new engine?

[blink138]

anybody heard of this?
http://sci-techuniverse.blogspot.com.au/2015/11/nasa-conducts-more-secret-tests-of-its.html
pat

[Somnium]

the old EM drive ... in the immortal words of Homer Simpson "Lisa, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"

[blink138]

haha.................. has the story got any science credence though?
pat

[Somnium]

None, it is an elaborate perpetual motion machine

[Kal]

You can read up more about it at http://emdrive.com/

The site has a paper published with the theory, however since there is no peer review and all the math is way beyond me, I'd have to assume there are holes in it.

There have been multiple tests done, not just by NASA. The most significant was by a Chinese research team which produced 720mN thrust based on a 2500W input.

The latest paper by the inventor goes on about how we could to a mission to the nearest star 4 light years away in just 10 years, reaching a speed of up to 0.67c.

It's been 14 years since the inventor demonstrated this technology. The fact that NASA is exploring it is interesting, however the fact that it hasn't taken the world by storm is more telling IMO

[Somnium]

the NASA name has been attributed to this since the beginning but as far as i can tell they don't actually have anything to do with it. multiple problems with this

no plausible mechanism for the force
disobeys the law of conservation of momentum
problems with the testing of the prototype including not isolating variables (i.e. they did not test this in a vacuum so thermal currents could influence results, especially given the small amount of force actually detected)

this lives in the lands of cranks who think they have discovered free energy and perpetual motion.

[sharptrack2]

Looks like cold fusion to me... :rofl::rofl::rofl:

[deanm]

So-called 'perpetual motion' devices continue indefinitely without any net energy input (compared to output).

It just can't be done because it violates fundamental physics!

Wishful thinking....

Dean

[alocky]

I've actually built one of these and hold a couple of granted patents relating to it. However, mine only works in seawater, it most certainly uses the Lorentz force. My device is an underwater acoustic transmitter used in geophysical surveying. Using the Lorentz force to move a conducting medium is not even new to NASA - this is exactly how the Ion drive on some of their recent missions works, but it is a relatively inefficient mechanism.
It's also the same thing as the mythical silent drive in the novel 'The Hunt For Red October', and not only is it not quiet, but having every compass in the hemisphere point directly to you when you turn it on would be a 'pisser' if you were a sneaky submarine person.
Having tried to calibrate the theory against the actual performance of the device I'm very sure there is no mysterious 'extra' force appearing, and some of the magnetic fields we've generated are big enough to fry an iphone at 5m. The practice always comes up short - due to frictional losses, turbulent flow, ohmic heating of the seawater, etc etc...
Anyway, it makes for a good story! But also - whatever the doodad in the photo is, it was not made by NASA, and it is very old. It looks very 'Soviet era' to me.
cheers,
Andrew.

[deanm]

Looks like it's made of brass!

Perhaps it is powered by steam?

If rotated 90 degrees, it would make a fair pier for a 'scope mount!

Dean

[sharpiel]

They're making home brew! :D

[Kal]

Hmmm, not sure if I agree with the perpetual motion comments. From the definition of a perpetual motion machine:

A perpetual motion machine is a hypothetical machine that can do work indefinitely without an energy source

This device does have an energy input - it is electricity used to power a microwave emitter.

[Chee]

The EMdrive is actually powered by brain waves, not microwaves.
All you have to do is close your eyes and concentrates. Focus your brain waves, alpha, beta waves on the machines and pesto, you have thrust!
You will be in Alpha Centauri in minutes.

[blink138]

'Tis a shame it is not run on gross grammatical errors!
pat