EM Drive still chugging on... - Page 5

Roboramma · 26th November 2016, 01:09 AM

I don't see how anything the violates conservation of momentum could work with any interpretation of quantum mechanics.

If conservation of momentum is violated it means very new physics. That would be great, but, let's put it this way: if the pilot wave interpretation allowed for violations of conservation of momentum then it would have been given even less credence than it was/is.

TubbaBlubba · 26th November 2016, 01:44 AM

Originally Posted by Roboramma

I don't see how anything the violates conservation of momentum could work with any interpretation of quantum mechanics.

If conservation of momentum is violated it means very new physics. That would be great, but, let's put it this way: if the pilot wave interpretation allowed for violations of conservation of momentum then it would have been given even less credence than it was/is.

The pilot wave could carry momentum, perhaps inte the vacuum. Seems to mesh well with the QFT treatment of the vacuum as coupled harmonic oscillators of the EM field.

RussDill · 26th November 2016, 03:13 AM

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba

The pilot wave could carry momentum, perhaps inte the vacuum. Seems to mesh well with the QFT treatment of the vacuum as coupled harmonic oscillators of the EM field.

By the same logic, any other element of another QM interpretation could carry momentum. Maybe the wave collapse in copenhagen can carry away momentum. If pilot waves generated by just bouncing some photons around generated momentum, I'd think that type of thing would already turn up in accelerators.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 26th November 2016, 04:27 AM

Originally Posted by RussDill

If that's true, You'd need to be giving them enough energy so that when they recombine, they would emit a pair of photons. These photons would then be the carriers of momentum and you'd likely be at worse efficiency than just a straight photon drive.

I have previously seen one comment suggesting that they'd get better thrust by strapping a lightbulb to the back of the spaceship than they would through the proposed mechanism, although the actual supposed thrust is much greater than a photon drive. I suspect it's really just another variation on "because quantum". Certainly, the only people who actually have expertise in quantum mechanics I've seen talking about it have said that it's nonsense.

Quote:

At least to me, any explanation needs to first explain in what way this is not a free energy device.

To me the first stage is establishing that there's anything more going on than experimental error. Demonstrate that it does work before trying to work out the wheres and whys of how it works and how that can be reconciled with the known laws of physics.

jimbob · 26th November 2016, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Originally Posted by RussDill

If that's true, You'd need to be giving them enough energy so that when they recombine, they would emit a pair of photons. These photons would then be the carriers of momentum and you'd likely be at worse efficiency than just a straight photon drive.

I have previously seen one comment suggesting that they'd get better thrust by strapping a lightbulb to the back of the spaceship than they would through the proposed mechanism, although the actual supposed thrust is much greater than a photon drive. I suspect it's really just another variation on "because quantum". Certainly, the only people who actually have expertise in quantum mechanics I've seen talking about it have said that it's nonsense.

Quote:

At least to me, any explanation needs to first explain in what way this is not a free energy device.

To me the first stage is establishing that there's anything more going on than experimental error. Demonstrate that it does work before trying to work out the wheres and whys of how it works and how that can be reconciled with the known laws of physics.

I think the two are parallel. The fact that if it works, it seems to violate conservation of momentum, means that it is an extraordinary claim that is far more likel to be some overlooked experimental error - for example, this would seem less probable than cold fusion, at a similar stage in the experimental work.

Jrrarglblarg · 26th November 2016, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

The published paper has been annotated with criticisms

Here's one without someone else's leading questions from incredulity, so we can add our own.
http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.B36120

Snopes' conclusion

Quote:

The results of the Eagleworks team’s experiment will no doubt be debated for years to come, as its implementation would open up new frontiers in physics and spaceflight. The fact that they were able to publish their results in a peer-reviewed journal is a great leap forward for the team, but the peer review process does not mean the results are necessarily valid.

http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/25/res...iewed-journal/

Squeegee Beckenheim · 26th November 2016, 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by jimbob

I think the two are parallel. The fact that if it works, it seems to violate conservation of momentum, means that it is an extraordinary claim that is far more likel to be some overlooked experimental error - for example, this would seem less probable than cold fusion, at a similar stage in the experimental work.

If the results were clear and the experiment was carefully controlled and the published paper was detailed in explaining those controls and if it had been replicated in several labs by several teams with the same level of care then it would be harder to say that it couldn't be true because of conservation of momentum and instead be looking to determine how it doesn't violate it, or how it's possible for it to be an exception to it. The mechanism is much less important than whether or not it actually does what is claimed of it. If it doesn't, then there's nothing to explain.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 26th November 2016, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by Jrrarglblarg

Here's one without someone else's leading questions from incredulity, so we can add our own.

I don't really understand what you mean by "questions from incredulity", or how it applies to that critique.

And the original paper has already been posted in this thread more than once.

Jrrarglblarg · 26th November 2016, 12:56 PM

I was decrying the quality of the "annotations" in the annotated version. It seems to me not many people responding to the thread have even read the paper. I'm just an overeducated carpenter, it isn't difficult to understand.

From my reading and with other science I know this thing seems like it could be our locomotive to develop the solar system, or it could be the animal magnetism and phlogiston of our time. I don't know yet, obviously, and I'm not willing to plug my ears with fingers and yell "sounds like woo" about the device.

The testing methodology seems sound. My criticism of the criticism annotations stems from my looking at the comments and screening out the utterly insignificant lab-science noobism first, and finding not much else. Questions can be useful, but answers more so.

Jrrarglblarg · 26th November 2016, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

If the results were clear and the experiment was carefully controlled and the published paper was detailed in explaining those controls and if it had been replicated in several labs by several teams with the same level of care then it would be harder to say that it couldn't be true because of conservation of momentum and instead be looking to determine how it doesn't violate it, or how it's possible for it to be an exception to it. The mechanism is much less important than whether or not it actually does what is claimed of it. If it doesn't, then there's nothing to explain.

Exactly. We may be at the point with this gizmo like engineers trying to understand a steam engine without knowing that air contains particles.

The first thing to do is for third parties to replicate the build and try to reproduce the results.

jimbob · 26th November 2016, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

If the results were clear and the experiment was carefully controlled and the published paper was detailed in explaining those controls and if it had been replicated in several labs by several teams with the same level of care then it would be harder to say that it couldn't be true because of conservation of momentum and instead be looking to determine how it doesn't violate it, or how it's possible for it to be an exception to it. The mechanism is much less important than whether or not it actually does what is claimed of it. If it doesn't, then there's nothing to explain.

I don't disagree with your view, but I'd consider the entire history of experimental science as further evidence. Any claimed effect uses a mechanism that violates this, just as when it was announced that neutrinos seemed to be travelling slightly faster than light, that was sufficiently extraordinary that more attention was paid to the experimental method - and a source of error was detected.

If something doesn't overturn the whole of physics, then it needs less verification.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 26th November 2016, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by Jrrarglblarg

The testing methodology seems sound.

This is the issue - it doesn't. Every criticism of the paper says exactly the same thing (and I've read three, and had one in person from my father, who is a physicist who has been called upon to be a peer-reviewer himself) - there's not enough information. There's not enough data points, and there's not enough said about the set-up or the potential sources of error and how they've been mitigated for the results to actually mean anything.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 26th November 2016, 05:30 PM

Originally Posted by jimbob

I don't disagree with your view, but I'd consider the entire history of experimental science as further evidence.

It is evidence. But it doesn't matter. The reason the "violating the speed of light" thing you mention got the publicity it did is precisely because the experiment was done with the care and attention to detail is was. And it's worth noting that in that case the researchers were saying "we're sure we've made an experimental error, but we can't find it so we're publishing what we've got to see what everybody else thinks".

Were these experiments being carried out with that much care and attention to detail you'd have physicists champing at the bit trying to recreate the experiment for themselves, rather than most of them ignoring it and those who aren't saying "it's possible there's something there, I suppose, but this experiment isn't good enough to demonstrate that so it's most likely experimental error".

jimbob · 27th November 2016, 03:30 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

It is evidence. But it doesn't matter. The reason the "violating the speed of light" thing you mention got the publicity it did is precisely because the experiment was done with the care and attention to detail is was. And it's worth noting that in that case the researchers were saying "we're sure we've made an experimental error, but we can't find it so we're publishing what we've got to see what everybody else thinks".

Were these experiments being carried out with that much care and attention to detail you'd have physicists champing at the bit trying to recreate the experiment for themselves, rather than most of them ignoring it and those who aren't saying "it's possible there's something there, I suppose, but this experiment isn't good enough to demonstrate that so it's most likely experimental error".

I think we're in mild agreement. If the neutrino researchers had come up with an unsurprising result, they wouldn't be saying "we're sure there's a mistake in our experimental setup, but we can't find it".

WhatRoughBeast · 29th November 2016, 11:27 AM

In addition to any other objections, I find it odd that no one seems to have picked up on the fact that a working Em drive violates energy conservation, and in a big way.

The heart of the matter is that, if constant power gives constant acceleration, input energy is linear with time, as is velocity, but kinetic energy goes as time squared.

An example: Let's say we have a slightly improved Em drive with an efficiency of 1N/kW. This is installed on a 400 kg vehicle, with a power source which is a 200 kg Cassini-class RTG (5 W/kg) so thrust is 1 N. Acceleration is 1/400, or 2.5 x 10^-3 m/sec^2. After 800,000 seconds (9.26 days) velocity is 2,000 m/sec, so kinetic energy is 800 GJ. By coincidence, total energy input is 1 kW times 800,000, or 800 GJ. But here's where things get hinky. After 1.6 Gsec the velocity is 4,000 m/sec and KE is 3200 GJ. However, the RTG has only produced 1600 GJ, so the vehicle has acquired twice the energy put into the drive. Worse, the effect continues to grow with time, and if it weren't for relativistic effects would continue unchecked.

It's true that this doesn't apply to conventional rockets, reflected in part by the decreasing acceleration produced by a fixed exhaust velocity as velocity increases, with the characteristic limiting factor being the exhaust velocity. However, the equivalent to exhaust velocity for the Em drive has to be c, yet the energy imbalance shows up at much lower velocities. This does not seem at all reasonable. Nor does the prospect of a working perpetual motion machine.

RussDill · 29th November 2016, 12:05 PM

Been mentioned several times on this thread. If you put some of two counter-rotating wheels, you can actually easily extract energy as soon as the rotational velocity passes the break even point.

Steve001 · 7th December 2016, 10:30 AM

The latest, also this article links to a just released NASA paper. http://m.phys.org/news/2016-12-mars-...sses-nasa.html

Dancing David · 7th December 2016, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by Steve001

The latest, also this article links to a just released NASA paper. http://m.phys.org/news/2016-12-mars-...sses-nasa.html

he he

"So, based on my experience, the probability of this holding up under further analysis and testing appears slim. But it's not zero."

3point14 · 16th December 2016, 05:14 AM

A very sensible article - or, at least, it appears to be to my untrained brain.

http://www.sciencealert.com/there-s-...pulsion-expert

LTC8K6 · 16th December 2016, 05:36 AM

Well, Thunderf00t has busted it...

Squeegee Beckenheim · 17th December 2016, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Well, Thunderf00t has busted it...

I just watched the whole video and the only interesting or new part was where he said that with the efficiency reported in the paper that even with a nuclear reactor it'd be at the break-even point with rocket fuel, meaning that rocket fuel is still the better way to go. But since he didn't provide any numbers to back that up, it's not really a useful thing to say.

Solitaire · 27th December 2016, 07:57 AM

Quote:

China claims to have carried out successful test of 'impossible technology'

The hypothetical EmDrive technology operates by emitting microwaves in a cone-shaped
engine. It makes the engine move forward and enact like a propulsion system. What makes
EmDrive more outstanding is its rare propulsion which terminates any rocket fuel requirement.
This technology could aid the astronomers by making space travel extremely swift.
Astronomers take three or more months to reach Mars, and with the help of this technology,
they can reach the Red Planet in just a month's time! Pluto can be reached in 12 years, but
with the help of EmDrive, the distance can be covered within 18 months.

LOL.

Would someone fetch me some ~~dilithium~~ crystals from Folger's planet.

Puppycow · 28th December 2016, 05:38 AM

Originally Posted by Solitaire

LOL.

China claims to have carried out successful test of 'impossible technology'

Quote:

The hypothetical EmDrive technology operates by emitting microwaves in a cone-shaped
engine. It makes the engine move forward and enact like a propulsion system. What makes
EmDrive more outstanding is its rare propulsion which terminates any rocket fuel requirement.
This technology could aid the astronomers by making space travel extremely swift.
Astronomers take three or more months to reach Mars, and with the help of this technology,
they can reach the Red Planet in just a month's time! Pluto can be reached in 12 years, but
with the help of EmDrive, the distance can be covered within 18 months.

Would someone fetch me some ~~dilithium~~ crystals from Folger's planet.

I don't get the part about how it could make space travel extremely swift. My understanding is that if it isn't just some sort of measurement error, the amount of thrust generated is minuscule. You could generate more thrust by exhaling (not that you could do that in space, but just to illustrate how much thrust we are taking about here).

3point14 · 28th December 2016, 05:48 AM

Ignore.

Mark6 · 28th December 2016, 08:37 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

I don't get the part about how it could make space travel extremely swift. My understanding is that if it isn't just some sort of measurement error, the amount of thrust generated is minuscule. You could generate more thrust by exhaling (not that you could do that in space, but just to illustrate how much thrust we are taking about here).

The article you quoted is messed up. Even if EM drive works as described, it will make a difference only for trips to Jupiter and farther, where years of acceleration really add up. To Mars EM drive would take significantly LONGER (although perhaps cheaper) than chemical rockets.

Ion drives suffer from the same tortoise-hare issue: anywhere closer than asteroid belt, bare wins.

Steve001 · 28th December 2016, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

I don't get the part about how it could make space travel extremely swift. My understanding is that if it isn't just some sort of measurement error, the amount of thrust generated is minuscule. You could generate more thrust by exhaling (not that you could do that in space, but just to illustrate how much thrust we are taking about here).

Consider the amount of thrust generated using ion propulsion. Deep Space 1 probe used it. The thrust generated was equal to about one sheet of paper. The Dawn probe took 4 days to go from 0 to 60 miles an hour. Even if the thrust is lower for the E M Drive, over time speed can amount greatly.

Genesius · 28th December 2016, 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

I don't get the part about how it could make space travel extremely swift. My understanding is that if it isn't just some sort of measurement error, the amount of thrust generated is minuscule. You could generate more thrust by exhaling (not that you could do that in space, but just to illustrate how much thrust we are taking about here).

Originally Posted by Steve001

Consider the amount of thrust generated using ion propulsion. Deep Space 1 probe used it. The thrust generated was equal to about one sheet of paper. The Dawn probe took 4 days to go from 0 to 60 miles an hour. Even if the thrust is lower for the E M Drive, over time speed can amount greatly.

Also (assuming for the sake of argument the thing actually works) there's no reason to think the version currently being tested is the most efficient version of the drive. Changing the materials used, the shape of the cavity, or the microwave frequency generated could all result in higher efficiency.

Steve001 · 28th December 2016, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by Genesius

Also (assuming for the sake of argument the thing actually works) there's no reason to think the version currently being tested is the most efficient version of the drive. Changing the materials used, the shape of the cavity, or the microwave frequency generated could all result in higher efficiency.

Perhaps we'll know for sure one day whether this drive is fact or fake.

RussDill · 28th December 2016, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by Genesius

Also (assuming for the sake of argument the thing actually works) there's no reason to think the version currently being tested is the most efficient version of the drive. Changing the materials used, the shape of the cavity, or the microwave frequency generated could all result in higher efficiency.

Thrust per weight might matter in a spacecraft, but it doesn't really matter if you are just using the em drive as a free energy device.

Red Baron Farms · 28th December 2016, 09:14 PM

Originally Posted by Steve001

Perhaps we'll know for sure one day whether this drive is fact or fake.

This is a skeptic forum. So it is acceptable to call it fake/experimental error until there is more evidence to the contrary.

Without new physics, it certainly is impossible. One day maybe we will have new physics like when Einstein surpassed Newton. But it will take something big like that to explain how the drive could even possibly work.

PhantomWolf · 29th December 2016, 12:01 AM

Originally Posted by RussDill

Thrust per weight might matter in a spacecraft, but it doesn't really matter if you are just using the em drive as a free energy device.

You have to supply electrical power to the drive to get your thrust (assuming there is thrust.) The the amount of gained kinetic energy is less than the supplied electrical energy, there you are not getting free energy.

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms

Without new physics, it certainly is impossible. One day maybe we will have new physics like when Einstein surpassed Newton. But it will take something big like that to explain how the drive could even possibly work.

And this might be the observation that makes us go looking. If these three teams are right and there is thrust once they have finally eliminated every possible error, then it has to do it and maintain the laws we already know, that means it's time to start looking for whatever else it is emitting that is taking the energy away and would balance the equations, just as they did with the Neutrino.

RussDill · 29th December 2016, 12:42 AM

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

You have to supply electrical power to the drive to get your thrust (assuming there is thrust.) The the amount of gained kinetic energy is less than the supplied electrical energy, there you are not getting free energy.

The amount of energy you need to add to the em drive to get a specific delta v is constant. 10 m/s to 15 m/s takes just as much time and energy as 15 m/s to 20 m/s. Kinetic energy increases as the square of the velocity. This means that there must be some break even point where the liner graph of expended energy intersects the polynomial graph of stored kinetic energy. Once past that point the energy of the system increases faster than the input energy. Not to mention to mention all the energy bring lost to heat.

BowlOfRed · 29th December 2016, 12:46 AM

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

You have to supply electrical power to the drive to get your thrust (assuming there is thrust.)

Yes.

Quote:

The the amount of gained kinetic energy is less than the supplied electrical energy, there you are not getting free energy.

What enforces such a limit? I should be able to pick a frame in which the engine is providing arbitrarily large amounts of KE.

steenkh · 30th December 2016, 12:37 AM

Originally Posted by BowlOfRed

What enforces such a limit? I should be able to pick a frame in which the engine is providing arbitrarily large amounts of KE.

Physics as we know it enforces such a limit. But it would be nice if free energy existed ...

RussDill · 30th December 2016, 10:25 AM

<tin hat on>The reason the EM drive results have been so small and inconsistent is due to our high rate of speed (and changing rate of speed) in relation to the ether.</>

rwguinn · 31st December 2016, 09:46 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

I don't get the part about how it could make space travel extremely swift. My understanding is that if it isn't just some sort of measurement error, the amount of thrust generated is minuscule. You could generate more thrust by exhaling (not that you could do that in space, but just to illustrate how much thrust we are taking about here).

Originally Posted by Steve001

Consider the amount of thrust generated using ion propulsion. Deep Space 1 probe used it. The thrust generated was equal to about one sheet of paper. The Dawn probe took 4 days to go from 0 to 60 miles an hour. Even if the thrust is lower for the E M Drive, over time speed can amount greatly.

It may make getting there quicker, but staying there becomes problematic. You are going to have to slow down to enter local orbit, in all likelihood, so you only get the benefit for about 1/2-3/4 of the trip

3point14 · 31st December 2016, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by rwguinn

It may make getting there quicker, but staying there becomes problematic. You are going to have to slow down to enter local orbit, in all likelihood, so you only get the benefit for about 1/2-3/4 of the trip

I suspect you'd trust towards the target till you were half way there then away from the target after that.

Steve001 · 1st January 2017, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by rwguinn

It may make getting there quicker, but staying there becomes problematic. You are going to have to slow down to enter local orbit, in all likelihood, so you only get the benefit for about 1/2-3/4 of the trip

Ok Debbie Downer. I'm never invitin' you to any parties.

Beelzebuddy · 3rd January 2017, 09:21 AM

High-mass small-thrust setups aren't suited for hohmann transfers. You won't have one take you to Mars by itself.

What they are suited for is shaving down the rocket equation by shlepping stuff around when it's convenient. You can get by with a much smaller rocket if you can offload most of the dv into an unmanned EM-drive tug (or what have you) that spends years towing your spaceship out to just under Earth escape velocity before you board and go.

3point14 · 3rd January 2017, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

High-mass small-thrust setups aren't suited for hohmann transfers. You won't have one take you to Mars by itself.

What they are suited for is shaving down the rocket equation by shlepping stuff around when it's convenient. You can get by with a much smaller rocket if you can offload most of the dv into an unmanned EM-drive tug (or what have you) that spends years towing your spaceship out to just under Earth escape velocity before you board and go.

So an elliptic orbit? Or a circular one a long way out?

26th November 2016, 01:09 AM	#161
Roboramma Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shanghai Posts: 10,311	I don't see how anything the violates conservation of momentum could work with any interpretation of quantum mechanics. If conservation of momentum is violated it means very new physics. That would be great, but, let's put it this way: if the pilot wave interpretation allowed for violations of conservation of momentum then it would have been given even less credence than it was/is.
	__________________ "... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov

26th November 2016, 01:44 AM	#162
TubbaBlubba Knave of the Dudes Moderator Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 12,499	Originally Posted by Roboramma I don't see how anything the violates conservation of momentum could work with any interpretation of quantum mechanics. If conservation of momentum is violated it means very new physics. That would be great, but, let's put it this way: if the pilot wave interpretation allowed for violations of conservation of momentum then it would have been given even less credence than it was/is. The pilot wave could carry momentum, perhaps inte the vacuum. Seems to mesh well with the QFT treatment of the vacuum as coupled harmonic oscillators of the EM field.
	__________________ "The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy

26th November 2016, 03:13 AM	#163
RussDill Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Charleston Posts: 5,426	Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba The pilot wave could carry momentum, perhaps inte the vacuum. Seems to mesh well with the QFT treatment of the vacuum as coupled harmonic oscillators of the EM field. By the same logic, any other element of another QM interpretation could carry momentum. Maybe the wave collapse in copenhagen can carry away momentum. If pilot waves generated by just bouncing some photons around generated momentum, I'd think that type of thing would already turn up in accelerators.
	__________________ The woods are lovely, dark and deep but i have promises to keep and lines to code before I sleep And lines to code before I sleep

26th November 2016, 04:27 AM	#164
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 18,783	Originally Posted by RussDill If that's true, You'd need to be giving them enough energy so that when they recombine, they would emit a pair of photons. These photons would then be the carriers of momentum and you'd likely be at worse efficiency than just a straight photon drive. I have previously seen one comment suggesting that they'd get better thrust by strapping a lightbulb to the back of the spaceship than they would through the proposed mechanism, although the actual supposed thrust is much greater than a photon drive. I suspect it's really just another variation on "because quantum". Certainly, the only people who actually have expertise in quantum mechanics I've seen talking about it have said that it's nonsense. Quote: At least to me, any explanation needs to first explain in what way this is not a free energy device. To me the first stage is establishing that there's anything more going on than experimental error. Demonstrate that it does work before trying to work out the wheres and whys of how it works and how that can be reconciled with the known laws of physics.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything. Last edited by Squeegee Beckenheim; 26th November 2016 at 04:29 AM.

26th November 2016, 11:41 AM	#165
jimbob Uncritical "thinker" Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: UK Posts: 17,190	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim Originally Posted by RussDill If that's true, You'd need to be giving them enough energy so that when they recombine, they would emit a pair of photons. These photons would then be the carriers of momentum and you'd likely be at worse efficiency than just a straight photon drive. I have previously seen one comment suggesting that they'd get better thrust by strapping a lightbulb to the back of the spaceship than they would through the proposed mechanism, although the actual supposed thrust is much greater than a photon drive. I suspect it's really just another variation on "because quantum". Certainly, the only people who actually have expertise in quantum mechanics I've seen talking about it have said that it's nonsense. Quote: At least to me, any explanation needs to first explain in what way this is not a free energy device. To me the first stage is establishing that there's anything more going on than experimental error. Demonstrate that it does work before trying to work out the wheres and whys of how it works and how that can be reconciled with the known laws of physics. I think the two are parallel. The fact that if it works, it seems to violate conservation of momentum, means that it is an extraordinary claim that is far more likel to be some overlooked experimental error - for example, this would seem less probable than cold fusion, at a similar stage in the experimental work.
	__________________ OECD healthcare spending Expenditure on healthcare http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm link is 2015 data (2013 Data below): UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

26th November 2016, 12:09 PM	#166
Jrrarglblarg Guest Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 12,673	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim The published paper has been annotated with criticisms Here's one without someone else's leading questions from incredulity, so we can add our own. http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.B36120 Snopes' conclusion Quote: The results of the Eagleworks team’s experiment will no doubt be debated for years to come, as its implementation would open up new frontiers in physics and spaceflight. The fact that they were able to publish their results in a peer-reviewed journal is a great leap forward for the team, but the peer review process does not mean the results are necessarily valid. http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/25/res...iewed-journal/
Jrrarglblarg Guest Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 12,673	Last edited by Jrrarglblarg; 26th November 2016 at 12:11 PM.

26th November 2016, 12:25 PM	#167
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 18,783	Originally Posted by jimbob I think the two are parallel. The fact that if it works, it seems to violate conservation of momentum, means that it is an extraordinary claim that is far more likel to be some overlooked experimental error - for example, this would seem less probable than cold fusion, at a similar stage in the experimental work. If the results were clear and the experiment was carefully controlled and the published paper was detailed in explaining those controls and if it had been replicated in several labs by several teams with the same level of care then it would be harder to say that it couldn't be true because of conservation of momentum and instead be looking to determine how it doesn't violate it, or how it's possible for it to be an exception to it. The mechanism is much less important than whether or not it actually does what is claimed of it. If it doesn't, then there's nothing to explain.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

26th November 2016, 12:30 PM	#168
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 18,783	Originally Posted by Jrrarglblarg Here's one without someone else's leading questions from incredulity, so we can add our own. I don't really understand what you mean by "questions from incredulity", or how it applies to that critique. And the original paper has already been posted in this thread more than once.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

26th November 2016, 12:56 PM	#169
Jrrarglblarg Guest Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 12,673	I was decrying the quality of the "annotations" in the annotated version. It seems to me not many people responding to the thread have even read the paper. I'm just an overeducated carpenter, it isn't difficult to understand. From my reading and with other science I know this thing seems like it could be our locomotive to develop the solar system, or it could be the animal magnetism and phlogiston of our time. I don't know yet, obviously, and I'm not willing to plug my ears with fingers and yell "sounds like woo" about the device. The testing methodology seems sound. My criticism of the criticism annotations stems from my looking at the comments and screening out the utterly insignificant lab-science noobism first, and finding not much else. Questions can be useful, but answers more so.
Jrrarglblarg Guest Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 12,673

26th November 2016, 01:01 PM	#170
Jrrarglblarg Guest Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 12,673	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim If the results were clear and the experiment was carefully controlled and the published paper was detailed in explaining those controls and if it had been replicated in several labs by several teams with the same level of care then it would be harder to say that it couldn't be true because of conservation of momentum and instead be looking to determine how it doesn't violate it, or how it's possible for it to be an exception to it. The mechanism is much less important than whether or not it actually does what is claimed of it. If it doesn't, then there's nothing to explain. Exactly. We may be at the point with this gizmo like engineers trying to understand a steam engine without knowing that air contains particles. The first thing to do is for third parties to replicate the build and try to reproduce the results.
Jrrarglblarg Guest Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 12,673

26th November 2016, 01:24 PM	#171
jimbob Uncritical "thinker" Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: UK Posts: 17,190	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim If the results were clear and the experiment was carefully controlled and the published paper was detailed in explaining those controls and if it had been replicated in several labs by several teams with the same level of care then it would be harder to say that it couldn't be true because of conservation of momentum and instead be looking to determine how it doesn't violate it, or how it's possible for it to be an exception to it. The mechanism is much less important than whether or not it actually does what is claimed of it. If it doesn't, then there's nothing to explain. I don't disagree with your view, but I'd consider the entire history of experimental science as further evidence. Any claimed effect uses a mechanism that violates this, just as when it was announced that neutrinos seemed to be travelling slightly faster than light, that was sufficiently extraordinary that more attention was paid to the experimental method - and a source of error was detected. If something doesn't overturn the whole of physics, then it needs less verification.
	__________________ OECD healthcare spending Expenditure on healthcare http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm link is 2015 data (2013 Data below): UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

26th November 2016, 05:23 PM	#172
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 18,783	Originally Posted by Jrrarglblarg The testing methodology seems sound. This is the issue - it doesn't. Every criticism of the paper says exactly the same thing (and I've read three, and had one in person from my father, who is a physicist who has been called upon to be a peer-reviewer himself) - there's not enough information. There's not enough data points, and there's not enough said about the set-up or the potential sources of error and how they've been mitigated for the results to actually mean anything.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

26th November 2016, 05:30 PM	#173
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 18,783	Originally Posted by jimbob I don't disagree with your view, but I'd consider the entire history of experimental science as further evidence. It is evidence. But it doesn't matter. The reason the "violating the speed of light" thing you mention got the publicity it did is precisely because the experiment was done with the care and attention to detail is was. And it's worth noting that in that case the researchers were saying "we're sure we've made an experimental error, but we can't find it so we're publishing what we've got to see what everybody else thinks". Were these experiments being carried out with that much care and attention to detail you'd have physicists champing at the bit trying to recreate the experiment for themselves, rather than most of them ignoring it and those who aren't saying "it's possible there's something there, I suppose, but this experiment isn't good enough to demonstrate that so it's most likely experimental error".
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

27th November 2016, 03:30 AM	#174
jimbob Uncritical "thinker" Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: UK Posts: 17,190	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim It is evidence. But it doesn't matter. The reason the "violating the speed of light" thing you mention got the publicity it did is precisely because the experiment was done with the care and attention to detail is was. And it's worth noting that in that case the researchers were saying "we're sure we've made an experimental error, but we can't find it so we're publishing what we've got to see what everybody else thinks". Were these experiments being carried out with that much care and attention to detail you'd have physicists champing at the bit trying to recreate the experiment for themselves, rather than most of them ignoring it and those who aren't saying "it's possible there's something there, I suppose, but this experiment isn't good enough to demonstrate that so it's most likely experimental error". I think we're in mild agreement. If the neutrino researchers had come up with an unsurprising result, they wouldn't be saying "we're sure there's a mistake in our experimental setup, but we can't find it".
	__________________ OECD healthcare spending Expenditure on healthcare http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm link is 2015 data (2013 Data below): UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

29th November 2016, 11:27 AM	#175
WhatRoughBeast Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 1,257	In addition to any other objections, I find it odd that no one seems to have picked up on the fact that a working Em drive violates energy conservation, and in a big way. The heart of the matter is that, if constant power gives constant acceleration, input energy is linear with time, as is velocity, but kinetic energy goes as time squared. An example: Let's say we have a slightly improved Em drive with an efficiency of 1N/kW. This is installed on a 400 kg vehicle, with a power source which is a 200 kg Cassini-class RTG (5 W/kg) so thrust is 1 N. Acceleration is 1/400, or 2.5 x 10^-3 m/sec^2. After 800,000 seconds (9.26 days) velocity is 2,000 m/sec, so kinetic energy is 800 GJ. By coincidence, total energy input is 1 kW times 800,000, or 800 GJ. But here's where things get hinky. After 1.6 Gsec the velocity is 4,000 m/sec and KE is 3200 GJ. However, the RTG has only produced 1600 GJ, so the vehicle has acquired twice the energy put into the drive. Worse, the effect continues to grow with time, and if it weren't for relativistic effects would continue unchecked. It's true that this doesn't apply to conventional rockets, reflected in part by the decreasing acceleration produced by a fixed exhaust velocity as velocity increases, with the characteristic limiting factor being the exhaust velocity. However, the equivalent to exhaust velocity for the Em drive has to be c, yet the energy imbalance shows up at much lower velocities. This does not seem at all reasonable. Nor does the prospect of a working perpetual motion machine.

29th November 2016, 12:05 PM	#176
RussDill Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Charleston Posts: 5,426	Been mentioned several times on this thread. If you put some of two counter-rotating wheels, you can actually easily extract energy as soon as the rotational velocity passes the break even point.
	__________________ The woods are lovely, dark and deep but i have promises to keep and lines to code before I sleep And lines to code before I sleep

7th December 2016, 10:30 AM	#177
Steve001 Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,300	The latest, also this article links to a just released NASA paper. http://m.phys.org/news/2016-12-mars-...sses-nasa.html

7th December 2016, 02:14 PM	#178
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 39,010	Originally Posted by Steve001 The latest, also this article links to a just released NASA paper. http://m.phys.org/news/2016-12-mars-...sses-nasa.html he he "So, based on my experience, the probability of this holding up under further analysis and testing appears slim. But it's not zero."
	__________________ I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar

16th December 2016, 05:14 AM	#179
3point14 Pi Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 14,446	A very sensible article - or, at least, it appears to be to my untrained brain. http://www.sciencealert.com/there-s-...pulsion-expert
3point14 Pi Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 14,446	__________________ "I am a Jedi, like my father before me" Until such time as it all gets really dark and I abandon my sister and my best friends. When the going gets tough, the tough go hide on an island. Dave Skywalker #Notmyluke

16th December 2016, 05:36 AM	#180
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 19,791	Well, Thunderf00t has busted it...
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

17th December 2016, 03:24 PM	#181
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 18,783	Originally Posted by LTC8K6 Well, Thunderf00t has busted it... I just watched the whole video and the only interesting or new part was where he said that with the efficiency reported in the paper that even with a nuclear reactor it'd be at the break-even point with rocket fuel, meaning that rocket fuel is still the better way to go. But since he didn't provide any numbers to back that up, it's not really a useful thing to say.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

27th December 2016, 07:57 AM	#182
Solitaire Neoclinus blanchardi Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 2,155	Quote: China claims to have carried out successful test of 'impossible technology' The hypothetical EmDrive technology operates by emitting microwaves in a cone-shaped engine. It makes the engine move forward and enact like a propulsion system. What makes EmDrive more outstanding is its rare propulsion which terminates any rocket fuel requirement. This technology could aid the astronomers by making space travel extremely swift. Astronomers take three or more months to reach Mars, and with the help of this technology, they can reach the Red Planet in just a month's time! Pluto can be reached in 12 years, but with the help of EmDrive, the distance can be covered within 18 months. LOL. Would someone fetch me some ~~dilithium~~ crystals from Folger's planet.
	__________________ Be very careful what you put in your head, because you will never get it out again. — Phineas Gage

28th December 2016, 05:38 AM	#183
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 22,755	Originally Posted by Solitaire LOL. China claims to have carried out successful test of 'impossible technology' Quote: The hypothetical EmDrive technology operates by emitting microwaves in a cone-shaped engine. It makes the engine move forward and enact like a propulsion system. What makes EmDrive more outstanding is its rare propulsion which terminates any rocket fuel requirement. This technology could aid the astronomers by making space travel extremely swift. Astronomers take three or more months to reach Mars, and with the help of this technology, they can reach the Red Planet in just a month's time! Pluto can be reached in 12 years, but with the help of EmDrive, the distance can be covered within 18 months. Would someone fetch me some ~~dilithium~~ crystals from Folger's planet. I don't get the part about how it could make space travel extremely swift. My understanding is that if it isn't just some sort of measurement error, the amount of thrust generated is minuscule. You could generate more thrust by exhaling (not that you could do that in space, but just to illustrate how much thrust we are taking about here).
	__________________ A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool. William Shakespeare

28th December 2016, 05:48 AM	#184
3point14 Pi Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 14,446	Ignore.
3point14 Pi Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 14,446	__________________ "I am a Jedi, like my father before me" Until such time as it all gets really dark and I abandon my sister and my best friends. When the going gets tough, the tough go hide on an island. Dave Skywalker #Notmyluke

28th December 2016, 08:37 AM	#185
Mark6 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 6,255	Originally Posted by Puppycow I don't get the part about how it could make space travel extremely swift. My understanding is that if it isn't just some sort of measurement error, the amount of thrust generated is minuscule. You could generate more thrust by exhaling (not that you could do that in space, but just to illustrate how much thrust we are taking about here). The article you quoted is messed up. Even if EM drive works as described, it will make a difference only for trips to Jupiter and farther, where years of acceleration really add up. To Mars EM drive would take significantly LONGER (although perhaps cheaper) than chemical rockets. Ion drives suffer from the same tortoise-hare issue: anywhere closer than asteroid belt, bare wins.
Mark6 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 6,255	__________________ Gamemaster: "A horde of rotting zombies is shambling toward you. The sign over the door says 'Accounting'"

28th December 2016, 08:38 AM	#186
Steve001 Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,300	Originally Posted by Puppycow I don't get the part about how it could make space travel extremely swift. My understanding is that if it isn't just some sort of measurement error, the amount of thrust generated is minuscule. You could generate more thrust by exhaling (not that you could do that in space, but just to illustrate how much thrust we are taking about here). Consider the amount of thrust generated using ion propulsion. Deep Space 1 probe used it. The thrust generated was equal to about one sheet of paper. The Dawn probe took 4 days to go from 0 to 60 miles an hour. Even if the thrust is lower for the E M Drive, over time speed can amount greatly.

28th December 2016, 12:25 PM	#187
Genesius Apathetic Agnostic Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,578	Originally Posted by Puppycow I don't get the part about how it could make space travel extremely swift. My understanding is that if it isn't just some sort of measurement error, the amount of thrust generated is minuscule. You could generate more thrust by exhaling (not that you could do that in space, but just to illustrate how much thrust we are taking about here). Originally Posted by Steve001 Consider the amount of thrust generated using ion propulsion. Deep Space 1 probe used it. The thrust generated was equal to about one sheet of paper. The Dawn probe took 4 days to go from 0 to 60 miles an hour. Even if the thrust is lower for the E M Drive, over time speed can amount greatly. Also (assuming for the sake of argument the thing actually works) there's no reason to think the version currently being tested is the most efficient version of the drive. Changing the materials used, the shape of the cavity, or the microwave frequency generated could all result in higher efficiency.
	__________________ "We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the same extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart." - H. L. Mencken "Why believe in things that make it tough on you?" - Devo, "Love Without Anger"

28th December 2016, 01:31 PM	#188
Steve001 Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,300	Originally Posted by Genesius Also (assuming for the sake of argument the thing actually works) there's no reason to think the version currently being tested is the most efficient version of the drive. Changing the materials used, the shape of the cavity, or the microwave frequency generated could all result in higher efficiency. Perhaps we'll know for sure one day whether this drive is fact or fake.

28th December 2016, 01:48 PM	#189
RussDill Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Charleston Posts: 5,426	Originally Posted by Genesius Also (assuming for the sake of argument the thing actually works) there's no reason to think the version currently being tested is the most efficient version of the drive. Changing the materials used, the shape of the cavity, or the microwave frequency generated could all result in higher efficiency. Thrust per weight might matter in a spacecraft, but it doesn't really matter if you are just using the em drive as a free energy device.
	__________________ The woods are lovely, dark and deep but i have promises to keep and lines to code before I sleep And lines to code before I sleep

28th December 2016, 09:14 PM	#190
Red Baron Farms Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2013 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 4,085	Originally Posted by Steve001 Perhaps we'll know for sure one day whether this drive is fact or fake. This is a skeptic forum. So it is acceptable to call it fake/experimental error until there is more evidence to the contrary. Without new physics, it certainly is impossible. One day maybe we will have new physics like when Einstein surpassed Newton. But it will take something big like that to explain how the drive could even possibly work.
	__________________ Scott "Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison Biome Carbon Cycle Management

29th December 2016, 12:01 AM	#191
PhantomWolf Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 16,879	Originally Posted by RussDill Thrust per weight might matter in a spacecraft, but it doesn't really matter if you are just using the em drive as a free energy device. You have to supply electrical power to the drive to get your thrust (assuming there is thrust.) The the amount of gained kinetic energy is less than the supplied electrical energy, there you are not getting free energy. Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms Without new physics, it certainly is impossible. One day maybe we will have new physics like when Einstein surpassed Newton. But it will take something big like that to explain how the drive could even possibly work. And this might be the observation that makes us go looking. If these three teams are right and there is thrust once they have finally eliminated every possible error, then it has to do it and maintain the laws we already know, that means it's time to start looking for whatever else it is emitting that is taking the energy away and would balance the equations, just as they did with the Neutrino.
	__________________ It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) My Apollo Page.

29th December 2016, 12:42 AM	#192
RussDill Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Charleston Posts: 5,426	Originally Posted by PhantomWolf You have to supply electrical power to the drive to get your thrust (assuming there is thrust.) The the amount of gained kinetic energy is less than the supplied electrical energy, there you are not getting free energy. The amount of energy you need to add to the em drive to get a specific delta v is constant. 10 m/s to 15 m/s takes just as much time and energy as 15 m/s to 20 m/s. Kinetic energy increases as the square of the velocity. This means that there must be some break even point where the liner graph of expended energy intersects the polynomial graph of stored kinetic energy. Once past that point the energy of the system increases faster than the input energy. Not to mention to mention all the energy bring lost to heat.
	__________________ The woods are lovely, dark and deep but i have promises to keep and lines to code before I sleep And lines to code before I sleep

29th December 2016, 12:46 AM	#193
BowlOfRed Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Silicon Valley Posts: 1,281	Originally Posted by PhantomWolf You have to supply electrical power to the drive to get your thrust (assuming there is thrust.) Yes. Quote: The the amount of gained kinetic energy is less than the supplied electrical energy, there you are not getting free energy. What enforces such a limit? I should be able to pick a frame in which the engine is providing arbitrarily large amounts of KE.

30th December 2016, 12:37 AM	#194
steenkh Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Denmark Posts: 5,234	Originally Posted by BowlOfRed What enforces such a limit? I should be able to pick a frame in which the engine is providing arbitrarily large amounts of KE. Physics as we know it enforces such a limit. But it would be nice if free energy existed ...
	__________________ Steen -- Jack of all trades - master of none!

30th December 2016, 10:25 AM	#195
RussDill Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Charleston Posts: 5,426	<tin hat on>The reason the EM drive results have been so small and inconsistent is due to our high rate of speed (and changing rate of speed) in relation to the ether.</>
	__________________ The woods are lovely, dark and deep but i have promises to keep and lines to code before I sleep And lines to code before I sleep