/sci/ - Science & Math

Did the Wright brothers even knew exactly how their flyer worked?

>>7234166
Yes. The principles of heavier-than-air flight were well-known at the time.

>>7234176
True, but I'm talking about the aspect of fluid dynamics.

>Is the EM Drive bullshit?
Yes, yes it is.

>here's the legit thing
>we can detect thrust

>here's the dummy version
>we can detect thrust here also...

The experiment is garbage. They found a force in one of their control tests, and they made no attempt to figure out what the actual precision of their measurements were. Their result is on the order of a thousand times less than what the Chinese got or the troll physics "theory" predicted, so it's hardly a confirmation of anything.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140009930.pdf

Oh, and now one of the group members has allegedly taken to publishing their results in Internet forums, which is what the latest news reports are based on.

>>7234105
Once we get moving faster than light, how do we stop moving? How much mass would you have to throw off to counteract the momentum?

>>7234233
stop posting

>>7234209
>They found a force in one of their control tests
The null test was not a control you fuckwit, how about you level up that reading comprehension before ever attempting to post anything again.

So, what's the principle on which this thing should work?
Where's the math behind it?
Does it theoretically make sense?
When it was built, what was its intended purpose?

>>7234258
http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdf

>>7234258
>So, what's the principle on which this thing should work?
That there are a lot of credulous idiots in the world and with some handwaving and a bit of luck, you can get money off them.
>Where's the math behind it?
In the bank.
>Does it theoretically make sense?
Yes, hoaxers and scammers are a great way to divest idiots of their monies.
>When it was built, what was its intended purpose?
To convince enough people so the makers can funnel money into their pockets with great efficiency.

>>7234233
>move at 10m/s
>shorten distance from 1.000.000.000.000 km to 100km
>stop by turning off the warp machine

>>7234261
Which everyone knows is wrong. He doesn't consider the forces on the sides of the device despite the fact they are not parallel to the axis of the device.

There's a reason White and co are pushing the quantum woo, because they know this cannot work.

>>7234251
It sure looks like a control test to me, and in any case it was the closest thing to a control test they did. They frankly needed to do a lot more in the way of control tests before this would be even close to believable.

>>7234105

No one expects the memedrive

>>7234298
They did do another control (even the paper confuses the terms), which had a insignificant value. The issue is it was just a resistive load so didn't simulate the systematics of the actual device, only the set up.

>>7234233
Paul March here, you just have to reverse the polarity. You have to be careful, though; in a recent test run we overloaded the trilithium buffers.

>>7234303
>>7234209 is the resistive load test. They did resistive load tests for two devices, and found a force for the second one.

>>7234298
>It sure looks like a control test to me
Because you're an idiot
> it was the closest thing to a control test they did
They had an actual control test that showed no acceleration

You frankly need to read up on the actual experiment before your mindless posts will be even close to beliveable.

>>7234306
No you idiot, the null test was the actual device minus fins.

>>7234166
>what are birds?

>>7234308
>No you idiot, the null test was the actual device minus the bit that was supposed to allow it to produce thrust.

>>7234308
>Null testing is performed by attaching the RF drive system to a 50 ohm load and running the system at full power. The null force testing indicated that there was an average null force of 9.6 micronewtons present in the as tested configuration. The presence of this null force was a result of the DC power current of 5.6 amps running in the power cable to the RF amplifier from the liquid metal contacts. This current causes the power cable to generate a magnetic field that interacts with the torsion pendulum magnetic damper system. The null test data is also shown in Fig. 20.

Illiterate mongoloid.

>>7234233
Just turn around

There you go, problem solved

>>7234304
I'm beginning to question whether this is a meme or actually Paul March

>>7234607
Paul March here, i can confirm this is not a meme. I wil provide photographic evidence as soon as my team finishes repairs of Heisenberg compensators.

>>7234209
>Oh, and now one of the group members has allegedly taken to publishing their results in Internet forums
not really
if you actually read the thread, you'd know they were just saying hey to the forum and sharing a little of what they had, nothing official

the media chose to mine the thread specifically, which is weird because there's plenty of other places to find this stuff

>>7234332
>null test shows 9.6 micronewtons
>the actual test shows 80+ micronewtons
ok so they did observe something? what are you trying to refute here?

Any universities reproduced the thing?
I haven't been following this because I'm not gulible.

>>7234992
>ok so they did observe something?

None of their results count as observations because there were no error estimates.

>>7235014
There was a Chinese university.

>>7235052

Any real universities?

>>7234198
>>7234209


It was not a null / control test for fucks sake

just stop posting and read the actual source before spouting shit opinions

The drive is generating thrust in a vacuum, that's a fact. What's being debated right now is HOW it is generating thrust

Then you have this
>On 4 April 2015, scientists fired lasers through the EmDrive's resonance chamber and noticed highly significant variations in the path time. The readings indicated that some of the laser pulses traveled faster than light speed, possibly pointing to a slight warp bubble inside the resonance chamber of the device.

Now you before start funposting about AMBIENT AIR - they controlled and accounted for air heating

Their signal is negligible, they "disproved" the "theory" of the device they were testing in the process of "proving" that it works and they run around claiming to have proven that a reactionless drive works. Their more recent measurements ignore a plethora of possible causes and just jump straight to "it must be space time warping." They are full of sensationalist bullshit.

>>7235116
>Their signal is negligible, they "disproved" the "theory" of the device they were testing in the process of "proving" that it works

They falsified shawyer's theories, but that doesn't change the fact that it's generating thrust.

>Their more recent measurements ignore a plethora of possible causes

Such ass?

>and just jump straight to "it must be space time warping." They are full of sensationalist bullshit.

You're mistaking the mass-media for NASA

Did any new models or theories emerge in the past few days?

I'm especially curious about the measured massive variations in light travel time / speed through the actual device. What's a likely explanation for that besides "distorted spacetime"?

>>7235111
see
>>7234332
tard.

>>7235119
>They falsified shawyer's theories, but that doesn't change the fact that it's generating thrust.

>test theory for reactionless drive
>disprove theory of reactionless drive
>claim to have proven reactionless drive

You don't see a problem with this sequence of events?

>Such ass?

They are passing light through a region with large EM fields. There are known effects which would result in a change of the speed through the cavity aside from heating.

>You're mistaking the mass-media for NASA

You're mistaking "Eagleworks" for "NASA." I have seen nothing from NASA itself, just claims form members of Eagleworks.

>>7235038
Paul March here, NASA does not make errors.

>>7235160
>You don't see a problem with this sequence of events?

Here's what really happened
>test reactionless drive
>disprove possible theory behind it
>still confirm that it works without knowing why it works

>>7235160
>They are passing light through a region with large EM fields. There are known effects which would result in a change of the speed through the cavity aside from heating.

We're talking about a factor of 40 above expected variations

>>7235154
You're quoting an experiment from 2014 with a completely different setup, holy shit

They did three recent tests
>As designed by inventor
>Modified design (Inventor called that design "null test" because that design shouldn't generate thrust if his theory is right)
>ACTUAL control / null test with cavity removed

Results:
>Thrust
>Thrust (thereby falsifying his theory)
>NO thrust

>>7235177
>You're quoting an experiment from 2014 with a completely different setup, holy shit
Yeah, that's the one that's documented.

>They did three recent tests
Are you referring to results published on an Internet forum? Can you please cite the specific page in the thread where Paul March discusses these results? Do they have error bars yet?

But I think you're referring to 2014 results, too, because there were tests of two configurations described in that paper, one of which was similar to what you wrote and had no measurable thrust (whatever that means -- no error bars).

>>7235177
>Here's what really happened
They measured noise.

>We're talking about a factor of 40 above expected variations
From heating of the air. They ignore any effects beyond this single possibility.

>>ACTUAL control / null test with cavity removed

The thing is, surface currents set up in the cavity could easily produce the fictitious thrust through surface currents interacting with the ambient magnetic field. They entirely ignore such possibilities and just go "we measured a tiny thrust that is barely above the noise threshold, therefore we have built a reactionless drive designed on entirely false principles." I will not say that it is impossible the thing works, but it is so unlikely that all the hype around it and how sensationalized this shit is getting is retarded.

>>7235195
>had no measurable thrust
Sorry,
*had no measurable thrust in the null test

>>7235162
Arsenic life.

>>7235214
Paul March here, that was covered up because the arsenoids don't want the general public aware of their existence.

What are the opinions on the actual computer simulation they created?

As far as I can gather it confirms and explains the variations between the chinese and us model

>Dr. White and Dr. Jerry Vera at NASA Eagleworks have just created a new computational code that models the EM Drive’s thrust as a three-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic flow of electron-positron virtual particles.

>These simulations explain why in NASA’s experiments it was necessary to insert a high density polyethylene (HDPE) dielectric into the EM Drive, while the experiments in the UK and China were able to measure thrust without a dielectric insert.

>The code shows two reasons for this: 1) the experiments in the UK and China used (unlike the ones in the US) a magnetron to generate the microwaves and 2) the experiments in the UK and China were performed with much higher input power: up to 2.5 kiloWatts, compared to less than 100 Watts in the US experiments.

>In the US tests, microwave frequency generation was controlled via a voltage-controlled oscillator whose signal was passed to a variable voltage attenuator. The tests performed in the UK and China used, instead, magnetron microwave sources (as used in home-use microwave ovens) for their experiments.

>The magnetron generates amplitude, frequency and phase modulation of the carrier wave (FM modulation bandwidth on the order of +/-20 MHz, at tested natural frequencies of ~2.5 GHz). Dr. White’s computer simulation shows that the modulation generated by the magnetron results in greater thrust force.

>>7235227
please post official links when you post information like that.

>>7235227
oh ok, so by "quantum vacuum thrust" they mean its ticking electronic positron pairs out of the zero energy state and pushing them backwards before they recombine into ambient energy

that's still ridiculous and IF it turns out to be true it'll rock physics like a dingy, but at least its an explanation

>>7235240
So that's not a very likely explanation?

>>7235253
none of them are likely, since they are all based on viewing a closed system (em drive) as an open system.

>>7235202
>The thing is, surface currents set up in the cavity could easily produce the fictitious thrust through surface currents interacting with the ambient magnetic field.

They controlled for that via changes in direction

>>7235253
in current physics doing something like that requires orders of magnitude more energy, and certainly not by way of some microwaves shoved into a cone

if it's legit, there's something really fucking weird going on in there....

and this isnt even counting the supposed space time warp bubble inside, what the hell?

>>7235299
I literally don't understand a word in that model. How legit is it, how much does it look like something they conjured up?

Is it just buzzword technospeak or does it actually make sense?

>>7235299
Paul March here, the microwaves stabilize a Bose-Einstein condensate of virtual gravitons which acts as a seed crystal. The effect then grows exponentially, powered by the dark energy flux.

Fuck the naysayers. I'm going to love it when your precious physics is destroyed within this decade.
>implying that this isn't another case of Einstein ignoring data because it didn't fit his world view

https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/34cq1b/the_facts_as_we_currently_know_them_about_the/

>>7235364
>That whole fucking subreddit
That whole place is just a bunch of gullible fools ignoring what the actual scientists are saying and masturbating to the thoughts of their space opera.
Keep your dick in your pants.
I saw a guy literally get down-voted into the negatives for suggesting that *Maybe* a bit of tempering of expectations might be called for and there probably wasn't a conspiracy of big rocketry trying to silence the EmDrive.

>>7235111
I don't understand how we didn't notice this before. Isn't a microwave just a crappy EMDrive in the first place without the tapering design? What makes an EMDrive different from a microwave?

>>7235442
The EM drive uses a magnetic field to direct particles created by quantum light reacti..oh, shit.

>>7235442

How come we didn't notice this before 20th century?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_tube

Or this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspirator_(pump)

Some things are very simple but not very obvious.

>>7235396
>conspiracy of "big rocketry" scientists
more likely motive; this has basically no valid theoretical basis, it "just works". nothing in physics "just works". at least nothing recently

OP, can you stop posting this shit?

The clever boys here are not smart enough to design and test experiments, like they believe they can. They just like to jerk off to their math puzzles.

They do not know why Eagle works is measuring results which defy current theory. Just wait it out for the experiment to run its course, we will be there sooner than later...

I am a bit concerned that scientists are saying conservation of momentum isn't being conserved and therefore they are doing it wrong, but rather not saying energy is still being conserved but in an unknown way. There is still a ton of science we work upon that we don't have a clue how it works (gravity) and to dismiss multiple tests by multiple people seems illogical to do.

>>7235463
> Just wait it out for the experiment to run its course, we will be there sooner than later...
this
they need to prove beyond any doubt that there is a thrust coming from the device and it is not any anomalous effect

I don't understand why there's such a big fuss about this thing. At the end of the day we're going to figure out if it works, one way or another, even if that means having to strap this thing on to a micro satellite and see if it goes anywhere. There is nothing preventing us from figuring out if this shit works or not no matter what happens.

>>7234301

>>7235477

Well this is the first sign that massless propulsion could ve feasible and people like to speculate on the what ifs. The other is that there is a lot of money to be made (or lost) as research money gets shifted around. Also, combine that with some fairly large egos and look at what you now.

I am glad NASA hasn't released a report yet and is doing more testing. People are getting upset over Eagleworks following the scientific method.

>>7235396
Fuck you

All glory to the EmDrive

Elon for president

>theory sperg status: btfo

So far so good.

>>7234105
Yes.

>>7235472
Conservation of momentum is a very intrinsic part of all of modern physics. To violate it would essentially be to throw out everything and start from scratch. We are not talking about the quantum revolution here, but an actual starting over from nothing to be able to incorporate non-conservation of momentum.

>>7236039
No, people are getting upset over Eagleworks being sensationalist assholes. A better way of approaching this would be "we measured something funny, double check our work," not "we discovered a reactionless drive and warping of spacetime." One is "we found this odd effect, can we make sure it is real" and the other is "OMFG THIS NEGLIGIBLE "SIGNAL" WILL CHANGE EVERYTHING FOREVER EVEN THOUGH NO REPUTABLE LAB HAS REPRODUCED THE RESULTS."

>>7235309
i guess if you assume that e-p pairs can be pulled out of the quantum foam with that little energy, yeah
but that flies in the face of the past 50 years of particle physics

>>7236119
on the upside, the test rig and device are so laughably simple it'll only cost a blowjob and three cigs to reproduce somewhere else

and i'm certain multiple labs are jumping on it right now

>>7236129
The only place I have heard of other labs being interested in it is from members of Eagleworks. I have not seen any other labs even mention these results, let alone express an actual interest in verifying them.

The problem is that Eagleworks has come forward making incredible claims with really shitty evidence to support them. Combine their barely there at all signal with the complete failure of the "theory" (how anyone could take that seriously is beyond me) they were testing, the claim that the thing works make no sense. Everyone in the community is ignoring these fucks because they don't want to get any of the failure on them when it all falls apart, like it did with cold fusion, bubble fusion and superconducting gallium.

>>7235396
>Big rocketry
Jesus Chris, what's with these fucking cucks?

>>7236261
"Big Rocketry" is as good a name for it as anything.

See, the governments of the world don't really want progress in space. They just give lip service to the idea. They want comsats and spysats and ballistic missile tests, with some token gestures toward manned spaceflight, and a lot of excuses to funnel large amounts of money into the right pockets. They don't want asteroid mining and colonization, and the inevitable territory disputes they will bring.

NASA not cracking down on the EM drive bullshit coming out of their own labs shows how they don't actually take space travel seriously. They're okay with making people excited about space today, knowing they'll be disappointed five or ten years from now. It's the same reason they're pushing VASIMR, and also why they pushed the shuttle through even when it became obvious that it could not perform its intended function.

>>7236152
>The only place I have heard of other labs being interested in it is from members of Eagleworks. I have not seen any other labs even mention these results, let alone express an actual interest in verifying them.

Boeing has an EMDrive, that it purchased in 2013.

>>7236327
They acquired it when Shawyer was was making waves and have since dropped it. They haven't said anything I have seen regarding the Eagleworks experiment.

>>7236386
I should add that Shawyer's theory was retarded as fuck and cannot see why anyone would think it could work as it entirely ignores momentum transfer form the tapperred sides, only getting thrust because of approximation error.

>>7236386
>>7236396

Since Boeing Phantomworks never released anything I would say that they just shelved it.

Has the Chinese team released any more since their confirmation?

>>7236320
What you see as the result of a cohesive conspiracy is actually the result of a *lack* of centralized control. When you have dozens of semicompetent or utterly clueless bureaucracies trying to keep sacred cows, secure graft for their friends, or shitcan the whole thing as a waste of public funds, you wind up with 30 year boondoggles like the space shuttle.

>>7236432
I didn't call it a "centralized conspiracy"? Is that what you think it's supposed to mean when you hear of something like "Big Pharma"? This kind of phrase is used to describe various powerful groups pulling more or less in the same direction because they have similar interests, not because they're all meeting in smoke-filled back rooms to coordinate their efforts.

>actually the result of a *lack* of centralized control
Yeah, man. The president and congress are just neglecting the space program. They're not using it to funnel funds to political allies or anything.

>>7236320
>They don't want asteroid mining and colonization, and the inevitable territory disputes they will bring.
idk about this one. I have seen tons of companies that are planning to prospect and mine asteroids. It sounds more like you're full of shit on this one.

>NASA not cracking down on the EM drive bullshit coming out of their own labs shows how they don't actually take space travel seriously.
Except they are, are you retarded? They've been testing it for a while now and you're trying to argue they aren't cracking down on it.

>>7236508
>>the governments of the world don't really want progress in space.
>>They don't want asteroid mining and colonization, and the inevitable territory disputes they will bring.
>idk about this one. I have seen tons of companies that are planning to prospect and mine asteroids.

>>governments
>companies

>They've been testing it for a while now and you're trying to argue they aren't cracking down on it.
What do you think "cracking down" means? Managers at NASA should have prevented these kinds of sensationalistic claims from coming out of their labs. It's very bad for NASA's credibility to be involved in the next cold-fusion-level trash science scandal.

>>7234308
>>7234332
Holy shit you guys are mad.
Take a chill pill, Bill.

>>7236418
>Has the Chinese team released any more since their confirmation?

2012 paper publicly accessible, 2014 paper Chinese only

Resonance experiment on a microwave resonator system
Shi Feng Yang Juan Tang Ming-Jie Luo Li-Tao Wang Yu-Quan
College of Astronautics, Northwestern Polytechnic University, Xi'an 710072, China
Acta Phys. Sinica Vol. 63, No. 15 (2014)

>>7235227
>a three-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic flow of electron-positron virtual particles.
I doubt very much the person coding this understands quantum field theory. The vacuum doesn't literally have particle pairs jumping in and out of existence. Indeed, the vacuum has to be time-independent to gel with special relativity (that is, if the vacuum changes over time by spitting out and eating particles, the theory isn't Lorentz invariant), which is the whole point of particle physics and QFT. One could say QM + SR = QFT, and be essentially correct.

>>7235240
>oh ok, so by "quantum vacuum thrust" they mean its ticking electronic positron pairs out of the zero energy state and pushing them backwards before they recombine into ambient energy
You're making about as much sense as them. That is not how the vacuum works.

>>7236751
You'd be correct for d=1. Besides, there are QFTs where Poincaré invariance is simply untenable.

>>7236463
>They're not using it to funnel funds to political allies or anything.
not much money to funnel. you're better off with military spending for that

>>7236759
exactly, which is the problem. i dont know if they're straight up mislabeling things or working under (strange, baseless) assumptions they aren't telling anyone else about

>>7236751
>being authoritative about theory assumptions

>>7236785
>not much money to funnel
Billions of dollars per year is still a lot of money.

You might look at NASA getting ~$20 billion, and the whole military getting ~$600 billion, and conclude that NASA is chump change. But over $400 billion of the defense funding goes into salaries and operational and maintenance expenses.

When you consider how much real work has to actually get done to keep the military working, you realize that there's only so much gratuitous corporate welfare that can be gotten away with.

NASA, on the other hand, can spend half of its budget on a rocket to nowhere for decades, and still get clowns campaigning for them to be given more money. They don't need to produce results, just token activity, which can be spun as promising in a vague, far-off sort of way. So a large proportion of their money can go straight into the target pockets, as compared to a small proportion of military funding.

>>7236937
alright. feel free to present any evidence at any time aside from "constellation received funding"

>>7236584
>retard thinks governments dont want to colonize space and mine asteroids
>forgets that spacex's biggest customer is the government
>forgets that the government funds asteroid mining companies to advance their technology
>forgets nasa is working on an asteroid retrieval system of their own
never post on /sci/ again please

>It's very bad for NASA's credibility to be involved in the next cold-fusion-level trash science scandal.\
>forgets that NASA has been involved in tons of trash science
>forgets that NASA is respected partially because they test everything including meme drives
heres a better idea, just kill yourself.

>>7236999
>feel free to present any evidence at any time aside from the obvious proof sitting right out in the open of congress earmarking billions of dollars of NASA funding every year for shit that obviously serves no purpose

>>7237046
but that isnt evidence of "funneling money to supporters".
also, good job handwaving all space funding as wasteful, you sound like a person with worthwhile opinions and an eye for future developments.

>>7234801
Paul March on another update. Unfortunately we blew a quantum compressor the other day, and the fitting of new superdense hyperconducting semiconductor scintillators are taking time. The pictures gotta wait a few more days.

>>7237071
>but that isnt evidence of "funneling money to supporters".
You don't have to look very hard at the way the shuttle program and its successor programs, Constellation and SLS, have been run to see that they're primarily about giving money to particular people, rather than accomplishing anything in space.

>good job handwaving all space funding as wasteful
God, you're such a shit. There is nowhere I said that "all space funding" is wasteful.

>>7237185
> They don't need to produce results, just token activity, which can be spun as promising in a vague, far-off sort of way. So a large proportion of their money can go straight into the target pockets, as compared to a small proportion of military funding.

constellation is silly , but you're describing most nasa programs, they take a while, even the simplest probes take decades from inception to launch, and that's sort of the point.

>>7237185
It's less about corruption and more about incentives.
Space spending has been mostly indefensible in Congress ever since the Soviets bailed on the moon race. Consequently, whenever there's a budget crunch, it goes up for a round of spending cuts. The only advocates against this are the representatives with major NASA facilities in their districts. As a result, Congressional funding priorities regarding NASA are as a jobs program first, with space exploration a distant second.

The Shuttle reused a lot of Apollo manufacturing sites and contractors to secure Congressional funding. Constellation/Ares was explicitly designed to preserve Shuttle jobs, and SLS uses a different design to do the same thing.

It's not corruption, per se, just Congress responding to their constituencies who care far more about being employment and taxes than extending mankind's reach into space.

Is the general opinion in the engineering and scientific community that the results and experiments are so flawed that they become trivial? Is this stopping researchers from debunking the emdrive because it's not worth their time/money? How long should I be waiting for this to die?

>>7234105
Odds are 99.9% it's bullshit and that the measured thrust is something inconsequential that somebody overlooked, like the loose fiber optic cable that was giving CERN faster-than-light readings on neutrinos.


... but that 0.1% chance man... even if the FTL shit is bullshit, an ultra-low-reaction drive opens up MASSIVE possibilities. The Space-Age-old problem of taking your fuel with you becomes a non-issue and now all you need is sufficient power - a problem that nuclear fission can already easily overcome.

>>7237331
>and SLS uses a different design to do the same thing.
If by "different design" you mean "literally the Ares IV concept and all the same contractors and specifications".

>>7237412
>fission driven ship putting down a couple hundred megawatts
>all dat powah

>>7237415
My mistake, I thought they'd at least done away with the SRBs like they should have after Challenger.
Fucking ATK.

>>7237455
Yeah ATK's pretty much single-handedly ruined American spaceflight.

The same faggots who literally painted the words "Ares I-X" on the side of an off-shelf booster and called it a prototype are now in charge of building the next generation of American launch vehicles.


Thank christ for commercial space.

Now I know jack shit about the physics of how this works-just a general idea. But have they taken into consideration the idea that the microwaves are somehow interacting with the coper metal, flaking it off and causing thrust?

>>7237448
>One-way trip to Mars using conventional rocketry is estimated at 6-8 months.
>One-way trip to Mars using fission powered VASIMR or EMDRIVE is 4 weeks.
You realize this is how empires starts.

Having the fastest horses allowed the Mongols to conquer two-thirds of the Eurasian continent.
Having the fastest ships allowed England and Spain to colonize the world.
Having the fastest tanks and planes let the Germans march across mainland Europe virtually unchallenged.

Imagine what humanity will be able to do with spaceships that can reach the next nearest planet in a month.

>>7237477
No, as I understand it that's been ruled out.

I would have put my money on it being some kind of coronal effect (like the same effect that allows an ionocraft to generate a small amount of thrust) but apparently they've tested it in a vacuum now and it's giving them the same readings.

If interplanetary flight really is as simple as sticking a copper funnel on the end of a microwave generator I'm going to be simultaneously ecstatic and maybe just a little bit pissed off.

>>7237479
>use superconducting resonating funnels
>+1g acceleration
>reactionless torchships
Make it so.

>>7237484
I'm willing to bet that the first prototype sent on an interplanetary trajectory sputters out on the way there, and since we don't know the exact mechanism it'll take some time to figure out whether it's interacting with Earth's magnetic field or gravity well.

If it works as advertised, though, then we're on for full 1960s era sci-fi, where people are more cost effective for exploration than automated missions.

>>7237541
Assuming negligible relativistic effects, at a constant 1 g acceleration you could accelerate to 1% the speed of light in about 3-4 days.

That's fast enough to make a round-trip to Pluto in about two months.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNESB3yBCAs

>>7237560
Hence why we won't be sending any manned missions until we understand how it works and have done some unmanned tests.

>mfw NASA sets the first EMDrive probe to 10% power only to watch in speechless astonishment as it propels its way to relativistic escape velocity before they manage to shut the engine off.

Dammit I need to stop getting so hyped, it's probably gonna be nothing.

>>7235396
>I saw a guy literally get down-voted into the negatives

>>7237560
>If it works as advertised, though, then we're on for full 1960s era sci-fi, where people are more cost effective for exploration than automated missions.
>>7237575
>>mfw NASA sets the first EMDrive probe to 10% power only to watch in speechless astonishment as it propels its way to relativistic escape velocity before they manage to shut the engine off.

You two stop it. Stop it right now.
My science boner can't take any more

>>7237479
while we're speculating wildly
assuming the minor spacetime warping within the resonance cavity is legit, that means actually warping spacetime is far easier than anyone imagined.....

meaning a legit alcubierre drive is very much feasible, and the best part about one of those is there's no inertia, go full speed your entire journey. fuck 4 weeks, mars in a few hours

>trying to temper excitement
>cant

>>7237598
>legit
I'm sorry I just can't take anyone seriously who uses this stupid word
It's hard enough to give a shit about what a namefag posts to begin with, don't make things harder on yourself by talking like a normie

>>7237612
oh come on broseph dont be all hashtagnotdownwithit

>>7237612
This advice is legit.

>>7237598
Further wild speculation... if it's that fucking easy to warp spacetime, imagine what else we could do.

Forget relativistic travel, forget FTL... if it's really that easy the next step is JUMP DRIVES - Instantaneous travel to locations lightyears away.


We Battlestar now.

>>7237622
>if it's that fucking easy to warp spacetime
Is it though?

I've been wondering what the ratio of power consumption to "thrust" is that they are getting.

For all I know it could take the power consumption of a small city just to get that few micronewtons they've observed

>>7237627
That's why there's as much wild speculation as there is (if you think it's bad on /sci/ you should check out the threads they've had on /pol/ and /tg/ the last week... they're already drawing up plans for The Great and Bountiful Human Empire) - the bottom line is that we have no idea if it works, how it works, what the limits are, etc.

This is as exciting as it gets in physics - striking out into what could potentially turn out to be completely unexplored territory.

>>7237627
700 watts (supposedly) gets you enough warpage to bend a laser beam 40x more than ambient air heating would otherwise do, that's a LOT for a LITTLE

This shit makes no sense, you're telling me microwaves warp space time? If that was true we'd have observed that by now by shinning a laser pointer through a microwave oven or something. Theres no way this thing is legit.

Hope is alright and good. Unless you grasp at straws trying to defend a clear scam,

If we ever do go faster than light or create a reactionless thruster, it won't be because of this tub of blue butter.

>>7237712
>legit
please see >>7237612

also, it doesn't matter if it makes sense to you or not. This is experiment we are talking about, not theory. You're understand of all things will always take a backseat to observation no matter how big your ego is.

>>7237725
>my ego

I'm not the retard claiming radiation we've been able to artificially produce for 80 years suddenly warps space if you put it in a tin can. You're clearly not skeptical enough for real science. As they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and as of yet, there's not much.

>>7237746
>I'm not the retard claiming radiation we've been able to artificially produce for 80 years suddenly warps space if you put it in a tin can
No, you're just the retard claiming that his understanding of things supersedes reality.

>You're clearly not skeptical enough
Stopped reading there since my level of scepticism was never made apparent to you in any of my posts, and if you thought otherwise that was your mistake.

>>7237752
>reality

But it's not reality.

>>7237761
Oh right, I should have known someone like you would tread "things I think in my head" and "reality" as synonyms.

>>7237770
>my head

Oh apparently I created physics according to you. burden of proof is on them, end of story.

Is the inside of the device a vacuum? If not, there's your thrust; escaping heated air.

>>7237775
No shit the burden of proof is on them.

Did you think you were special coming into this thread being shocked that something like this is being taken seriously by people?
Everyone is shocked, and everyone knows the very concept is batshit crazy.

We are discussing the result of an _experiment_ and when it comes to experiment "There's no fucking way lol, I mean come on" is not a valid argument.

>>7237787
Can you shill any harder for quackery?

>>7237803
Nice strawman, ya I'm shilling for it by calling it
>batshit crazy

I can tell you're one of those idiots that are impossible to argue with because you constantly put words in your opponents mouth.

I was just being pedantic and attacking your post for technical reasons. I didn't actually think you were dumb enough to think your brain dictates reality (although the more you keep fighting back the more I question that)

Some people just think they have to disagree with absolutely everthing said by their opponent.

>>7237786
i believe it is
but they tested it in a vacuum chamber and saw the same thrust, so that's not it
and that still doesnt explain the laser beam bending

>>7237786

The last test they did was in a vacuum and it still produced thrust. The next test will be more powerful, will also be in a vacuum, and will test to see if a warp field is being generated.

>>7237746

I was just like you, but it is hard to argue against 4 tests by 3 different teams that show the same results. I think the next test will hopefully give more clarity on what is going on.

>>7237833
when is dat test doe

>>7237833
Have they announced that they are doing further testing? I thought that the emdrive wasn't taken seriously, judging by /sci/'s reaction.

So.... It's a conical metal cavity with a permissive dialectric on one end with a microwave oven hooked up to it....

...With some well known mathmatics to shape it so that it forms standing waves/resonance in the cavity....

.... Why aren't more people building these things to test them out?

I mean, jesus, is the high-Q requirement that hard?

Are there no electrical engineers out there?

>>7236751
>The vacuum doesn't literally have particle pairs jumping in and out of existence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

Uh....

>>7236937
>the whole military getting ~$600 billion, and conclude that NASA is chump change. But over $400 billion of the defense funding goes into salaries and operational and maintenance expenses.

... Where the FUCK does $200 billion dollars go that isn't covered by

* Salaries
* Maintenence
* Operational

The rest is what? Litigation? If paying people, paying for things, and paying to DO things doesn't cover the entire budget..... wtf?

>>7237845
No... Harold White, who works at NASA is taking it pretty seriously .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_G._White_%28NASA%29

He's also a bit of a nut, but a nut paid by NASA to test nuts.

Shunting the matter-antimatter reaction assembly through the plasma distribution manifold should work but you'd have to rotate interferometric shield harmonics to a modulating EM band or you'll overload the primary power stabilizer.

So this thing with solar panels gives you practically infinite delta-v? What's the catch?

pic unrelated

>>7237933
What is building and researching things

>>7237963
if you go too far from the sun you wont actually get any delta-v

>>7237938
People should realize that Harold White is not a nut. White is perfectly aware that these tests (the em or q drive and the warp bubble) can only possibly work if the universe works in a very specific way, and he has made explicit these assumptions in mathematical models in previous papers.

see:
>A Discussion of Space-Time Metric Engineering, 2003
>Alcubierre Warp Drive in Higher Dimensional Spacetime, 2006
>Warp Field Mechanics 101, 2011
>Warp Field Mechanics 102, 2012


These are home-run experiments that make assumptions about the universe that we have no business making (but have not been ruled out already), but the physicists know that, and that is the type of thing that Eagleworks Labs is supposed to be doing.

>>7234304
Please, you have to reverse the polarity of the jellybaby neutron flow, trilithium is sssooooo 90s

>>7237933
>Where the FUCK does $200 billion dollars go

mostly veterans' benefits such as the VA, GI Bill, damages, etc

>>7237836
>same results
>1 = 1000

I swear to god if this turns out to actually work for spacecraft, I might not end up killing myself when I'm 30 years old.
>>7238092
I pray that you are wrong in casually dismissing the emdrive.

>>7234322

> I swear to god if this turns out to actually work for spacecraft, I might not end up killing myself when I'm 30 years old.

This.

>>7237978
Nuclear power

>>7238182
who are you quoting?

So this is basically a radiation powered thruster?
Radiation being reflected on a surface generates force on the surface.
Because of the angle the net force goes outwards.

Is that roughly how it work? Could I make something like it at home(doubt I could prove it actually works though) by using a microwave?

>>7238224
No, because what you're explaining would be an _external_ light source imparting energy onto a surface by shining light on it.

This is more like a person lifting himself up by his bootstraps
so you can see why people find it so hard to swallow. There's a very good chance there is some error. However until a source of error is found we just have to accept that it might be possible.

>>7238230
But you're producing EM in a closed system and radiating that in one direction(losing energy in the process)
That wouldn't really be breaking any laws
Then again I'm more of a solid mass and force guy, and have no idea what applies to EM waves

>>7238235
But as you said, ideally it's a closed system.

A closed system cannot (according to our current understanding) spontaneously change its own momentum without the aid of something external
The radiation is all contained I think, it's not leaving the container.
Or at least if any is leaking out it isn't enough to account for the thrust (at least I'm assuming they tested for any radiation leaving the container, it's the first thing any half competent scientist would have checked for)

>>7238240
>The radiation is all contained I think, it's not leaving the container.
Got a source on that?
I kinda assumed that it worked by "expellling" em waves.
If true that explains why people are skeptical.

>>7238143
how long have you waited to use that gif?

>>7238243
Honestly I haven't looked at any real detailed technical explanations of how it works, so I don't have a link to anything I would confidently say is "credible" right now, but I was just reading one of the first things I found on google here:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ethansiegel/2015/05/04/no-nasa-did-not-accidentally-invent-warp-drive/
>there’s a hollow device that is pumped full of energy, of electromagnetic (microwave) radiation in particular. This radiation reflects back-and-forth in the cavity, and then — via some unknown mechanism – generates thrust, causing the device to accelerate forward in one direction over another

and as I said, the idea that radiation leaking out of the container could cause the thrust is such an obvious one I can almost guarantee you that they've tested for it and found nothing relevant enough to account for the thrust. I haven't actually read that they did it, but what I'm saying is, if they haven't then someone needs to be fired... out of a canon into the sun.

>2015
>Still believing the thermodynamic jew

>>7238283
Tfw my jews are thermodynamic
0_0

>>7238302
>the laws of the universe dictate that you can not create or destroy jews

>>7234105

>>7238283
>tfw there are people who dosnt want thermodynamics to break

>hurrr relativity is stupid newton is always right

>>7238320
Well it was tested by three independent laboratories and in a hard vacuum I am sure that there are many other tests that can be run however these hard tests have been passed and that means that we have a severe pressure to study this thing hard!

On a related note how many of you are using a phone to upload your posts because if its an iPhone or a samsung galaxy you can type entire post using voice to text that's why my posts are so fast and so long :b

>>7238323
On my phone there is a little symbol that says sym and beside that there is a customizable button but if you hold on the keyboard you can change the button to a microphone and the microphone will be the text to speech :b

>>7238323
>>7238327
phones emit em waves which could cause cancer. but its your life your choice

>>7238329
I know the risks I think I'll take them did you know that cockroaches can get more radioactive resistance the more their generations are exposed to said radiation? Also ninjas in Japan have been known to consume poison in order to gain resistance to it and make their blood poisonous which is why they could carry there poisonous blood to poison the Lords by cutting themselves

>>7237845
>I thought that the emdrive wasn't taken seriously, judging by /sci/'s reaction
It wasn't taken seriously before because the tests in an open air chamber produced a very very small thrust (micronewtons), barely above the noise level for most instrumentation.

... then the vacuum tests got a similar result and the chuckling died down a little bit.

It's still 99.999% likely to be bullshit, but it's promising enough to pique our interest and inspire some people to hold out for that 0.001%

>>7238313

>tfw hu mans pretending they have a warp drive
>no first contacts

>>7238313

>>7238323
What sort of ultimate fagtron would speak 4chan posts out loud in public
>inb4 not in public
what sort of faggot doesn't use a desktop PC or laptop when not in public

>>7238342
you are just jelly i dont need to type on a keyboard like an neanderthal

>>7238340

>>7238346
oh yeah?
Let's see you type this f8(J]Dfa%l;jfkl;

That's what I thought

>>7238352
>f8(J]Dfa%l;jfkl;

>>7238353
oh bravo, I bet you think you're real fucking clever right about now

>>7238346

>>7237833
i said INSIDE the device itself. Is their air inside the chamber?

>>7237787
You are not discussing the results of an experiment, what is being discussed are claims advanced by the author which are largely absent within the data set. Is there a thrust? Maybe, but the signal is far to weak for the investigators to seriously claim to have demonstrated a reactionaless drive, especially given that they are claiming to violate conservation of momentum. Is there warping of spacetime within the device? Without a reliable write up of the thing, no one outside of the investigators has sufficient information to actually say anything meaningful. That such was not produced before the "results" were publicly released is suspicious. Given their previous claim regarding the thrust measurement, I do not buy it. The investigators are not reliable.

Prepare for the big dogs test
Nasa wants a go at running it in a vacuum

http://mobile.extremetech.com/latest/223125-controversial-quantum-em-drive-gets-real-nasa-testing-lives-to-fight-another-day?origref=http:%2F%2Fwww.google.ie%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Demdrive%26tbm%3Dnws%26prmd%3Divnsp%26source%3Dlnms

>>7238591
The real nasa
Not just eagleworks and nasa forum

>>7238571
NASA may not know how the thing produces thrust, but in its own words, “NASA Eagleworks has now nullified the prevailing hypothesis that thrust measurements were due to thermal convection.” Eagleworks doesn’t necessarily speak with the unified voice of the NASA establishment, but it’s a high-enough profile platform that the mainstream media was forced to take notice.

That means air was no problem :b

>>7238593
I see nothing that suggests anyone outside of Eagleworks is taking this seriously at the moment.

>>7238609
>but it’s a high-enough profile platform that the mainstream media was forced to take notice.
Science by press release has a rather bad history of resulting in complete failures and significant loss of credibility. I don't expect anyone outside of Eagleworks to touch this thing in order to avoid what looks like some serious impending fall out.

>>7238622
This is good puts them under pressure!!

"The ultimate goal is to find out whether it is possible for a spacecraft traveling at conventional speeds to achieve effective superluminal speed by contracting space in front of it and expanding space behind it."

Propulsion (excreting mass) is Neanderthal technology that will never lead to meaningful space travel.

>>7238763

>>7238763
Nigga that's the thing about this
It doesn't leave mass behind to propel itself.

>>7238775
It does but its virtual electron/positron pair mass which, while tiny, is in sufficient volume to produce *some* thrust

>>7238774

More like /x/

>>7238831
Did you enlarge the image?

>>7234105
what happens when you got FTL and hit an object or a small molecule?

>>7234190
Yes, yes they did. Their early experiments with airfoil shape and full gliders all point to demonstrated knowledge of basic fluid mechanics (thrust / drag / lift). These experiments were well established in writing during development. Most of the "flight" technology was already developed and understood at the time.

Their main challenge to powered flight was getting weight down and thrust up given the era of technology they were working within.

>>7238939
Paul Blart here, please come see my movie

>>7238336
It's very awkward when the control run with a different geometric of the resonance cavity also generates thrust.

>>7237928
>go around collecting large amounts of copper around my city
>after 5 months i finally have enough material
>giant scrapyard of wire, copper tubing and gutted refrigerators in my front lawn
>smelt it all down, craft my conical space time warping propulsion less electricity consuming high tech microwave powered meme drive
>hook up an array of assorted different models sizes and power ratings of microwaves
>entire neighborhood thinks i'm a fucking nutjob, front lawn is the eyesore of the neighborhood and the local dindus lawns look better than mine
>fuck the haters i'm going to space
>turn on meme drive
>neighbor kid comes over to check it out
>he gets caught in the space time distortion from the 1990's microwaves & giant heap of metal
>his fucking head starts twisting around and looking all fucky
>he starts screaming cries of pain and his parents come running to kill me (as stated before they already hate me)
>fuck this it's go time
>saddle up on meme drive
>MAX WARP ENGAGE
>meme drive thrust increases exponentially
>crashes into house 2 blocks down, killing family of 4
>neighbor kid was horribly disfigured, his body contorted by the effects of warping space time, dies in the hospital a few days later
>I've finally done it
>i'm the savior of the human race
>you're welcome nasa

>>7234105

I hope its not bullshit
I really hope

>>7234105

Should I trust anons in a imageboard or scientific papers?

>>7239115
That's been my thoughts on /sci/s threads this entire time. I'd rather trust NASA and the 3 independent labs than some retards on 4chan.

>>7239118
Desensitized, they've heard all this kind of speculation shit before, doesn't discredit the hype.

>>7238775
>propel itself

It doesn't 'propel', it transitions.
Zero time, folded space.

>tfw born just in time to see humanity reaching for the stars, for real.

If one thing in this shitty life gotta be real
This shit gotta be it

>>7239126
You're confusing the EM drive and the warp drive.
Working theory for EM drive is still QV thrust, not spacetime compression.

The warp interferomenter experiment is a modified EM drive, but still a separate experiment with less evidence so far.

>>7237592
>My science boner can't take any more

We need independent confirmation, and a working prototype in space.

>>7238939

You don't, you project a magnetic field and bore your way through the rarefied medium of particulate matter in space

>>7239143
If it works Imma be the first one off this shithole

yeah but guys

what about aliens

>>7239197
>confusing the EM drive and the warp drive

That may well be, but "..achieve effective superluminal speed by contracting space in front of it and expanding space behind it." is an excerpt from www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive

You cannot 'achieve effective superluminal speed' using any type of propulsion whatsoever.

Guys I just had a thought....

>>7237928
>.... Why aren't more people building these things to test them out?
Proper testing conditions and measuring devices ain't cheap m8

>>7237928

What would you do with it? I have no application for micronewton magnitude thrust. I don't live in the vacuum of space.

****************************************************************

Am I the only person on this planet who actually fucking read the papers (not even a formal publication lol). They tested the EM drive along with a thing designed NOT to produce thrust (e.g. a brick). The brick produced the same amount of thrust as the EM drive.

****************************************************************

>>7239258
Cmon dude, some people need something to believe in so they have the strength to live another day

>>7239258 stop spreading this bullshit, what are you referring to was the "null" test (which is not the same as "control" test). Null test = Cannae Drive with a certain part removed (making it more like EmDrive). Cannae Drive and Nulled Cannae Drive produced the same trust, control didn't.

>>7239258
As designed, the null test only falsified Shawyer's hypothesis for the mechanism of thrust. It wasn't a brick, just a modification of the design that, according to Shawyer, should not produce thrust. Since then, White has produced a different model to explain the thrust - assuming it's not a persistent instrumentation/experimental error.

>>7239233
Doubt it, germans couldn't into microwaves back then

>>7239269
This, it means all the people who have built the drive still have no idea of how it works or what they're doing
They real control was like a EM Drive without the tapered end, just a rectangle of copper with a magnetron strapped on, it produced no thrust as expected

It Cannae Drive, captain!

>>7239258

As was said many times in this thread and elsewhere, you fucking idiot, the null test was not a control test. The control test produced no thrust. The null test wouldn't have produced thrust if the inventor's idea of how the thrust was produced was accurate, but since it DID produce thrust, his theory of WHY it produced thrust was wrong.

These things are producing thrust, but no one is quite yet sure why or how.

if it's still showing promise after further testing, i'm going to make several of these and make a flying gokart, i swear to god

>>7239295

>>7239295

>Not making a gyroscopic frame for a singular, powerful Emdrive attached where the normal engine of a motorbike would go.

Step up.

>>7239295
ignore tripfag and his reddit humor

>>7239295

You realise 100 micronewtons is basically negligible right

It could lift a tiny fraction of a gram

>>7239278
>build device to test theory for reactionless thrust
>disprove theory by showing a generic waveguide produces equivalent thrust
>claim to have reactionless thrust anyways

We are talking about people that couldn't see that Shawyer's "theory" was nothing more than approximation error claiming to have proven that Shawyer's designs work while simultaneously disproving them. Making matters worse, their "evidence" is a thrust at the noise level of their measuring device. Their claims regarding the thrust are unreliable and the interferometry are not accompanied by any sort of write up and were simply announced to the public with little technical analysis. These guys are appearing shady as fuck to anyone with a knowledge of the history of science scams.

>>7239314
single thrust source on a gimbal would be kind of unstable.
it'd be better to basically make a big tricopter and use an out of the box tricopter control board to modulate thrust to keep balance

speaking of, tricopters are this amazing halfway point between fixed wing and quadrotor, they make really beautiful, organic motions through the air

>>7239329
never said it wouldnt be tethered, and this is assuming their claims of using superconductors in the construction to boost the thrust pan out, need a lot of liquid nitrogen flowing around

> claiming to have proven that Shawyer's designs work while simultaneously disproving them

They disproved CannaeDrive theory, you idiot. EmDrive behaves as predicted by Shawyer.

So whats the chance this works and NASA don't just poke a huge hole in everything

>>7239336
You need liquid helium for superconductions which can actually be used.

>>7239367
i thought there were a couple mediocre ones that activated near liquid nitrogen temperatures, the ones you always see on those magnetic track demos

or are they not so much "mediocre" as "basically useless for real work"?

>>7239295
This... if it's simple a matter of ramping up power I'm going to live the dream and build a working, replica imperial speeder bike.

>>7239357
From Shawyer's write up, a tapered waveguide will produce thrust because one end is smaller than the other resulting in an uneven transfer of momentum to each end cap, but this only works if you ignore momentum transfer parallel/antiparallell to the direction of thrust arising from collisions with the tapered sides, hence why I call his entire theory nothing bu an approximation error. Eagleworks claims to have explicitly disproved this retarded assertion by showing that a waveguide with parallel sides will produce thrust on the same order as the tapered device. They claim this proves that a reactionless drive works despite their measured thrust being at the noise level of their device. Claiming to have shown that a reactionless drive works from such results is what retards or sensationlists do.

WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS THING EJECTING

I NEED TO KNOW FOR SCI-FI PURPOSES

>>7239399

magnets

>>7239332
Message board discussions are not "announced to the public". Blame the media for getting hyped, and people in general for wanting to believe the universe is less shitty than we've been taught.

With that out of the way, you're overstating the ambiguities of the experiment and assuming malice or incompetence before the results are up for peer review. I think most people here are aware that the results are likely an experimental error, but the experiment isn't over yet. Eagleworks continues to eliminate potential sources of false positives. The sensible choice for discussion, if you're concerned about maintaining your reputation among your peers, is to reserve comment until full results are published.

We're on 4chan, though. We're anonymous fucktards with no reputation to maintain, and it's more fun to discuss the implications of the experimental data being entirely accurate than it is to wank off over some math problems while waiting for the professionals to give us 100% confirmation.

>>7239406
Wait, so this is actually that one troll science thing?

>>7239399

What does "reactionless" mean to you

>>7239383
ok that's really fucking dangerous please don't do that

that said, this shit works exactly like repulsor lifts in the star wars universe

>>7239419
WHAT DOES "BULLSHIT" MEAN TO YOU

>>7239407
This. We're all anons here, so why not have a little fun with ridiculous speculation?


Here's something I haven't seen anyone suggest yet - if this proves viable, could it be employed as a nearly-autonomous method for relocating resource rich asteroids to Lagrange points or convenient orbits or deflecting potential impactors?

I've seen the idea of using an ion engine like VASIMR to accomplish a similar goal but the big issue is always fuel. If fuel isn't an issue, only power, then conceivably all you need is an engine and some solar cells or an RTG.

How do we know this thing doesn't create Warp tears in which demons can spill out from?

>>7239399
It ionizes plasma momentarily ejected out of quantum foam, or some such configuration of buzzwords above my pay grade.

>>7239386
>noise level of the device; +-9micronewtons
>lowest measured thrust; 88 micronewtons
read the paper please

>>7239424
Fuck you! I want to feel the wind in my hair as I bullseye womprats at 60 mph 6 ft above the ground!

>>7239427
you are indeed correct, but autonomous asteroid control is (understandably) a really worrying prospect for most people

>>7239430
So it ejects shaving cream?

>>7239437
you're going to bullseye your dick at 60 mph INTO the ground.
did you see how many stormtropper mooks slammed into trees on those things?

ITT:

>"But -" Hermione said. "Okay, I see why Lucius Malfoy doesn't want anyone to think that Fawkes matters, but why does anyone who isn't a bad guy believe it?"

>Harry Potter gave a little shrug. His spoon dropped back into his cereal, and went on stirring without a pause. "Why does any kind of cynicism appeal to people? Because it seems like a mark of maturity, of sophistication, like you've seen everything and know better. Or because putting something down feels like pushing yourself up. Or they don't have a phoenix themselves, so their political instinct tells them there's no advantage to be gained from saying nice things about phoenixes. Or because being cynical feels like knowing a secret truth that common people don't know..." Harry Potter looked in the direction of the Head Table, and his voice dropped until it was almost a whisper. "I think maybe that's what he's getting wrong - that he's cynical about everything else, but not about cynicism itself."

>>7239429
>not wanting to live to see humanity unite under the Human Imperium and wage a holy crusade against interdimensional hellspawn.

It's like you're ashamed to embrace that which makes you human.

>>7239440
Yes. Look for new Gillette™ LightSpeed™ razors on store shelves next quarter!

>>7239439
I'm sure by the time we're mining asteroids we'll have planetary defense systems to shoot the shit out of terrorist meteors.

>>7239446
>>7239446

>>7239443
Duh, that's why you fly it through the desert or prairies or on the highway instead of through a fucking redwood forest.

>>7239444
>that he's cynical about everything else, but not about cynicism itself.

>someone actually wrote this and thought it was an intelligent observation

>>7239439
It's no different from NASA's planned (but, as always, unfunded) asteroid redirect mission.

Not needing propellant would just allow more missions or a larger asteroid on the same budget.

>all this buttblast over the Em drive

Just keep investigating and see where it leads. Nothing is lost looking for new propulsion systems.

>>7239440
Not just shaving cream... QUANTUM shaving cream!

The "quantum" part makes it look cooler... like flames or a racing stripe.

Are Newtonfags the feminists of quantum physics?

>>7239459
That part is actually unrelated and talking about a different character, I shouldn't have included it. The point stands. People do not *not* actually believe in the EM drive results, they just want to think they are the best and the smartest.

>>7239312
Never in my life i have seen a better scenario to post this image.

>>7239479
>People do not *not* actually believe in the EM drive results, they just want to think they are the best and the smartest.
No, people are just doing the sensible thing - assuming it's probably an experimental error, but waiting until more data is available, and having some shits and giggles speculating in the meantime.

>>7239464
actually this ain't just a ship propulsion system, literally everything is made better by this technology

it's like a new wheel, whoever was even remotely involved in the discovery (if it has any uses) is going to get a nobel

>>7238329
>non ionizing radiation causing cancer
m8...

>>7239489
Oh yeah, that's what I'm doing too, I'm specifically referring to the assholes in the first part of the thread saying the null test was a control test and shit like that.

>>7239427
These sorts of mission profiles would undoubtedly be assisted by a reactionless drive. It might be more interesting, though, to consider what kind of missions that have not yet been considered would become economically viable after a 60% decrease in required payload mass (due to em drive) concurrent with Elon Musk's estimated 75% reduction in launch cost from reusable rockets.

Add to that the removal of the need to wait for a low-energy launch window, and suddenly Planetary Resources and Golden Spike may actually have a profitable business model mining Phobos for water and selling it to the ISS.

>>7239464
lots of folks on /sci/ dislike baseless and wild sci-fi speculation, and rightly so.
but its so fun :(

>>7239464
>buttblast

You may be on to something. Could a butthurt engine be a thing?

I just need to know if this purpulsion system will be theisable to be used on Earth, this assuming that this form of purpulsion is real. If it is, I am building my own flying cart.

>>7239431
While it is nice to know what thrust a resistive load produces, the fact that it is so close to the "signal" keeps the claim at the same retard levels. They can at best say "We found something that requires further investigation," not shouting from the mountaintops "WE HAVE PROVEN THE REACTIONLESS DRIVE!" Furthermore, there is a complete lack of meaningful error analysis. They give no variances and only hold up the "9 micronewtons under a resistive load" as a reason to believe their results are meaningful. Entirely lacking such an analysis makes them suspect or retarded. I am inclined to believe the later given they actually thought Shawyer's theory might hold some water.

>>7239512
it will
it isn't a vacuum only system, IF IT WORKS

it worked in regular earth conditions, so just make it bigger, put solar panels on top, and make your own giant hoverboard

>>7239496
Fuck *mining* Phobos.

Get a hundred thousand of the little fuckers and CRASH it.

Phobos has the lowest albedo of any large object in our solar system (that we know about). Cut it's orbital radius enough for tidal effects to rip it apart and watch as bits of Phobos paint a dark stripe across the planet a couple dozen kilometers wide - greatly increasing Mars's heat retention and triggering a greenhouse effect that'll melt the polar caps.

>>7239523
>2015
>the year hoverboards and flying cars become feasible
My god... Back to the Future II was right all along!

>>7239530
Still no self-adjusting Nikes though

>>7239370
There are but they're very difficult to make and just about impossible to work with for manufacturing.

There needs to be a clear difference between the EM Drive thrust and the warp bubble inside stuff, which is much more dubious.

>>7239535
That's only because a down-on-his-luck shoe designer at Nike stole Doc Brown's DeLorean, traveled to 2015, stole the idea, and went back to the 90s to invent the vastly inferior Air Jordans.

>yfw it turns out to be completely real and FTL is now possible

>>7238047
>you will never get paid to dream up crackpot physics theories and put them through the wringer

This is not an FTL system, but this will be big if it is true.

>>7237592
>>7237575
>>7239512

I don't think you guys understand what a warp drive means. Warping Spacetime doesn't mean just warping space - you're warping time. Which means you can fucking *rotate* your light-cone.

>http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=m5oie3722j9uqf9vsrs9vrbc40&topic=36313.msg1362206#msg1362206

It's a fucking time machine.

>>7239571
How big? Smartphone big? Personal Computer big? Lightbulb big? Electricity big? Newton big?

>>7239572
The fuck is a light cone?

>>7239578
Wheel big.

>>7239587
Elaborate please.

hopefully they're not fucking around with false vacuum without knowing it. having our universe destroyed just because we want real space drives would be really unfortunate.

>>7239592
This generates force with electricity without reacting on anything. Just think of how many mechanical inventions it would improve.

Spoiler: it's all of them.

>>7239572
Wait, I was under the impression that this was a perpulsion system, this is a whole new can of worms.

Reading further, there are reports of this engine distorting light.

>>7239578
Steam engine big.

>>7239572
Not exactly.

Warping spacetime allows you work around the limits of spacetime invariance but there's nothing about Alcubierre's theory or the subsequent work that's been done on it that suggests such a field could actually reverse your direction in time.

It WOULD however make shit like the Picard Maneuver possible (warp closer to a target faster-than-light and make it appear as though there's multiple ships until the light catches up).

>>7239587
>Wheel big.
... dude.

>>7239572
With complex equations you have real solutions and imaginary solutions. The imaginary solutions don't real. There are also stable and unstable solutions.

Don't believe everything a mathematical approximation tells you.

>>7239622
>The imaginary solutions don't real.
Actually in most cases the imaginary solutions correspond to damping or growth rates.

>>7239598
If destroying the universe was as easy as putting a metal lampshade inside a microwave then the universe deserves to be destroyed.

>>7239572
Its isnt really. If going by that forum post it just would potentially make looking in time possible >>7239609
Same fucking thing, read the link

>>7239285
heh

>>7239523
>>7239530
I did my best

>>7239628
What if that's the answer to the Fermi Paradox?
Any sufficiently advanced species will inevitably get bored and microwave metal stuff even though the manual says not to.

If it works (IF...)

It could be useful as a reusable probe delivery vehicle. Put in space, use it to ferry probes to their destination, return, repeat.

>>7239530

Call me when they invent pizza that starts out as really small pizza but then becomes regular size pizza

>>7239459
JK Rowling for ya

>>7239644
FUCKING SAVED

>>7239644
I came with the intensity of 1000 exploding deathstars

>>7239653
The solution to the fermi paradox seems to be that they invent reactionless drives and infinite energy and do whatever they want fairly peacefully because well fed people are peaceful to each other. You have everything you could ever want, why attack or steal?

Plus they wouldn't be detectable. No energetic drive plumes, no dyson spheres, just little sundivers zipping through the black until the novelties of the universe themselves are boring.

>>7239644
Get excited....
Get real excited
REALLY REALLY FUCKING EXCITED
420 BLAZE
360 NOSCOPE
420 PRAISE IT
ALLAHUAKBAR
LOOMINAUGHTY CUMFURMED
SHITS REAL
GOTTA GO FAST
THE MOTHER FUCKING UNIVERSE TOOK AWAY FROM US LENARD NEMOY AND WE TOOK FROM THE UNIVERSE THE MOTHER FUCKING EMDRIVE
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIET
SMOKE WEED EVERYDAY!!!
I FEEL
ITS

REAAAAAAL!!!!

>>7239654
The NASA device already has the equivalent thrust/weight and energy efficiency of a Hall thruster and uses no propellent.

Its light enough you can just put one on every probe. Plus you have unlimited delta v so a probe could fly out and then come back or go somewhere else at will.

You could have grand Tour probe races where the probe has to visit every planet in the solar system and the race would only last a year.

>>7239679
I must be german because I found everything you just said extremely engineeringly arousing

>>7239644
Top kek

DO YOU BELIEVE IN MIRACLES

>>7239692
I beleive
I BELEIVE !!!

>>7239644 you forgot the cooling system

One problem is that solar panels degrade.

>>7239726
RTGs

>>7239724
Is this how it works?

What if there's no sun?

>>7239563
>nasa's budget triples overnight

who am i kidding, that'll NEVER happen

>>7239618
this ends up in everything with an odd-off switch, in some capacity, within a hundred years

What would be the best design for a flying machine using these thrusters? I was leaning more towards a streamlined design to minimize turbulance and the possiblity of the machine spinning out of control vertically if there was an updraft or downdraft.

>>7239894
You're not going to use one of these for atmospheric flight. Thrust-to-weight ratio is too low, and to get any decent amount of thrust you need a nuclear reactor. A reactionless drive is not antigravity.

>>7239904
I am not saying that it is an anti-gravity device, I personally think that would be a bad idea. I am perplexed and fascinated by this potential advancement. I guess I let my imagination wander.

>>7239904
We don't know enough to say that definitively. We don't even know how or if it works yet... let alone how its performance can be optimized.

>>7240003
While that's true, the level of performance required as a jet engine replacement exceeds even the most optimistic predictions of the designer.

It's advisable to limit your speculation to at least the proposed limitations of the device, otherwise you're just writing science fiction. Or at least, less hard science fiction than a discussion about the potential applications of the em drive.

>>7240025
>the level of performance required as a jet engine replacement
Since you seem to have read something about the engine's design and limitations
I'm curious if your statement here about "performance" is about the energy requirements. Or are you talking more along the lines of stability?

>>7240025
Fuck caution! It's 2015! I want my goddamn flying car!

>>7240044
I'm going by the quoted maximum energy-thrust conversion of 1 Watt per Newton.

Though I just looked up the numbers for comparison, and it comes out a bit weird. A GE90-115B, mounted on the Boeing 777-300ER, produces 513 kN of thrust and weighs 8,283 kg. An em drive would have to beat that thrust to weight ratio, or be considerably more fuel efficient, to see use in an aircraft.

Assuming 1W/1N in an em drive (optimistic, but I believe White stated that as an achievable maximum), the aircraft needs to consistently generate 513kN of electricity. I find it highly unlikely that anyone is going to allow a nuclear-powered airplane under any circumstances, so I looked up a 500kW diesel generator. An Aggreko 500kW generator weighs 8,155 kg without fuel.

So, my own research disproves my point. A well-optimized em drive (assuming 1W/N is achievable) would offer similar performance to a modern jet engine. What would such a plane look like? That's a bit more boring - probably a 777 with the drives mounted in its two engine pods, and a pair of truck-sized diesel generators taking up space in the cargo bay.

At that point it's an economic optimization problem dependent on fuel efficiency and maintenance cost, but the idea that a reactionless space drive might lead to diesel-powered airliners that perform no differently than modern jets is just bizarre.

>>7240130
well, battery tech is getting better by the day, and this is probably more energy efficient than electric turbines...

> 1 Watt per Newton
> 1 Watt per Newton
> 1 Watt per Newton

>>7240130
*513kW of electricity, not kN.
Also I'm ignoring the weight of the emdrive and any supporting systems, as well as the difficulty of maintaining superconductors aboard a commercial aircraft, but everything is so conjectural about this that a ballpark demonstration should suffice.

I'd think that airliners wouldn't see much change, but the upshot is that a reactionless drive system would provide some real-world basis for Macross-style aerospace fighters that can operate equally well in vacuum or atmosphere.
Assuming you could work out energy generation and storage.

>>7240149
that's be some serious go-juice in space, get a decent fission reactor and you're fucking 1g all over the solar system, choo choo motherfucker

how long does it take to get to mars at 1g assuming accel/decel?

>>7240149
Bear in mind that is 1000 times more efficient than the best experimental results. The Chinese experiment achieved 1 N per kW.

Do I get it correctly that this thing, being an early prototype, already performs better than modern ion thrusters (assuming it's not BS)?

>>7240174
If you believe the Chinese (who have yet to do a vacuum test), then yes. 1 N/kW with no propellant is a good deal better than the 0.06 N/kW you'd get from a Hall-effect thruster.

Actually, even the Nasa experiment shows 0.1N/kW, apparently, so bully for them.

>>7240165
Depends on the exact configuration between Earth and Mars.

Current straight-line distance to Mars is about 2.5 AU (obviously we can't just go in a straight line).

Back of the envelop calculation though puts it at like a week, though. 1 g is some SERIOUS acceleration. Like >>7237566 said, 1 g will get you to 1% light speed in a couple days so you'd be pulling some ridiculous delta-v numbers on your express-trip to Mars.

Better hope your engine doesn't burn out on the halfway point because you'll probably be hitting escape velocity by then.

>>7240183
escape velocity from the solar system? yeah i'd imagine so
>like a week
holy shitballs that's way faster than i was thinking
that puts the jovian system at like, what, a month?

> 1g

that's some flying saucer stuff right there
works in vacuum AND atmosphere
makes no noise
1.1g = instant ssto

>>7240130

Can it leave the atmosphere, unlike a jet engine if it carried its own oxidiser (for when atmosphere is much thinner) and fuel it can produce thrust independent of atmosphere, unlike a jet engine... It might have some pretty good advantages in terms of travel time if it can climb to very high altitudes.

>>7240149
If this is the case, then building a kart with a gas generator with a full tank, with a maximum output of 4500 watts, including the driver, would weigh approximately 285.7 kg. You would have a kart producing at its maximum capacity, 458 kg of thrust.

>>7240193
Not an SSTO, we're talking super super super super best case scenario maybe getting 1G while in deep space.

>>7240233
Maybe if the trip was short enough you could use lithium batteries and capacitors, or a hybrid system for high-altitude efficiency.

Fake as fuck.

>>7238313

>>7239215
so that shit have to be strong, very very strong
and we are at base 1: need more power

>>7240897
By my understanding it's possible the ship wouldn't even have to be travelling that fast.

The key is that the ship itself doesn't need to approach light speed, in local space it can travel slower, but the ship is travelling in a bubble of spacetime which is going near or beyond the speed of light (contracting space in front and expanding in back).

So any particles or radiation that enters the bubble would pose a lower threat to the ship than it would if the ship was actually travelling through space near the speed of light. But I might be wrong about this last part, it's just my understanding

>>7238939
You don't. I don't think you comprehend how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly space is.

When NASA sends objects out beyond the asteroid belt do you know how they plot a course around all the asteroids so as to avoid any collisions?

They don't. Because the space between asteroids is so big that the odds of actually running into anything are (literally) astronomical. And space only becomes more and more empty beyond that. Once you get out into the interstellar medium the density drops down to maybe one ATOM ever cubic centimeter.


A starship with an forward cross section of 100 ft travelling at 1% c would only encounter about 10^15 atoms a second. A ship with a similar cross section would encounter about 10^30 atoms a second in the atmosphere moving at only 1 m/s. So we're not talking a whole lot of drag or collisions. Easily mediated by a field projected out in front of the ship to deflect ionized particles.

>>7240909
can you travel big distance or just small so you wont hit a planet or something? or do we have a scanner to detect planets in an instant?

Is this the largest /sci/ thread of all time?

>>7241146
don't know

im new here
came for th EM Drive

>>7241146
No we've had much much bigger threads.

The Mars Curiosity landing... the Higgs Boson announcement... that time we had a fucking Solvay Conference-level debate over whether you could grill a stake via orbital reentry...


... good times.

>>7241146
>tfw /v/irgin who came to /sci/ for the first time to read about this
>largest thread

Almost chilling

>>7241268
Made me think of this : http://what-if.xkcd.com/28/