SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The proposed radio frequency (RF) resonant cavity thruster is unlike conventional thrusters and uses no reaction mass and emits no directional radiation. Designed using principles that are not supported by prevailing scientific theories, it apparently violates the law of conservation of momentum. The EmDrive, has roiled the aerospace world for the several years now, ever since it was proposed by British aerospace engineer Robert Shawyer. The essence of the claim is that by bouncing microwaves in a truncated cone, thrust will be produced out the open end. Most scientists have snorted at the idea, noting correctly that such a thing would violate physical laws. However, prestigious organizations like NASA have replicated the results showing thrusts.
MIT Technology Review has some reasoning on the subject, (possibly pay-walled) with a picture of the device. It's supposedly the so called unruh effect at play. When NASA tested the device, they measured with input of 17 W an average thrust of 91 µN (5.4 µN/W). A Chinese team used 2500 W and measured a thrust of 720 mN (288 µN/W). The expected radiation pressure is closer to 0.003 µN/W.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 22 2016, @01:11AM
Perhaps this EM charged body is interacting magnetic field of the planet and demonstrating a small degree of electromotive force.
The MIT link: McCulloch says there is observational evidence for this in the form of the famous fly by anomalies. These are the strange jumps in momentum observed in some spacecraft as they fly past Earth toward other planets. That’s exactly what his theory predicts.
Interaction with planetary magnetic fields is also a MUCH simpler explanation for fly-by anomalies (which only happen near a planet, in its magnetic field)...
Whatever happened to rationality in science? Do they not teach that one should at least ATTEMPT to disprove the null hypothesis via disproving the alternate hypotheses anymore?
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Friday April 22 2016, @07:19AM
Interaction with planetary magnetic fields is also a MUCH simpler explanation for fly-by anomalies (which only happen near a planet, in its magnetic field)...
Is it? What do you mean by "interaction"? Has anyone actually done the numbers or this just a vague "hmm, might be some kind of interaction" thing?
Do they not teach that one should at least ATTEMPT to disprove the null hypothesis
What's the null hypothesis here? We know there's something weird going on with probes; we don't know what's causing it yet. Is it normal to set the "most likely" explanation we have so far as a null hypothesis?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk