Electromagnetic Drive Validated

[glend (Glen)]

Have you seen the news that NASA has validated that the Elctromagnetic Drive will produce thrust in a vacuum?

http://sputniknews.com/science/20150430/1021547280.html

Is this the Zefram Cochrane moment that we are all waiting for?

[Eratosthenes (Peter)]

....interesting explanation offered by Dr White.

"Dr. White proposed that the EM Drive’s thrust was due to the Quantum Vacuum (the quantum state with the lowest possible energy) behaving like propellant ions behave in a MagnetoHydroDynamics drive (a method electrifying propellant and then directing it with magnetic fields to push a spacecraft in the opposite direction) for spacecraft propulsion."
"In Dr. White’s model, the propellant ions of the MagnetoHydroDynamics drive are replaced as the fuel source by the virtual particles of the Quantum Vacuum, eliminating the need to carry propellant."
Though reports that NASA has accidentally created warp drive remain premature, the breakthrough could have enormous significance for space travel.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/science/20150...#ixzz3YqPSFcsi

[pluto (Hugh)]

This is really interesting, even more so than the previous experiments that showed a similar result.
Of course anything that challenges our understanding of physics will be interesting!

Not sure if it's quite a Zefram Cochrane moment though as nobody's claiming it can accelerate to faster than C ...unfortunately
I'm seeing it more like an Arthur C Clarke moment and the beginning of an age where travel throughout the solar system is common place

One can dream I suppose

[xelasnave]

What have they done A small test or built a proto type

[alocky (Andrew lockwood)]

what isn't mentioned is that although there is no need for a propellant, you still need to generate the electric field and magnetic field in the device to create the Lorentz force. As someone who holds patents in the application of exactly this principle to generating sound waves in water, I can tell you that the whole business is extremely inefficient and requires rather extreme magnetic fields to work. These dont come cheap, or without the conversion of a lot of fuel into energy.
cheers,
Andrew.

[Eratosthenes (Peter)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

What have they done A small test or built a proto type

good point. I have seen effects observed at small scale not translate to larger scales. An example is an effect measured in a tiny working model which was merely due to the heat generated by the device. This thermal gradient was dominant at small scales, but was swamped by other forces and factors as you scaled the device up. The device just didnt work when it was scaled up. The initial experimental results were "real" but misinterpreted.

Not saying this is the case with the NASA trials, but It would be good to see a model of the NASA device and the experimental parameters.

[pluto (Hugh)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

What have they done A small test or built a proto type

It's a test unit just to try to determine if it does actually produce thrust of if the thrust measured previously in other experiments was just due to other factors (they weren't conducted in a vacuum).

Originally Posted by alocky

what isn't mentioned is that although there is no need for a propellant, you still need to generate the electric field and magnetic field in the device to create the Lorentz force.

I think they imagine generating power through solar or nuclear for larger scale applications. I don't really understand it but they're theorising that it is working in a similar way to magnetohydrodynamic drives and the quantum vacuum is acting like the propellant. The article I linked to below has the details.

Originally Posted by Eratosthenes

good point. I have seen effects observed at small scale not translate to larger scales. An example is an effect measured in a tiny working model which was merely due to the heat generated by the device. This thermal gradient was dominant at small scales, but was swamped by other forces and factors as you scaled the device up. The device just didnt work when it was scaled up. The initial experimental results were "real" but misinterpreted.

I believe that's the main difference with this test as opposed to the previous ones. This one was conducted in a vacuum and was supposed to isolate the experiment. I'm not sure the details but this article has quite a comprehensive description and history of the project:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/...stic-em-drive/

[glend (Glen)]

Originally Posted by alocky

what isn't mentioned is that although there is no need for a propellant, you still need to generate the electric field and magnetic field in the device to create the Lorentz force. As someone who holds patents in the application of exactly this principle to generating sound waves in water, I can tell you that the whole business is extremely inefficient and requires rather extreme magnetic fields to work. These dont come cheap, or without the conversion of a lot of fuel into energy.
cheers,
Andrew.

My reading suggests a nuclear power system would be used. There would be no fuel per se other than that in the reactor.

[Eratosthenes (Peter)]

Originally Posted by glend

My reading suggests a nuclear power system would be used. There would be no fuel per se other than that in the reactor.

....yes, a nuclear based power source is most likely

The Voyager probes are still powered by radioisotope based power generators (Plutonium)

[pluto (Hugh)]

Originally Posted by Eratosthenes

The Voyager probes are still powered by radioisotope based power generators (Plutonium)

Yes but, apart from the fact there's not much material left to create RTGs, they don't produce anywhere near enough power.
For this kind of application a small fission reactor like the ones found in nuclear submarines would be suitable. In fact they're perfect, and if public opinion and political will allow, it could be a great new peaceful use for those small reactors without too much modification.

[Eratosthenes (Peter)]

Originally Posted by pluto

Yes but, apart from the fact there's not much material left to create RTGs, they don't produce anywhere near enough power.
For this kind of application a small fission reactor like the ones found in nuclear submarines would be suitable. In fact they're perfect, and if public opinion and political will allow, it could be a great new peaceful use for those small reactors without too much modification.

very hazardous payloads for a spacecraft or rocket to carry.

The Mark 1 pressured nuclear reactors, designed and built in the 1970s were based up a scale of the small nuclear reactors powering submarines.

The 2 engineers who designed them actually resigned after the Mark 1 was approved for construction, on the basis that they are not safe.

the Fukushima reactors that melted down were 1970s GE Mark 1 designs.

Once you lose power to these things, melt down is quick and catastrophic.

I would certainly NOT use Plutonium on that scale in anything being sent up into space with humans on board - Plutonium is one the most dangerous and toxic substances known. even though Pu is an alpha emitter, and can be handled with your hands, once it enters the lungs, blood stream or lodges into major organs or tissue, its Goodnight Irene - Seeya later Alligator.

I dont like the prospect of Plutonium being sprayed into the earths atmosphere if a rocket launch fails. All the Plutonium present on the planet is man made - a synthetic by product of the fissioning of Uranium.

There has to be an alternative power source or safety measures taken. Propelling a pressurised Nuclear reactor into space is Way too risky in my opinion

[pluto (Hugh)]

I'd absolutely agree with your concerns about the safety of launching a fission reactor into orbit. Hopefully we'll find another method of generating that amount of power that efficiently before the EM drive is ready to be put to a useful purpose but I'd hate to see the technology sitting on the shelf because we're unable to make reactor technology safe enough to launch.

You're probably right and my suggestion to use existing submarine reactors probably wouldn't be considered safe enough to fly, after all they are normally surrounded by an ocean of emergency coolant .
I don't want to divert this thread to the pros/cons of nuclear fission (we've already had a thread on that recently) but perhaps there's hope in some of the much safer, more contemporary, reactor designs.

[glend (Glen)]

The reactor woukd be pretty heavy but if assembled in space, and if mounted at the rear of a truss away from the habitat module there should be little to worry about. However, as proof of concept these drives should be used for non-manned probes initially, say to ferry sensor/robot packages to Europa, etc, or carry supplies to the Moon and Mars for habitate building. Why not put one on a probe to the Tau Ceti system, just 12 LYs away; many of us would still be alive when it got back. Stop thinking of the politics of nuclear power, and look at the opportunities this could represent. Our future is off this world.

[Eratosthenes (Peter)]

Originally Posted by glend

The reactor woukd be pretty heavy but if assembled in space, and if mounted at the rear of a truss away from the habitat module there should be little to worry about. However, as proof of concept these drives should be used for non-manned probes initially, say to ferry sensor/robot packages to Europa, etc, or carry supplies to the Moon and Mars for habitate building. Why not put one on a probe to the Tau Ceti system, just 12 LYs away; many of us would still be alive when it got back. Stop thinking of the politics of nuclear power, and look at the opportunities this could represent. Our future is off this world.

you make some sensible comments

However one the most serious problems in today's society is the disconnect between political/ethical/moral convictions and actual decisions made on an individual and communal level.

The rationalisation of greed or risk via other benefits such as profit or grand success. There is always risk in anything we do, but there is nothing like moral conviction/bearings and wisdom to temper the train wreck that humanity has become.

This is why we can have a Prime Minister in Australia who when asked how he can justify a decision to go to war when his religious beliefs were pacifist, he replied "I try to separate my personal moral and religious beliefs with my public life" (an attitude which actually fits in very well with the definition of a sociopath and borders on psychopathic behaviour)

No, I cant see how morality, ethics and politics can be removed from making decisions and attitudes.

...something to think about

Politeia (πολιτεία) is an ancient Greek word used in Greek political thought, especially that of Plato and Aristotle. Derived from the word polis ("city-state"), it has a range of meanings, from 'the rights of citizens' to a 'form of government'.

According to Liddell and Scott's Greek-English dictionary a meaning of politeia is "the conditions and rights of the citizen, or citizenship", analogous to the Latin civitas.[1]


"Politeia" ,[2] in Greek means the community of citizens in a city / state. It should not be confused with "regime" that means "politeuma" or "Status quo" that means "kathestos"

"Politeia" is derived from both the root word Polis meaning city/state,[4] and from the root verb "politeuomai" that means I am acting as an active citizen of the city state.


(my sermon endeth)