ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags EM drive

Reply
Old 26th November 2016, 01:09 AM   #161
Roboramma
Philosopher
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,671
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
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2016, 01:44 AM   #162
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,328
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
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 presidentís voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesnít exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2016, 03:13 AM   #163
RussDill
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Charleston
Posts: 5,377
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
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
RussDill is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2016, 04:27 AM   #164
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 15,963
Originally Posted by RussDill View Post
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.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2016, 11:41 AM   #165
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 15,129
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim
Originally Posted by RussDill View Post
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
jimbob is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2016, 12:09 PM   #166
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
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/

Last edited by Jrrarglblarg; 26th November 2016 at 12:11 PM.
Jrrarglblarg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2016, 12:25 PM   #167
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 15,963
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
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.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2016, 12:30 PM   #168
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 15,963
Originally Posted by Jrrarglblarg View Post
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.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2016, 01:01 PM   #170
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2016, 01:24 PM   #171
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 15,129
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
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
jimbob is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2016, 05:23 PM   #172
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 15,963
Originally Posted by Jrrarglblarg View Post
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.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2016, 05:30 PM   #173
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 15,963
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
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.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2016, 03:30 AM   #174
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 15,129
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
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
jimbob is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2016, 11:27 AM   #175
WhatRoughBeast
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,219
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.
WhatRoughBeast is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2016, 12:05 PM   #176
RussDill
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Charleston
Posts: 5,377
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
RussDill is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2016, 10:30 AM   #177
Steve001
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,245
The latest, also this article links to a just released NASA paper. http://m.phys.org/news/2016-12-mars-...sses-nasa.html
Steve001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2016, 02:14 PM   #178
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,503
Originally Posted by Steve001 View Post
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
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2016, 05:14 AM   #179
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,913
A very sensible article - or, at least, it appears to be to my untrained brain.

http://www.sciencealert.com/there-s-...pulsion-expert
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
Turns out I don't know a lot about tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2016, 05:36 AM   #180
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 18,700
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?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th December 2016, 03:24 PM   #181
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 15,963
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
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.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2016, 07:57 AM   #182
Solitaire
Neoclinus blanchardi
 
Solitaire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,115
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. ó Phineas Gage
Solitaire is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 05:38 AM   #183
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,424
Originally Posted by Solitaire View Post
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
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 05:48 AM   #184
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,913
Ignore.
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
Turns out I don't know a lot about tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 08:37 AM   #185
Mark6
Philosopher
 
Mark6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 6,255
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
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.
__________________
Gamemaster: "A horde of rotting zombies is shambling toward you. The sign over the door says 'Accounting'"
Mark6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 08:38 AM   #186
Steve001
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,245
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
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.
Steve001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 12:25 PM   #187
Genesius
Apathetic Agnostic
 
Genesius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,577
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
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 View Post
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"
Genesius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 01:31 PM   #188
Steve001
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,245
Originally Posted by Genesius View Post
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.
Steve001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 01:48 PM   #189
RussDill
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Charleston
Posts: 5,377
Originally Posted by Genesius View Post
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
RussDill is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 09:14 PM   #190
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 3,964
Originally Posted by Steve001 View Post
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
Red Baron Farms is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2016, 12:01 AM   #191
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,836
Originally Posted by RussDill View Post
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 View Post
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.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2016, 12:42 AM   #192
RussDill
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Charleston
Posts: 5,377
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
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
RussDill is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2016, 12:46 AM   #193
BowlOfRed
Graduate Poster
 
BowlOfRed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Silicon Valley
Posts: 1,190
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
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.
BowlOfRed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2016, 12:37 AM   #194
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,090
Originally Posted by BowlOfRed View Post
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!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2016, 10:25 AM   #195
RussDill
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Charleston
Posts: 5,377
<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
RussDill is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2016, 09:46 AM   #196
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 10,792
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
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 View Post
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
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2016, 09:58 AM   #197
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,913
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
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.
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
Turns out I don't know a lot about tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2017, 01:15 PM   #198
Steve001
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,245
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
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.
Steve001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2017, 09:21 AM   #199
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,504
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.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2017, 11:29 AM   #200
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,913
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
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?
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
Turns out I don't know a lot about tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:46 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.