Whoa! New type of space drive discovered

Fritzo

Lifer
Jan 3, 2001
41,892
2,135
126
This is awesome! Breakthroughs like this can lead to completely new technologies. The working hypothesis so far is that this device might tap into quantum vacuum energy...and if that's the case this could be an incredible discovery that would revolutionize spacetravel.

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive

Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
SCIENCE 31 JULY 14 by DAVID HAMBLING

Nasa is a major player in space science, so when a team from the agency this week presents evidence that "impossible" microwave thrusters seem to work, something strange is definitely going on. Either the results are completely wrong, or Nasa has confirmed a major breakthrough in space propulsion.

British scientist Roger Shawyer has been trying to interest people in his EmDrive for some years through his company SPR Ltd. Shawyer claims the EmDrive converts electric power into thrust, without the need for any propellant by bouncing microwaves around in a closed container. He has built a number of demonstration systems, but critics reject his relativity-based theory and insist that, according to the law of conservation of momentum, it cannot work.

According to good scientific practice, an independent third party needed to replicate Shawyer's results. As Wired.co.uk reported, this happened last year when a Chinese team built its own EmDrive and confirmed that it produced 720 mN (about 72 grams) of thrust, enough for a practical satellite thruster. Such a thruster could be powered by solar electricity, eliminating the need for the supply of propellant that occupies up to half the launch mass of many satellites. The Chinese work attracted little attention; it seems that nobody in the West believed in it.

However, a US scientist, Guido Fetta, has built his own propellant-less microwave thruster, and managed to persuade Nasa to test it out. The test results were presented on July 30 at the 50th Joint Propulsion Conference in Cleveland, Ohio. Astonishingly enough, they are positive.

The Nasa team based at the Johnson Space Centre gave its paper the title "Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF [radio frequency] Test Device Measured on a Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum". The five researchers spent six days setting up test equipment followed by two days of experiments with various configurations. These tests included using a "null drive" similar to the live version but modified so it would not work, and using a device which would produce the same load on the apparatus to establish whether the effect might be produced by some effect unrelated to the actual drive. They also turned the drive around the other way to check whether that had any effect.

Back in the 90s, Nasa tested what was claimed to be an antigravity device based on spinning superconducting discs. That was reported to give good test results, until researchers realised that interference from the device was affecting their measuring instruments. They have probably learned a lot since then.

The torsion balance they used to test the thrust was sensitive enough to detect a thrust of less than ten micronewtons, but the drive actually produced 30 to 50 micronewtons -- less than a thousandth of the Chinese results, but emphatically a positive result, in spite of the law of conservation of momentum:

"Test results indicate that the RF resonant cavity thruster design, which is unique as an electric propulsion device, is producing a force that is not attributable to any classical electromagnetic phenomenon and therefore is potentially demonstrating an interaction with the quantum vacuum virtual plasma."

This last line implies that the drive may work by pushing against the ghostly cloud of particles and anti-particles that are constantly popping into being and disappearing again in empty space. But the Nasa team has avoided trying to explain its results in favour of simply reporting what it found: "This paper will not address the physics of the quantum vacuum plasma thruster, but instead will describe the test integration, test operations, and the results obtained from the test campaign."

The drive's inventor, Guido Fetta calls it the "Cannae Drive", which he explains as a reference to the Battle of Cannae in which Hannibal decisively defeated a much stronger Roman army: you're at your best when you are in a tight corner. However, it's hard not to suspect that Star Trek's Engineer Scott -- "I cannae change the laws of physics" -- might also be an influence. (It was formerly known as the Q-Drive.)

Fetta also presented a paper at AIAA on his drive, "Numerical and Experimental Results for a Novel Propulsion Technology Requiring no On-Board Propellant". His underlying theory is very different to that of the EmDrive, but like Shawyer he has spent years trying to persuade sceptics simply to look at it. He seems to have succeeded at last.

Shawyer himself, who sent test examples of the EmDrive to the US in 2009, sees the similarity between the two.

"From what I understand of the Nasa and Cannae work -- their RF thruster actually operates along similar lines to EmDrive, except that the asymmetric force derives from a reduced reflection coefficient at one end plate," he says. He believes the design accounts for the Cannae Drive's comparatively low thrust: "Of course this degrades the Q and hence the specific thrust that can be obtained."

Fetta is working on a number of projects which he is not able to discuss at present, and Nasa's PR team was not able to get any comments from the research team. However, it's fair to assume that the results will be picked over very closely indeed, like CERN's anomalous faster-than-light neutrinos. The neutrino issue was cleared up fairly quickly, but given that this appears to be at least the third independent propellant-less thruster to work in tests, the anomalous thrust may prove much harder to explain away.

A working microwave thruster would radically cut the cost of satellites and space stations and extend their working life, drive deep-space missions, and take astronauts to Mars in weeks rather than months. In hindsight, it may turn out to be another great British invention that someone else turned into a success.
 

JamesV

Platinum Member
Jul 9, 2011
2,002
2
76
Very interesting, but I don't get the last part : "take astronauts to Mars in weeks rather than months".

I guess the idea is you could have constant thrust, instead of set burns for X length of time, but the thrust would be so minimal, that it would take weeks to get up to chemical propellant speeds. And, it would take weeks to slow down for orbit also.

If they are assuming these could eventually generate the same type of thrust as conventional engines, then a constant burn might explain it, but again, you'd have to thrust to gain delta v half the time, and thrust to lose delta v half the time to gain an orbit. Making that statement, in this case, seems pretty far fetched.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,218
4,446
136
Very interesting, but I don't get the last part : "take astronauts to Mars in weeks rather than months".

I guess the idea is you could have constant thrust, instead of set burns for X length of time, but the thrust would be so minimal, that it would take weeks to get up to chemical propellant speeds. And, it would take weeks to slow down for orbit also.

If they are assuming these could eventually generate the same type of thrust as conventional engines, then a constant burn might explain it, but again, you'd have to thrust to gain delta v half the time, and thrust to lose delta v half the time to gain an orbit. Making that statement, in this case, seems pretty far fetched.

Theoretically the drive would scale almost infinitely, so if you build a big one powered with a nuclear reactor you should get some serious thrust out of it.

The thing to be cautious about is that their control also generated some thrust, so it would seem that something might have been causing interference.

More through testing is required before we can say for sure that the effect is real.
 
Feb 25, 2011
16,823
1,493
126
I think a gnat resting on a leaf generates more force than that.
Nope.

A gnat weight 1-2 milligrams. So 72 grams is approximately the weight of 100,000 gnats resting on a leaf.

More like a package of string cheese sitting on a table.
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,599
19
81
Nope.

A gnat weight 1-2 milligrams. So 72 grams is approximately the weight of 100,000 gnats resting on a leaf.

More like a package of string cheese sitting on a table.
And ion drives produce very little thrust - something like a piece of paper resting on a table. But they produce that thrust with very little propellant. No, they're not good for quick acceleration. Let go long enough though, and you can get some pretty nice speed.
 

Ruptga

Lifer
Aug 3, 2006
10,247
207
106
This is interesting, but right now all we know is that we have a device that probably works, though we really don't know why it does. It's going to take years to conclusively discern how it works, and years more to build something good enough to actually use on a satellite. Anything like using it on a crewed mission is even further down the line. It's an exciting discovery for people in that field, but the rest of us should probably hold onto our confetti for another decade or so.
 

Fritzo

Lifer
Jan 3, 2001
41,892
2,135
126
Now imagine if we actually funded NASA with more than something like .4% of the budget per year.

I'm just blown away that we have no idea how this thing works. I was worried that all of the "low hanging fruit" in physics has been discovered, and further discoveries were going to require huge amounts of energy. This is really a curveball. Can't wait until we get some top minds working on this thing to figure it out.
 

Mark R

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
8,513
14
81
If you read the official NASA report, they built 2 drives - one "real" one, and one "modified" one which had the thrust producing components removed.

In this test, they both produced the same amount of thrust.

The other problem is that the experiments were not performed in a vacuum but in free air - any kind of air current (e.g. from heating) could have produced the thrusts reported.
 

z1ggy

Lifer
May 17, 2008
10,004
63
91
I'm just blown away that we have no idea how this thing works. I was worried that all of the "low hanging fruit" in physics has been discovered, and further discoveries were going to require huge amounts of energy. This is really a curveball. Can't wait until we get some top minds working on this thing to figure it out.

Yeah, so... As soon as we stop spending billions & billions every year to entitlement programs, pointless warfare, and fixing tax loop holes, I don't see us being able to afford those top minds. Unless top minds work for free these days...

It's sad to think we could be so close, but yet so far with one of the main limiting factorings being lack of budget.
 

Tsavo

Platinum Member
Sep 29, 2009
2,645
37
91
Cool. Now astronauts have an easier way to heat up their burritos.
 
Oct 25, 2006
11,036
11
91
I'm calling bullshit because i read the NASA reports and it says NOTHING that this article is saying.

They fucking did this experiment in free air. Is there air in space? It's like running a turbofan on earth and claiming it would work just fine in space.

Any claims that directly go against a fundamental law of physics needs to be taken with a grain of salt, especially when the claim is being made from a magazine article.

This is the exact analogue of that damn LHC faster than light crap last year. Everyone got so damn excited for no reason at all.
 
Last edited:

Markbnj

Elite Member <br>Moderator Emeritus
Moderator
Sep 16, 2005
15,682
13
81
www.markbetz.net
Yes it could be cool as hell. Absolutely agreed on the need for at least one grain of salt with anything like this. This is _almost_ cold fusion territory.
 

MongGrel

Lifer
Dec 3, 2013
38,751
3,068
121
Very interesting, but I don't get the last part : "take astronauts to Mars in weeks rather than months".

I guess the idea is you could have constant thrust, instead of set burns for X length of time, but the thrust would be so minimal, that it would take weeks to get up to chemical propellant speeds. And, it would take weeks to slow down for orbit also.

If they are assuming these could eventually generate the same type of thrust as conventional engines, then a constant burn might explain it, but again, you'd have to thrust to gain delta v half the time, and thrust to lose delta v half the time to gain an orbit. Making that statement, in this case, seems pretty far fetched.

I would be thinking constant thrust would be the factor there, ya.

You could always have conventional also, and have a space hybrid, I'd think you'd want some redundancy anyway.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |