SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 22 2016, @09:33PM
I'm assuming the NASA isn't conducting a fraud so at worst there could be experimental errors.
At least read the abstract. 1.2 +- 0.1. That's well outside any errors. And these numbers match whether it was tested in air or in vacuum.
If currently it can't be explained (AFAIK), maybe we are getting EM gravity angle for some reason?? That would be just awesome.
But no many went against it as if someone had just insulted their religion.
Seriously, dude, you don't know how science works, do you? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Which means repeatable, correctly done experiments. Now first experiments were done. See the number above. It's no more extraordinary claims. What we have is something that is interesting that has to be explained. Which is actually exciting. Now let's see if real scientists can actually explain it :D
Scientists, like most people, don't like to have their chain yanked by quacks, which actually happens over and over and over again. Just search the internet for "zero point energy" and other bullshit that doesn't take more than elementary physics to show to be wrong. Anyway, getting off track....
Hopefully exciting months ahead!
(Score: 1) by Demena on Tuesday November 22 2016, @11:47PM
MiHsC seems to cover it. Not old science or new science but ignored science.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @11:45AM
But I want a zero point energy manipulator. On second thought, screw that. I want an ASHPD. That would cut down on my travel times a lot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @05:10PM
Seriously, dude, you don't know how science works, do you? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Which means repeatable, correctly done experiments.
When a phenomena is newly discovered and poorly understood, it's not always easy for others to reproduce it. Doesn't mean it's not real.
And from what I recall lots of people (even on the sceptic side) managed to reproduce the suddenly heating up bit of the cold fusion stuff. That bit was repeatable. They just didn't see any "net energy gain". e.g. the heating up heat was not more than the energy they supplied. So it should have been clear that it was not like any of the quackery stuff - there was an actual new phenomena. Whether that phenomena matched what P and F claimed was a separate issue.
See also: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/402679/is-cold-fusion-heating-up/ [technologyreview.com]
The physics establishment continues to scoff, but some scientists who have been watching the field carefully are convinced something real is happening.
The scoffing isn't scientific. And that's a fairly accurate description of what the establishment has been doing- scoffing instead of science.