It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Chinese Building ‘Impossible’ Space Drive

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 12:03 PM

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.

I wonder if this is even possible and what it could do for space travel?


posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 12:07 PM
" They also said the article should never have been published. "

Think that speaks volumes in one little sentence.

The fact that even talking about something in science being taboo makes it that much more important to look at

posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 12:20 PM
Well, you may be right but there have been many things that others have said "should not be published" but are important to look at and have made others stand up and take notice.

[edit on 9/12/2009 by Kr0n0s]

posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 12:26 PM
LOL, that is exactly why America and the west is lagging when it comes to talkin things to next level. We already know uncle sam has working versions of that, aint that what the Telsa Coils do?

Scientists nowadays are so bourgeois and mainstream is pathetic. If we say it's not possible then not only not can't it be done, but it's a waste of time. They even say it shouldn't be published, what kind of science is that? Oh yea, they are so sure of their science that the big bang theory and evolution are taught as FACT rather than this is the best explanation we have so far, which they are. They remind me of when the Europeans swore the world was flat...

I wish nothing but luck to my Chinese brothers. Go kick butt

[edit on 12-9-2009 by cenpuppie]

posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 12:34 PM
This could yield advancement into EMFG ( Electromagnetic Frequency Generator ) If theories are correct, with this you could actually Generator an Opposite Electromagnetic field of the Earth's , which would ( in theory ) cause Anti-Gravity. Now Hook up four of them, or an means to control N,S,E,W, and You have a Craft that can exit and enter earth's gravity faster then we can Light the rockets of Apollo.

Also the EMG is almost like a Perpetual Motion Device.

[edit on 12-9-2009 by 10001011]

posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 12:47 PM

Originally posted by Kr0n0s
Well, you may be right but there have been many things that others have said "should not be published" but are important to look at and have made others stand up and take notice.

Indeed. There has been a long tradition in the scientific community to not accept anything that hasn't already been proven.

I wish them the best. I just hope it doesn't get horded away from the public. Nothing spells revenge like making a ton of money off of something your peers told you was impossible.

posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 12:54 PM
An Emdrive FAQ from the emdrive website.


Number 18 is particularly interesting...

18. Q. How can the EmDrive produce enough thrust for terrestrial applications?

A. The second generation engines will be capable of producing a specific thrust of 30kN/kW. Thus for 1 kilowatt (typical of the power in a microwave oven) a static thrust of 3 tonnes can be obtained, which is enough to support a large car. This is clearly adequate for terrestrial transport applications.

1. Q. Is the thrust produced by the EmDrive a reactionless force? A. No, the thrust is the result of the reaction between the end plates of the waveguide and the Electromagnetic wave propagated within it. 2. Q. How can a net force be produced by a closed waveguide? A. At the propagation velocities (greater than one tenth the speed of light) the effects of special relativity must be considered. Different reference planes have to be used for the EM wave and the waveguide itself. The thruster is therefore an open system and a net force can be produced. 3. Q. Why does the net force not get balanced out by the axial component of the sidewall force? A. The net force is not balanced out by the axial component of the sidewall force because there is a highly non linear relationship between waveguide diameter and group velocity. (e.g. at cut off diameter, the group velocity is zero, the guide wavelength is infinity, but the diameter is clearly not zero.) The design of the cavity is such that the ratio of end wall forces is maximised, whilst the axial component of the sidewall force is reduced to a negligible value. 4. Q. Does the theory of the EmDrive contravene the accepted laws of physics or electromagnetic theory? A. The EmDrive does not violate any known law of physics. The basic laws that are applied in the theory of the EmDrive operation are as follows: Newton’s laws are applied in the derivation of the basic static thrust equation (Equation 11 in the theory paper) and have also been demonstrated to apply to the EmDrive experimentally. The law of conservation of momentum is the basis of Newtons laws and therefore applies to the EmDrive. It is satisfied both theoretically and experimentally. The law of conservation of energy is the basis of the dynamic thrust equation which applies to the EmDrive under acceleration,(see Equation 16 in the theory paper). The principles of electromagnetic theory are used to derive the basic design equations.

[edit on 9/12/2009 by Kr0n0s]

posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 12:59 PM
I've always been one to think, if we don't build it, then how do we know it won't work

I think lots of things like this should be built and tested. I think Tesla would agree, he was a hands on type of guy.

posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 01:05 PM
The heavy denouncement by "peers" reminds me of their dismissal, and outright ridicule of another technology.

They likewise sneered, criticized, dismissed, and were vicious in their attacks when one man proposed amorphous semiconductors.

They closed ranks and stated conclusively that this concept violated physics!

So the inventor kept right on working, didn't make any more announcements, and only when amorphous semiconductors were actually OPERATING within a number of commercially produced products, did they say collectively, "I knew it all along."

I'll go one further. The power to do this is likewise an operating system, but likewise has been squashed. Unlimited power.

Our physics departments and engineering departments have set artificial barriers beyond which no one is to even peek.

Thus our stagnation.

posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 01:08 PM
reply to post by dooper

I couldnt have said it better myself.. star for you

posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 07:00 PM
That is correct. It is real.

In house link

posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 07:03 PM
reply to post by Kr0n0s

I remember reading somewhere that the USAF was also looking into it as well. Don't know that it's not hearsay though. But I find the more vehemently our scientific community screeches "It's IMPOSSSIBLE." the more attention needs to be paid to it. It's become to complacent and political for my tastes.

[edit on 12-9-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 09:10 PM
If you had to keep secret space flight technology and operations secret and needed astronauts. Where would you get them? How could you hide them?

How much would you spend on say a non secret space program destined for the moon and mars, if you already had secret spacecraft that can travel between the stars?

How much would you spend on propulsion technology if you already had propulsion beyond the your wildest dreams?


Following the implementation of the 2003 Federal Budget, however, all advanced propulsion research was canceled. Obviously no one wants NASA pouring their entire budget into advanced theories but the total spend over the 6 years on this project was $1.6 million. For comparison NASA's 2008 budget is $17.318 billion. Clearly the amount the BPP Project was costing was virtually insignificant compared to the vast sum of money NASA waste on fruitless exercises. Yet still there was - and continues to be - no room for a valuable project aimed solely at trying to solve the greatest problem in manned space exploration and who's annual budget amounts to less than 0.002% of NASA's total budget.

Aviation Week

In the R-1 (research and development), P-1 (procurement) and O-1 (operations) budgets for 2010, just over $50 billion is listed for classified programs, the largest-ever sum. The Pentagon's "black" operations, including the intelligence budgets nested inside it, are roughly equal in magnitude to the entire defense budgets of the UK, France or Japan, and 10 per cent of the total.

How much would you spend on your Civilian Space program when your military already has secret space craft far beyond anything people know about today?

Remember Black ops alone gets 50 billion. Compare that to NASA's budget.

Los Angeles Times

According to a 12-page summary report posted at the panel's website,, NASA would need at least $3 billion a year beyond its current $18.69 billion to realize the ambitious goals.

NASA is nothing else but a front to hide the real space program. It is there only to keep the American public happy that we are continuing to explore space.

Why would an American company buy into this if the Government whispered to them to save their money as we have no interest in this technology? Why would the US have no interest in this technology?

Perhaps it is obsolete?

posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 09:23 PM
reply to post by Xeven

Xeven, I'm glad someone finally called it like it is.

The evidence for already "owning" advanced propulsion systems is so lop-sided that to assume otherwise is to ignore the obvious.

There is also a reason, likely the very same reason, that many technological advances are immediately 'squashed' or commandeered by the DOE.

Men have been threatened, and worse when they announced a discovery. Their labs have been raided, components confiscated, computers taken, and all under "homeland security."

Meaning, you give them any problem, and you basically disappear.

After all, a new component here, another discovered component there, a possibility here and another advance there, and you have the parts of advanced technologies.

I'm just hoping that these guys are as smart as they think they are, and are holding back much like our Manhatten Project, for the ultimate challenge.

The problem is, it's one thing to be technologically smart.

Another to have the slightest bit of common sense.

And I don't think they're all that smart.

posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 09:26 PM
reply to post by dooper

My money always goes to the inventors who come up with a great idea and make it practical, THEN tell the masses. Why buy into scientific approval first, unless it is just to get more money?

posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 09:28 PM
reply to post by Xeven

Or, our government considers space exploration to be a waste of time and money. Which is largely what seems to be the case to me.

posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 09:37 PM
If China is making it, it isn't going to work, unless they copy it from someone else's prototype. The Chinese are good at reverse engineering and copying technology, but not at developing and manufacturing their own.
I imagine they would make the bell out of lead, and it would melt.

posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 11:21 PM
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

Bingo! Ding-ding! Vast stretches of uninhabitable space and worlds don't have anyone already there to govern.

And even if it were populated, it would be very difficult to extend their reach.

Black-ops exists to maintain a state of permanent seige, not explore the unknown.

posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 11:28 PM
reply to post by Kr0n0s


Originally posted by stevegmu
If China is making it, it isn't going to work, unless they copy it from someone else's prototype. The Chinese are good at reverse engineering and copying technology, but not at developing and manufacturing their own.

Originally posted by rogerstigers
reply to post by dooper

My money always goes to the inventors who come up with a great idea and make it practical, THEN tell the masses. Why buy into scientific approval first, unless it is just to get more money?


Electromagnetic Space Drive

A Theory of Microwave Propulsion for Spacecraft


EmDrive (also Relativity Drive) is the name of a spacecraft propulsion system proposed, and reportedly developed, by Roger Shawyer.[1] New Scientist ran a cover story on EmDrive in its 8 September 2006 issue.[1] The device is a Magnetron with a specially-shaped, fully-enclosed tapering resonator cavity whose area is greater at one end. The inventor claims that the device generates thrust even though no detectable energy leaves the device. The inventor proposes to use it as a spacecraft propulsion system that uses no fuel (other than electricity), and no reaction mass.

Emdrive on trial

Editor's note

It is a fair criticism that New Scientist did not make clear enough how controversial Roger Shawyer?s engine is. We should have made more explicit where it apparently contravenes the laws of nature and reported that several physicists declined to comment on the device because they thought it too contentious.

But should New Scientist should have covered this story at all? The answer is a resounding yes: it is, after all, an ideas magazine. That means writing about hypotheses as well as theories.

And let?s not forget that Shawyer has experimental data that has convinced peer reviewers that he is onto something. He believes he can explain his machine's behavior in terms of existing physical laws, which is what the theorists contest.

The great thing is that Shawyer?s ideas are testable. If he succeeds in getting his machine flown in space, we will know soon enough if it is ground-breaking device or a mere flight of fancy.

Jeremy Webb, Editor, New Scientist

Microwave engine gets a boost

UK research into a propellant-free microwave engine designed for spacecraft propulsion is stirring interest from US and Chinese aerospace companies, its developer has claimed.

Despite sounding like the stuff of science-fiction, SPR (Satellite Propulsion Research), the company behind the EmDrive – which was first reported by The Engineer in November 2004 – insists its technology is gathering momentum in the international aerospace community.

According to the managing director of Roger Shawyer, the engine takes microwave radiation produced by a magnetron and feeds it into a specially shaped resonant cavity. The waves push against the end wall. Because of the difference in wave velocity, being higher at one end that the other, there is a momentum transfer. The result is a measurable net force from the cavity against its surroundings.

[edit on 12-9-2009 by SLAYER69]

posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 11:37 PM
reply to post by rogerstigers

Peer review and peer approval are the prerequisite to gaining funding for your projects.

We keep funding the same, tired old technologies, or giving the same wheels another spin, thus stagnating our advancements.

Often, though the single guy can eventually make a big discovery, the moment he files for a patent, if it's any good, he is well and truly screwed.

If it happens to hint of a new technology, the Patent Office contacts the DOE or DOD, and the patent application is not only squashed, but the inventor and everyone they know are placed under a national security veil, and are forced to keep all knowledge and determinations quiet.

If in fact it's not really critical enough to squash, the larger corporations will file frivolous lawsuits, claiming patent infringement, with the purpose of keeping the little guy tied up in court for years, and hope he'll cave in and sell it to them for a song.

Then you have the large corporations whose welfare seems to be vital to the national interests, and any technologies that would put their dominance at risk are not allowed.

We have literally stifled innovation here in the US.

And it's starting to show.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in