>>7766797 It's a pretty solid looking theory, and tests so far have been successful. Granted, everything is pseudoscience until proven, but it's been recreated by different people of all different backgrounds around the world.
>>7766842 Several. And if it isn't the proposed theory, then there's another way to make thrust without propellant. NASA's test showed it produced about 50 micronewtons. With a decent cooling system, it can only get better.
>>7766916 There WAS debate over whether it broke Newton's second law, the law of conservation of momentum, but it doesn't. The momentum exchanges between the EM wave and the engine itself. Only two reasons this theory isn't taken seriously. One is that it takes time to understand, and even then it's difficult to grasp, and two, the theory's creator has such extravagant plans. The man is undoubtedly a genius though. Perhaps he will get his recognition after his death.
>>7766993 I'm samefag, soooo 1. No other laws of physics have been brought up in my knowledge, so it's either I don't know enough about the subject, or no arguments have been made for other laws being broken. And, it doesn't break conservation of energy. 2. Pushes outwards, or back a little bit. Positive readings were still obtained.
Yes, this isn't a wonder magic engine, but for long flight craft, like probes, it could be very, very good. Entirely solar powered engines that only get faster, because unless they break, which is unlikely due to the lack of moving parts, it can just keep accelerating. That's where it gets, iffy. In theory, it could surpass C, but that's why development is needed. It obviously won't, but the number 60% light speed keeps getting thrown around (might be media hype though, not sure) Anyways, it's just another form of clean energy to be looked at. Isn't this the first electronic engine to work in a vacuum? That's a feat on its own.
This reminds me of something I dealt with in Telecommunications which is called a waveguide. Anyway this was only certificate level education so we were taught that a waveguide is essentially a lossless method of transmitting microwaves if calibrated to the correct frequency.
Am I talking /completely/ out of my ass here?
Also I remember reading about something similar in a New Scientist magazine around ten years ago, and published in this article was that men in suits had come along and tried to do the hush hush because it was bad for the economy. But... Media huh.
>>7766777 Why, exactly, does everyone say this violates thermodynamics? This picture is actually the first time I've seen an explanation of how it works, and I don't see anything that immediately appears absolutely outrageous.
>>7767307 That doesn't prove anything, especially because there's a caveat right at the end of the post which is very likely true. K (thrust per watt) likely depends on the rocket's speed.
The way I'm looking at it, photons are being ejected preferentially in one direction away from the device and the reaction force propels it the opposite direction. Where are the violations? It's literally the same thing as ion drive except with photons instead of ions.
>>7767323 A flashlight does not emit 700 watts of light, dipshit. We're talking in terms of millinewtons, too. I haven't done the math but it does not sound completely unreasonable. I'm not even claiming it's true; all I'm saying is that it doesn't "violate the most basic laws of physics" like every pop-sci article title I've come across proclaims.
>>7766777 Someone feel free to shit on this post hard, but I was wondering if this "theoretically possible" because one side is being more exerted by an energy source than the other side, and since matter and energy are linked, is it not using energy as it's propellant?
>I honestly have no fucking clue on the math or even the fucking theory behind this thing
>>7767361 producing 700 watts of visible light with light bulbs produces way more than 700 watts of heat. In theory, it would do the same thing though. I'm sure if you had sensitive enough test equipment, you could detect a force on a uni-directional antenna emitting RF radiation.
>>7767395 from a "stationary" perspective, as the rocket approaches the speed of light, the emitted radiation is being red shifted, ie. lower energy, lower thrust. The rocket can't break the speed of light because thrust decreases as velocity increases. From the rocket's perspective the thrust remains constant, however.
>>7767013 >In theory, it could surpass C, but that's why development is needed Not in theory, it couldn't. You'd need to do some serious messing with space-time to even THEORETICALLY surpass C. It's impossible to actually reach C through acceleration, you can just get arbitrarily close. However, it would permit near lightspeed travel (like 0.999c or so) which is otherwise impossible without massive fuel tanks, even with photon rockets powered by a magical infinite power source.
>>7767322 If it ejects photons, there's nothing extraordinary about the EM drive, it's just a photon rocket, which we've known about for years. And they're still bound by the rocket equation, even if they do have an absurdly high specific impulse. Whereas a reactionless drive which the EM drive supposedly is, would complete eliminate the need to carry propellant.
>>7766842 No, nobody has proven that's what is happening. When the test was done properly in a vacuum, the thrust dropped to near zero. So near to zero that the effect could be something like copper atoms being ejected. It seems like it was essentially working as a heater/fan in the first test. >>7766859 >then there's another way to make thrust without propellant Noooo...
>>7767432 That has nothing to do with the point that the rocket's kinetic energy becomes greater than its energy input. Calculate it using the relativistic velocity and you will get the same result. A propulsionless drive can't have a thrust to power ratio greater than a photon rocket without breaking conservation of energy.
>ditch e=mc^2 altogether >fucking turn light into matter somehow >exert a force on something that isn't even a geometric square someone explain it do we literally think there's a complex number system for imaginary fields now or what
I don't understand how dismissive the mainstream is of this experiment, which deserves at least some earnest debate without being shouted down by naysayers. Photon energy is known to have some momentum effects in some situations, and devices like the photometer show this undeniably.
1) Photon momentum is not in dispute. Photon rockets are a 100 year old idea. 2) The meme drive is not supposed to be a photon rocket. 3) That radiometer does NOT work by photon pressure. Look it up if you don't believe me. 4) Sonce you thought that was "undeniable" but it turned out you were wrong, maybe you should recalibrate your standards for undeniable.
>>7770845 >>7770931 Crooks radiometer is not an example of radiation pressure. Anyone who has actually seen one can tell you the sails are pushed away from the black side, not the silvered side despite it having twice the radiation pressure. Pic related.
The actual reason it works is because of residual gases, vacuums are not total voids.
Radiation pressure is a proven fact but this is an example of why you should be careful voyaging into a topic you are ignorant about. Also a good example that experiments are not immune to systematic effects. EMdrive isn't a photon rocket, it isn't expelling photons for momentum. That wouldn't generate the claimed trust and it is now how the inventor claimed it worked (despite teh fact he is wrong).
>>7771062 It's not semantics. Not only is your point wrong, its also irrelevant towards the meme drive, which has an alleged thrust to power ratio higher than a photon rocket and is not claimed to be a photon rocket.
>But the main argument against the drive is that it's impossible to have a reactionless drive implying that without matter, there is no momentum. No it's not. Anyone who knows anything about aeronautics knows about photon rockets. anyone who knows basic physics knows that photons have momentum without mass. The main argument against the meme drive is that it violates conservation of energy and has no coherent explanation for how it works.
>>7771313 Observations so far have failed to show that it *works*. What they do show that there's a tiny amount of thrust coming from an effect that could easily turn out to be totally unsuitable for the application because it's a result of electromagnetic interaction with something down here on Earth. If somebody enterprising thinks there's a novel effect here they should go and get rich with it, by all means.
Multiple independent experiments have failed to dispsel the observation either. Meanwhile armchair commentators poopoo it purely on the basis that they cannot understand what could be happening therefore it's impossible.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.