Reactionless drives...

BR-549

Joined Sep 22, 2013
4,928
The power will be proportional with frequency. Therefore you want the smallest cavity you can build.....i.e. microscopic or nanoscopic. You will need millions of them.......like pores of a skin.

If one could converge gamma waves........matter-antimatter engines would be ideal.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,086
The power will be proportional with frequency. Therefore you want the smallest cavity you can build.....i.e. microscopic or nanoscopic. You will need millions of them.......like pores of a skin.

If one could converge gamma waves........matter-antimatter engines would be ideal.
and then you could fly like Iron Man.
 

killivolt

Joined Jan 10, 2010
835
Whats the deal, besides the shape. The ones I've seen so far are made of copper, no mention of the material or did I miss that part?

kv
 

killivolt

Joined Jan 10, 2010
835
Several people have built these things with NULL results.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1603.0153v1.pdf
Now, I want to be clear. I don't want people thinking I'm into "Over Unity" I understand Classical Physics enough now not to buy into that concept.

Ok, a couple questions from my point of view, which isn't much but, like a child I see things that don't add up with this experiments example and results. I worked in the Air-condition and Heating industry most of my life. I expected to see this experiment performed and explained elsewhere and many argue result are gained by following this line of thinking below.

1. The first thing is this is not performed in a Vacuum, others I have seen are "Hermetically Sealed" and by observation pulled down into a Vacuum to what I don't know.

2. Some say that sub cooling the cavity, will also increase the effect by super cooling the interior. "They claim this is a kin to super conductivity"

I need your simple explanation or if you can't explain it simply, you can go down the rabbit hole as to why these were not part of the experiment. Thanks NSA for you what you do here on the physics Forum.

kv
 
Last edited:

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,086
1. The original positive thrust results of the 'EMdrive were all done in normal atmosphere so I don't see a problem with that aspect of his test. Testing under vacuum is designed to eliminate possible reasons for thrust like thermal air currents but thermal effects can still happen in perfect vacuum from EM energy transfers.

2. I claim it is BS.
 

killivolt

Joined Jan 10, 2010
835
The chamber in atmosphere, isn't what I'm relating to, I'm saying the chamber is hermetically sealed inside, then pulled into a vacuum, and sub cooled.


kv
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,086
The chamber in atmosphere, isn't what I'm relating to, I'm saying the chamber is hermetically sealed inside, then pulled into a vacuum, and sub cooled.


kv
If you're pumping in RF into a closed RF resonant chamber then removing the air is a good idea to stop electrical discharges. I normally see voltages in the range of 80kV at about 3KW in a normal Ion chamber at e-7 Toor vacuum.

Any possible physics effect in a EMdrive is completely unrelated to superconductivity directly. Superconductivity could increase the Q of the RF cavity but that's a simple matter of ohms law not a quantum effect like Meissner.
 

killivolt

Joined Jan 10, 2010
835
If you're pumping in RF into a closed RF resonant chamber then removing the air is a good idea to stop electrical discharges. I normally see voltages in the range of 80kV at about 3KW in a normal Ion chamber at e-7 Toor vacuum.

Any possible physics effect in a EMdrive is completely unrelated to superconductivity directly. Superconductivity could increase the Q of the RF cavity but that's a simple matter of ohms law not a quantum effect like Meissner.
Thanks for the explanation, as related to sub-cooling, one such individual mentioned that a dual cavity and preposed the idea being the outer is filled with Nitrogen and the inner to be the RF Chamber which is pulled into a vacuum, this was suggested as you proposed the vacuum increases the Q of the RF. Beyond that I have no idea what is or is not :p

As you can clearly see, I am in no way able to see far into about this subject but, the idea's are tantalizing, before this point I would have purchased the Brooklyn Bridge. The minute you see NASA your eyes pop out.

kv
 
Last edited:

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,086
Last edited:

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,086
Skepticism is healthy as long as it's directed at devising better experiments. "Man will never fly" skepticism is not science.
The EMdrive (and all reaction-less drives) surpasses "Man will never fly" (somethings did fly) skepticism into the realm of the impossible with current science and experiment.
 

Thread Starter

cmartinez

Joined Jan 17, 2007
8,220
The EMdrive (and all reaction-less drives) surpasses "Man will never fly" (somethings did fly) skepticism into the realm of the impossible with current science and experiment.
If I understand correctly, as far as current science goes, it does venture into the realm of the impossible.
But regarding experimentation, you have to at least admit that further research is needed.

One just can't toss out the window the findings of a Nasa team! ... fringe or not.
 
@nsaspook
Like @cmartinez said, if NASA, a well-respected body of scientists and researchers have generated real thrust from the EM Drive (as well as other less well-known science organizations in china and someone else I cant remember), then accept that it needs to be researched even more. On top of that, just because something does not fit into you understanding of physics (which is constantly being proved wrong, just look at the shift from Newtonian mechanics to relativist physics), does not mean that its false or impossible.

People said the world was flat, turned out it was round
People said that F always equal MA. Well, as you approach the speed of light that formula is pointless
People said that going to the moon was impossible, well there are a good number of footprints up there now!
People said that nothing was smaller than an atom, well......electrons anyone?
People even said that quantum mechanics was made up and stupid. NAND flash anyone?

Im not saying that EM Drive is real. What I am saying is that if it "breaks" the laws of physics (which by the way, we made up as human beings to explain the world around us. They were not given in some holy text), then so be it! Clearly we need to rethink how we see the world!

Mind you... I am highly suspicious that larger companies like spacex, Lockheed martin, BAE etc are not looking into this.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,086
@nsaspook
Mind you... I am highly suspicious that larger companies like spacex, Lockheed martin, BAE etc are not looking into this.
First these guys are NOT well-respected because every theory of EMdrive operation has gone down in flames once the slightest amount of true scientific investigation into the claims was done (this current test included). The EMdrive can't break current laws of physics, if there is a new undiscovered mechanism for reaction-less drives it must somehow also conform to what we currently know from experiment. Relativist physics is a super-set of Newtonian mechanics, Quantum mechanics is a super-set of classical physics and etc...

I've already said I would give a dollar for EMdrive research because we don't know anywhere close to everything but this thing would break CoM and breaking CoM allows you to destroy planets with battleships.

But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

Carl Sagan
 
Last edited:

wayneh

Joined Sep 9, 2010
17,496
If my job was allocating research money, this project would be low on my list. But maybe not off the list.

The most probable outcome of the project is that the source of the artifact will eventually be found. That's just reality. Finding and understanding the artifact has some value in its own right. Developing the tests, necessary equipment, protocols and such is probably something an outfit like NASA would benefit from in the long run. As long as the research team had the right "find-the-artifact" mindset, I'd consider funding their work.

If the research team is primarily engaged in advocacy and climbing all over themselves trying to be the first with the elaborate new theories, I'd choke it off. There will be time for theory if the effect itself is irrefutable.

I get that theory is useful. If you have a theory of why it works, you can optimize the equipment and magnify the effect. But iterating this process in the lab is just expensive tinkering.
 
Top