Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Tuesday November 22 2016, @03:21PM   Printer-friendly
from the that-still-doesn't-mean-it-will-work dept.

After months of speculation and leaked documents, NASA's long-awaited EM Drive paper has finally been peer-reviewed and published [open, DOI: 10.2514/1.B36120] [DX]. And it shows that the 'impossible' propulsion system really does appear to work. The NASA Eagleworks Laboratory team even put forward a hypothesis for how the EM Drive could produce thrust – something that seems impossible according to our current understanding of the laws of physics.

In case you've missed the hype, the EM Drive, or Electromagnetic Drive, is a propulsion system first proposed by British inventor Roger Shawyer back in 1999. Instead of using heavy, inefficient rocket fuel, it bounces microwaves back and forth inside a cone-shaped metal cavity to generate thrust. According to Shawyer's calculations, the EM Drive could be so efficient that it could power us to Mars in just 70 days.

takyon: Some have previously dismissed EmDrive as a photon rocket. This is addressed in the paper along with other possible sources of error:

The eighth [error:] photon rocket force, RF leakage from test article generating a net force due to photon emission. The performance of a photon rocket is several orders of magnitude lower than the observed thrust. Further, as noted in the above discussion on RF interaction, all leaking fields are managed closely to result in a high quality RF resonance system. This is not a viable source of the observed thrust.

[...] The 1.2  mN/kW performance parameter is over two orders of magnitude higher than other forms of "zero-propellant" propulsion, such as light sails, laser propulsion, and photon rockets having thrust-to-power levels in the 3.33–6.67  μN/kW (or 0.0033–0.0067  mN/kW) range.

Previously: NASA Validates "Impossible" Space Drive's Thrust
"Reactionless" Thruster Tested Again, This Time in a Vacuum
Explanation may be on the way for the "Impossible" EmDrive
Finnish Physicist Says EmDrive Device Does Have an Exhaust
EmDrive Peer-Reviewed Paper Coming in December; Theseus Planning a Cannae Thruster Cubesat


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 22 2016, @05:03PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 22 2016, @05:03PM (#431333)

    Ya about what I expected. The EM drive was much different from the thousands of weird pet theories on the net, people actually did experiments with positive results. Also, I wasn't talking to the skeptics who think it is unlikely but are interested to see what comes of it... I'm talking about the rabid "that violates XYZ and is obviously garbage". I'm hoping here that some people realize their deep held beliefs can be wrong, and that they start applying such critical thinking to all aspects of their lives.

    But as you point out, most will turn to such statements as yours to validate their thought processes (not that you were one of the vocal naysayers).

  • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday November 22 2016, @06:36PM

    by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday November 22 2016, @06:36PM (#431395)

    It's a question of pragmatism. You can safely ignore people whose theories violate the known laws of physics 99.9% of the time, and allocate the time you would've spent debunking it doing something else more productive.

    people actually did experiments with positive results

    As far as I'd heard until now, nobody had done the experiments and obtained statistically significant positive results other than the original guy. Positive results within the margin of error of measurement != positive results.

    --
    "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
  • (Score: 1) by WillR on Tuesday November 22 2016, @07:35PM

    by WillR (2012) on Tuesday November 22 2016, @07:35PM (#431434)
    About what I expected too. Newton's laws of motion are just "deep held beliefs", when are we getting full Unicode support so I can use some rolling eyes emoji?

    And I'm fine with people reading that as validating their "if it appears to violate conservation of mass/energy/momentum, it's probably measurement error or a scam" thought process, because it's still a useful filter for all the free energy bullshit out there.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 22 2016, @08:05PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 22 2016, @08:05PM (#431451)

      Gotcha, I'll just take the lesson that narrow minded folks are self-reinforcing. I expected better from this crowd, but I guess the genie is out of the bottle. When NASA got involved it became time to shut up with the "obviously will never work it violates conservation laws!" I get annoyed when a bunch of techies look at physics type stuff and assume they are more intuitively correct than NASA. Perhaps NASA involvement means its time to put on the skeptic hat instead of the authoritative hat.

      As with most things in life it is better to be skeptical instead of absolute, the latter leads to rigid thought processes that prevent growth. Since you seem to have a thing for science you should understand the value of definitive proof, guesses and assumptions are terrible methods of finding a conclusion. If you can't grasp that concept then please don't comment on things unless you're willing to actually research with an open mind.

      For a more relevant metaphor: RTFA before you comment!

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by WillR on Tuesday November 22 2016, @09:29PM

        by WillR (2012) on Tuesday November 22 2016, @09:29PM (#431498)
        Hey, I never said "obviously it will never work, it violates conservation". I said "if it appears to violate conservation, I want to see signal way above the noise floor before we give the guy a pile of cash for it". I'm also saying now that emDrive is a thing, that doesn't mean all the "free energy from water and magnets" quacks who plead for open-mindedness about conservation of energy are suddenly vindicated.
        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 22 2016, @10:12PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 22 2016, @10:12PM (#431518)

          You just plain and simple miss my point. I was never accusing you since this is the first time I've discussed the EM drive with you. I was an optimistic skeptic, based on what I read I thought there was potential for this to be real (yay confirmed, now for useful versions...) My commentary is aimed at all the people that dismissed it because they did little research and couldn't get past the no propellant issue. Besides, there actually is propellant, pure energy!

          There is no free energy (barring spiritual "let there be light" type stuff) and even the quacks that think they're getting free energy from magnets could be on to something. Not free energy, but quenching a magnet over a long period of time could be a decent type of "battery", haven't done any calculations about energy density so don't know if that would be useful but whatever. You never know where something interesting might pop up, it could be surrounded by lots of quackery but that doesn't mean there isn't SOMETHING there.

          Put in whatever effort you'd like, but dismissing something without actually engaging the topic and teasing out the bullshit from the facts is just intellectual masturbation to make yourself feel good. Also, we can miss major scientific breakthroughs with such thinking. For another good example: Snowden and his revelations about mass surveillance. Ten years ago you were a crackpot for saying all the governments were spying on literally everybody. Now it is just accepted as fact. Again, I'm not saying you should believe every crackpot theory, just don't approach things with a closed mind (meaning you already know the "answer"). I was educated in physics, I read the early reports years ago, and the idea was that the reflected photons lose momentum in one direction only. I saw no inherent reason why this couldn't work so I gave it cautious optimism. Everyone else stopped at "no propellant, no easily understood momentum transfer, QUACKER!" Height of hubris.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @06:10PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @06:10PM (#432487)

            Also, we can miss major scientific breakthroughs with such thinking.

            Unless you are actually working in a related field, or are responsible for funding decisions that may affect research on it, your thinking about it has exactly zero effect on the progress of science.

            What I think about entanglement-related stuff does have an effect on the progress in the field (at least I hope so), because that's the field I work in. What I think about EmDrive or the theory behind it is completely irrelevant to the progress of science, as I'm not working in that field.

            What matters is not what I, or probably anybody on Soylent News thinks. What matters is what NASA did: Actually test the thing. If the tests continue to be positive, you can expect the theory to gain traction. That's how science works.

            Scepticism is at the heart of science. Don't believe it, test it. The day when people no longer distrust new theories is the day that science has died.

  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday November 22 2016, @07:51PM

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday November 22 2016, @07:51PM (#431442)

    I wouldn't expect apologies until after the first demonstration spacecraft has flown, and even then, not complete acceptance - there will be "flat earth" theorists as long as there are people who don't travel enough to experience the curvature of the earth.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]