Oh, my... talk about sending mixed signals:

http://www.iflscience.com/space/a-version-of-the-emdrive-is-apparently-being-sent-to-space/

It’s not yet clear what the paper will say, but a supposed recent leak seemed to suggest repeated tests of the drive have been successful.

There is still a glimmer of hope!

The best result is that the Emdrive is equivalent to a photon drive with the same level of thrust to power input. In other words, a fancy flashlight.

 

The best result is that the Emdrive is equivalent to a photon drive with the same level of thrust to power input. In other words, a fancy flashlight.

Yes, but the theory states that its efficiency can become much higher if other materials and more precise geometry is used. I just read somewhere that its efficiency can be compared to that of an Ion Engine

 

Yes, but the theory states that its efficiency can become much higher if other materials and more precise geometry is used. I just read somewhere that its efficiency can be compared to that of an Ion Engine

What theory supersedes conservation of momentum never mind energy? From what I read the main problem a reactionless (without a propellant) drive with greater that photon thrust is that the speed where the kinetic energy of the space craft will grow faster than total energy input is lower than c.
You could speed it up and then slow it down to extract excess energy, the worlds energy problems are solved.
With a photon drive (massless particles) that threshold is at a speed greater than light so that's unlikely to be happening.

Violating no free energy is a serious problem but maybe there is a loophole somewhere.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.00494.pdf

 

What theory supersedes conservation of momentum never mind energy? The main problem a reactionless (without a propellant) drive with greater that photon thrust is that the speed where the kinetic energy of the space craft will grow faster than total energy input is lower than c.
You could speed it up and then slow it down to extract excess energy, the worlds energy problems are solved.
With a photon drive (massless particles) that threshold is at a speed greater than light so that's unlikely to be happening.

Violating no free energy is a serious problem.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.00494.pdf

After reading some of the sources mentioned in the article, my conclusion is that nobody really understands in full what is happening here. If it works, I very much doubt that any laws of nature as we understand them are being broken, but rather it means that there is some sort of phenomena out there that has been overlooked. But I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with overunity.

To sum things up:
"One way to cut through all the technical arguments about torque balances and eddy currents is to actually test the drive in space. If it fails, it fails. If it works, then physicists will have some explaining."

We're just gonna have to wait and see.

 

I predict a failure followed by a litany of excuses of why the experiment wasn't done properly. Repeat.

But yeah, a little data trumps a lot of theory. For something so easily tested, let's just do it.

 

After reading some of the sources mentioned in the article, my conclusion is that nobody really understands in full what is happening here. If it works, I very much doubt that any laws of nature as we understand them are being broken, but rather it means that there is some sort of phenomena out there that has been overlooked. But I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with overunity.

https://pathoskeptic.com/2014/09/14/space-kicksledges-and-overunity-devices/

That's because if it works it would be over-unity by all known physics. With an high efficiency Emdrive you could launch a battleship to Pluto, get it up to fractional lightspeed and destroy the planet. A Dirt Cheap Planet Cracker.

"Friends Don't Let Friends Use Reactionless Drives"

 

That's because if it works it would be over-unity by all known physics.

Ah, but therein lies the rub, see ... it's a fact that not everything about Physics is known, just ask the guys trying to decipher what Black Matter is ... we know it's there, but we haven't been able to explain it ... what if this whole affair leads us into a similar situation?

But yes, I too hold a skeptical attitude towards all this. But I also think that at least aiming to disprove it is a valid goal in itself, since so many respectable people have joined the controversy already. I'm with Wayneh on this one, let's just test it, see what happens.

 

we know it's there, but we haven't been able to explain it ... what if this whole affair leads us into a similar situation?

Starting to sound like the periodic table. When it was first drawn as we know it, there were "gaps"; the author knew other elements existed so they left a spot for them to get discovered. It became a great mystery to solve.

 

Ah, but therein lies the rub, see ... it's a fact that not everything about Physics is known, just ask the guys trying to decipher what Black Matter is ... we know it's there, but we haven't been able to explain it ... what if this whole affair leads us into a similar situation?

But yes, I too hold a skeptical attitude towards all this. But I also think that at least aiming to disprove it is a valid goal in itself, since so many respectable people have joined the controversy already. I'm with Wayneh on this one, let's just test it, see what happens.

You're mixing apples with oranges. There's really no natural phenomena in the universe that demonstrates the Emdrive is possible. The 'Black' X is one possible solution to a known problem of missing mass with current theories. (that we have spent a lot of money on and so far only have null results with experiments designed by some of the best minds on this planet) Reactionless drives are things even good SCI-FI writers are careful with in their stories because of overunity problems.
Most respectable physics sites have banned discussion on the Emdrive as it's in the same league as Unicorn farts.

The odds that our understanding of physics is so completely wrong at a basic level because of some as-yet-undefined phenomenon would be longer than FTL neutrinos being proven correct even after we proved the data for the original conclusion was caused by a loose fiber optic cable.

That said I'm willing to put a dollar in the pot, just in case.

 

That said I'm willing to put a dollar in the pot, just in case.

My personal opinion also leans to what you've just said ... but what if there's another explanation that skips the overunity problem altogether?

And although I always place my bets with beer, and never money, here's my other dollar, just for the fun of it ... I'll be back in December to collect

EDIT: and as apples and oranges go (down here we say "pears and apples"), the dark matter problem arised from a previous factual observation, and the theory is being worked on after the fact. If (and that's a big, unicorn-fart-proving If, I must admit) experimental data confirms that a net force is indeed being generated by the EmDrive, then we'd be left with exactly the same problem ... theories should be adjusted to explain the facts, and not the other way around.

 

Is it too hard to consider an emitted wave front....as a linear moving potential?

Is it too hard to consider a moving potential as momentum?

A charge stores energy as electrical angular momentum. Emission is the process of converting a portion of that angular momentum into linear momentum.

Now collect the rather isotropic linear momentum symmetrically, and re-direct it in one direction.

The real problem is the frequency. It would have to be in the super gamma range for any real power. And then you would have a very dangerous wake. Not to mention shielding.

The momentum of a gamma wave can break an atomic nucleus.

 

Is it too hard to consider an emitted wave front....as a linear moving potential?

That's called a photon rocket.

 

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-le...paign=rss&utm_content=/rss/yahoous&yptr=yahoo

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7kgKijo-p0ibm94VUY0TVktQlU/view

 

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-le...paign=rss&utm_content=/rss/yahoous&yptr=yahoo

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7kgKijo-p0ibm94VUY0TVktQlU/view

Oh. My. God....

@nsaspook, should I give you my paypal account so you may pay me my $5.00 dlls?

 

Oh. My. God....

@nsaspook, should I give you my paypal account so you may pay me my $5.00 dlls?

Their reported thrust of 1.2mN/kW is two orders of magnitude above photon rockets. I'm still a skeptic because that makes the EmDrive a possible perpetual motion/free energy machine if we can harvest the deceleration energy for reasons stated earlier in this thread.


This paper should absolutely not be taken as evidence of a working emdrive.
I'm pretty sure that if all NASA scientists were polled, a great majority of them would say that emdrive is nonsense.

 

I'm pretty sure that if all NASA scientists were polled, a great majority of them would say that emdrive is nonsense.

I agree... besides, the said "leaked" paper is far from being proof of concept. Nasa still needs to make it official... I was just teasing you...

Then again, it's never wise to trust the polls. Only the actual measurements count... The bet's still on

 

Look at the thrust energy rise time, seems too slow to be anything but thermal IMO. What quantum effect in a resonant cavity takes at least 30min to happen?
.

 

Look at the thrust energy rise time, seems too slow to be anything but thermal IMO. What quantum effect in a resonant cavity takes at least 30min to happen?
View attachment 114947 .

And IMveryHO, maybe the resonant cavity's geometry is critical, and a very small distortion of its internal structure could have a large effect on its performance.

Actually, that wasn't an opinion, but rather a question... what do you think ?

 

And now, the ifls website is showing the same update, plus a couple of new details.

 

The paper has been officially released with very few changes. Their conclusion: Simple geometry appears to tap into a hidden force that can impart motion ...

I'm not buying it.