 08:54 PM
link   
It's interesting enough that they would bring it up. This shows that they're not just boasting, but that they're making a contribution to science if it works. Otherwise, it may just be a coverup for some other device. I'm sure the US government has many they don't talk about. Chinese Mythbusters? because they can.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by gordonwest
reply to post by rocksarerocks
 


G'day. I heard that NASA is working on the same basic thing. I am sure it is about a "iron drive". I could be wrong.


Perhaps you meant the ion drive. Unless you're talking about my iron man repulsor array.
Well that one is classified.


Seriously though, no, the ion drive/thruster is not controversial at all.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 10:42 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Some of the comments made by detractors seem to be based on an incomplete or simplistic understanding of either the claims of the company, the theory behind the device, or perhaps both. Of course, it could be just the opposite, and I'm the simpleton...

Nowhere in the company's claims do I see anything about producing energy out without energy in.

It seems more like a question of directed energy, rather than free energy.

Anywho, to the comments made by Absence of Self - the theoretical applications in the field of satellites have more to do with orbit maintenance and (albeit lethargic) re-tasking, rather than rapid, tactical response or anything of that sort. There's almost certainly nothing of use here for missile R&D.

Besides the satellite applications, it also holds interest for those of us who'd like to see deep space exploration begin in their lifetime. If I'm lucky, the advent of the garden ship or the city ship will be in the next 100 years or so, and I'll have a chance to see my fellow men sally forth to pillage the next frontier.



As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Yeah, our scientists are such experts. I recall them deriding the possibility of an amorphous semiconductor saying it violated physics. Once they began showing up in electronics, they said, "I knew it could be done all along."

Funny, you couldn't find one single, previous naysayer.

The US could have had this technology years ago, but they wouldn't even look at it. Not even look! I'm not talking about an idea - I'm talking about a working, testable mechanism.

I wish the Chinese the best. Only after proving our scientists to be the idiots they are, will we hopefully get back to scientific method.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Jazzyguy
 


G'day. I heard NASA is working on something with 'helium gas' and and a topsecret 'fequency' And also something to do with microwaves...I could be wrong, but that is basicly what I know.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 04:42 AM
link   
if the microwave drive can't work in a vacuum, a ion drive hybrid could be plausible. but then the ship would have to have a heavy gas reserve. ohh, and space is not a complete vacuum.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by rocksarerocks
 


From the article:


"It is well known that Roger Shawyer's 'electromagnetic relativity drive' violates the law of conservation of momentum, making it simply the latest in a long line of 'perpetuum mobiles' that have been proposed and disproved for centuries," wrote John Costella, an Australian physicist. "His analysis is rubbish and his 'drive' impossible."


That is complete rubbish and John Costella must be a blatant idiot for a physicist. Perpetumm mobiles? Does he not understand that the emDrive takes energy in and converts it? It isn't perpetual at all! Christ, if it were perpetual then the damn thing wouldn't even output any thrust. I'm simply amazed at the idiocy from someone who calls himself a flipping physicist! If the scientific community allows morons like that to work as physicists, then I should start applying for a few jobs in the field as apparently knowledge is not a prerequisite for getting the job.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 08:28 PM
link   
I have read about this drive before - and I cannot really comment on how sound the theory is. It makes sense - but, at the same time - a lot of things that you would think work, end up to not really work like you think they will.

That said - the whole controversy over whether or not it violates the laws of nature seems to be nothing more than childish bantering from people who haven't taken the time to actually look at the theory.

The drive would seem to be 'reactionless' - except it would operate on the principle of reflecting photons, which seem to pop in and out of existence to the bewilderment of physicists, everywhere - so, they seem to either fill every inch of space, or spawn from high-energy radiation. In either case - it doesn't require us to drag along a tank of xenon or something, so that's a marked improvement.

On the other hand, it doesn't propose to get 'something from nothing' - which seems to be the main point of contest about the device. Either the physicists touting this line are horribly uninformed (due to their own lack of responsibility to read) or have an intolerable amount of intellectual incompetency. I may not have as much formal education as those types - but it would seem, in this case, I (and quite a few others) are far better qualified. I'm seeking employment, any names of the opposed 'physicists' who do not have tenure?

More seriously - the proof for this one will have to be in the pudding. If it works, it works. If it doesn't - then it doesn't.

As far as military drives go - it would not provide enough impulse to do much of anything (though this could potentially be improved significantly through working, but not to the demands of military thrust). It could potentially be a good addition to high-orbit satellites, and even some lower-orbit ones (using inertial systems to make quick adjustments with this drive allowing the inertia mechanisms to 'bleed' their energy off), and for long-distance probes - but not much use beyond that.

Military-grade thrust will come from things like VASMIR - particularly if they could produce a 'fusion afterburn' that would inject fusible ions into the mix and incite a fusion reaction (with proper plasma/magnetic containment) - gaining additional thrust. If the effect could be scaled well enough - it could also be incorporated as a primary drive arrangement. Though it's purely speculation. VASMIR has a long way to go.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 06:43 AM
link   
LoL, we better believe them, or else!



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 07:27 AM
link   
Here's the guys website.

emdrive.com...

He seems to have done some very good work. I think that the physicists who are skeptical haven't read through his material thoroughly enough. It seems pretty sound, at least within the framework of special relativity.

Here's a quote that explains how the engine will be used. It is not for acceleration:




Note however, because the EmDrive obeys the law of conservation of energy, this thrust/power ratio rapidly decreases if the EmDrive is used to accelerate the vehicle along the thrust vector. (See Equation 16 of the theory paper). Whilst the EmDrive can provide lift to counter gravity, (and is therefore not losing kinetic energy), auxiliary propulsion is required to provide the kinetic energy to accelerate the vehicle.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 07:42 AM
link   
I think the Chinese need a better grasp of English. If the drive was 'impossible', they certainly wouldn't be building it! However it's possible the Chinese are FOS!

IRM



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Covered by ATS News last year media.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 05:42 AM
link   
I should have look at some dates on that that tread.

didn't know was so old









 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join